About the EPR Paradox. Resolution Features. (English Version)

V.A. Kasimov

Published May 1, 2018• 0 citations

Abstract

In interpreting the results of experiments A. Aspect faced two concepts of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, which requires a thorough consideration of the causes of contradictions. The analysis of these issues devoted many works of different authors, and the points raised here also have been exhibited for analysis. However, we feel that contact again to the key moments of the contradiction and possibly in compressed form is a must.

Related papers

About the EPR Paradox. Resolution Features

V.A. Kasimov

Apr 1, 20180 citations

Über das Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxon / On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Peter Mittelstaedt

The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung AApr 1, 19741 citation

Interpretations of quantum mechanics and some claimed resolutions of the EPR paradox

M. A. B. Whitaker, Ishwar S Singh

The authors discuss a number of papers which claim that the EPR 'paradox' may be resolved using density-matrix methods. They first show that it is only inside the Copenhagen interpretation that the EPR experiment has any appearance of paradox; inside an ensemble interpretation, or hidden-variable theory, it may be analysed in a straightforward way. They then show that these 'resolutions' are implicitly using an ensemble interpretation.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralAug 1, 19824 citations

Some Topological Paradoxes of Relativity (Epr)

V.A. Kasimov

To refer again to the article A. Aspect bell's THEOREM: the view of the experimenter we were forced by some publications. However, we have again seen the conceptual correctness of the statement of the problem of in the Aspect's article. In conceptual terms, in the naive presentation of EPR from the Aspect of no splices probabilistic measures of different spaces is not required. The presentation of the Aspect is logically closed and complete. The existence of a problem related to the violation of bell inequality is shown conceptually (by simple examples). The real possibility of solving this problem today is, in our opinion, only a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics [3], [4], since the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics Rovelli puts out the brackets local causality in the paradox, replacing it with the concept of the integrity of the relations of the observed systems and, thereby, abandoning the concept of velocity, doubtful from the point of view of quantum mechanics as a derivative in the TMK-topology of space-time relations. And this is, apparently, what physics is pregnant for a long time! But the difficulty of resolution of the dilemma of completeness and the local causality associated with the absence of the notion of speed in the form of spatio-temporal derivative in the scalar form. And this is a common problem of quantum mechanics, which the relational concept intends to solve . In the proposed article there are all logical ties, for each of which it would be possible to object and say - it is not so

Apr 1, 20180 citations

Some Topological Paradoxes of Relativity (Epr). (English Version)

V.A. Kasimov

In the footsteps of the article by A. Aspect BELL'S THEOREM: the naive view of an experimentalist. As in equation (23) has detected an error (or typo), I took the trouble to verify calculations from 1 to 5 sections of the article. Are some clarifying points that are important for understanding the essence. Given an elementary conclusion of formulas (3), which is omitted in the article. The Bell's inequality, derived on the basis of the general model for a dichotomous variable, disturbed the quantum mechanical model for a pair of entangled photons. In Bell's article it is clearly (though not very detailed) shown. No artificial gadgets is not able to resolve this contradiction. The only thing that causes confusion is the procedure of creating a mixed state of two photons and the essence conceptual view of mathematics experiment. Theoretically, this procedure can be represented as a symmetrization of the wave function of the pair. However, how does the transfer of this idea to the technical essence of the experiment is unclear.

May 1, 20180 citations

A New Paradox in Quantum Mechanics

Ghenadie N. Mardari

The EPR paradox is known as an interpretive problem, as well as a technical discovery in quantum mechanics. It defined the basic features of two-quantum entanglement, as needed to study the relationships between two non-commuting variables. In contrast, four variables are observed in a typical Bell experiment. This is no longer the same problem. The full complexity of this process can only be captured by the analysis of four-quantum entanglement. Indeed, a new paradox emerges in this context, with straightforward consequences. Either quantum behavior is capable of signaling non-locality, or it is local. Both alternatives appear to contradict existing knowledge. Still, one of them has to be true, and the final answer can be obtained conclusively with a four-quantum Bell experiment.

Nov 20, 20191 citation