Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Distinguishing Between the Different Outcomes of Two Different Configurations of an EPRB Experiment.

François Barriquand

Published Oct 1, 2020• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A variant of the well-known Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiment is proposed, in which two protagonists may communicate in a way that constitutes a strong challenge for the most commonly accepted interpretation of the EPR experiment.

Related papers

A Discussion on the Einstein–Podolski–Rosen (EPR) Effect* in a Unique Wavefunction Quantum Mechanical Framework

Ramon Carbó‐Dorca

Journal of Mathematical Chemistry•Dec 22, 2005•2 citations

Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and EPR correlations

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

A comment on `EPR and the Copenhagen interpretation'

J. M. Domingos, Fernando Nogueira, Maria Helena Caldeira +1 more

We comment on a recently published criticism of our analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

European Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 1998•0 citations

Distillation of Gaussian Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering with noiseless linear amplification

Liu Shuan Yang, Kaimin Zheng, Haijun Kang +5 more

Abstract Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) steering is one of the most intriguing features of quantum mechanics and an important resource for quantum communication. For practical applications, it remains a challenge to protect EPR steering from decoherence due to its intrinsic difference from entanglement. Here, we experimentally demonstrate the distillation of Gaussian EPR steering and entanglement in lossy and noisy environments using measurement-based noiseless linear amplification. Different from entanglement distillation, the extension of steerable region happens in the distillation of EPR steering, besides the enhancement of steerabilities. We demonstrate that the two-way or one-way steerable region is extended after the distillation of EPR steering when the NLA is implemented based on Bob’s or Alice’s measurement results. We also show that the NLA helps to extract the secret key from the insecure region in one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution with EPR steering. Our work paves the way for quantum communication exploiting EPR steering in practical quantum channels.

arXiv:2004.14073•npj Quantum Information•Apr 13, 2022•34 citations

Casual Interpretation of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Experiment

David Böhm

•Jan 1, 1990•0 citations

Wonderful Copenhagen?

Alastair I. M. Rae

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•0 citations
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.
Abstract Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) steering is one of the most intriguing features of quantum mechanics and an important resource for quantum communication. For practical applications, it remains a challenge to protect EPR steering from decoherence due to its intrinsic difference from entanglement. Here, we experimentally demonstrate the distillation of Gaussian EPR steering and entanglement in lossy and noisy environments using measurement-based noiseless linear amplification. Different from entanglement distillation, the extension of steerable region happens in the distillation of EPR steering, besides the enhancement of steerabilities. We demonstrate that the two-way or one-way steerable region is extended after the distillation of EPR steering when the NLA is implemented based on Bob’s or Alice’s measurement results. We also show that the NLA helps to extract the secret key from the insecure region in one-sided device-independent quantum key distribution with EPR steering. Our work paves the way for quantum communication exploiting EPR steering in practical quantum channels.
The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.