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

A SEMICLASSICALLY ENTANGLED PUZZLE

Pedro de M. Rios, M. Rios

Published Jan 1, 2002• 3 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Abstract. For a maximally entangled eigenstate of a system of two non-interacting identical one dimensional harmonic oscilators, at the semiclassical level, it is not obviously true that a nonlinear interaction with one of the subsystems leaves the reduced semiclassical Wigner function of the other subsystem unaffected. Once stated, we advance some wild speculations regarding this seeming puzzle. 1. introduction When Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [6] explored the “strange ” behaviour of entangled states, their main goal was to set forth an argument concerning the ontology of quantum mechanics. Only quite later, did Bell [2] show that some of the discussion had a definite empirical bearing, namely, on matters related to the nonlocal character of quantum mechanics. After the empirical confirmation of this latter [1], emphasis has been placed on the “peaceful coexistence ” [15] of this kind of nonlocality and the partial order of spacetime events derived from the principle of relativity [5]. In terms of the Wigner [17] function W, the cartesian Weyl [16] representation of the density operator ˆρ as a real function on euclidean phase space, this question is addressed in the following way: let x1 and x2 denote the phase space points of two subsystems whose total system is in an entangled eigenstate of the hamiltonian ˆ H1 + ˆ H2, with corresponding Wigner function W0(x1, x2).

Related papers

A semiclassically entangled puzzle

Pedro de M Rios

For a maximally entangled eigenstate of a system of two non-interacting identical one dimensional harmonic oscilators, at the semiclassical level, it is not obviously true that a nonlinear interaction with one of the subsystems leaves the reduced semiclassical Wigner function of the other subsystem unaffected. Once stated, we advance some wild speculations regarding this seeming puzzle.

arXiv:math-ph/0212014•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Nov 21, 2007•3 citations

A semiclassically entangled puzzle. (arXiv:math-ph/0212014v1 CROSS LISTED)

Pedro de M. Rios

For a maximally entangled eigenstate of a system of two non-interacting identical one dimensional harmonic oscilators, at the semiclassical level, it is not obviously true that a nonlinear interaction with one of the subsystems leaves the reduced semiclassical Wigner function of the other subsystem unaffected. Once stated, we advance some wild speculations regarding this seeming puzzle.

•Aug 17, 2020•0 citations

There is no spooky action-at-a-distance in quantum correlations: Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen nonlocality puzzle

C. S. Unnikrishnan

The long-standing puzzle of the nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations is resolved. The correct quantum mechanical correlations arise for the case of entangled particles when strict locality is assumed for the probability amplitudes instead of locality for probabilities. Locality of amplitudes implies that measurement on one particle does not collapse the companion particle to a definite state. Sixty five years ago, the most significant paper questioning a fundamental aspect of quantum phenomena was written by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1]. They addressed the question whether the wave-function represented a complete description of reality in quantum mechanics, and argued that it didn’t. Bohr’s reply to this paper [2] was not sufficient to resolve the fundamental issues raised by EPR. Decades later, Bohm rephrased the EPR problem [3] in terms of particles correlated in their spin and this helped enormously in analyzing the problem with clarity. John Bell analyzed the EPR problem in the early sixties and established the Bell’s inequalities obeyed by

•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

Entanglement and subsystems, entanglement beyond subsystems, and all that

Lorenza Viola, Howard Barnum

Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 10, 2010•31 citations

Entanglement: non-separability

Gennaro Auletta, Mauro Fortunato, Giorgio Parisi A

In classical mechanics, two (or more) systems that do not interact – that do not exert any kind of force on each other – are completely separated (see Sec. 1.1), i.e. experiments performed locally on one of them cannot in any way influence experiments performed locally on the other. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, admits that there can be a form of interdependence even in absence of physical interaction. This type of correlation goes under the name of entanglement (see Def. 5.1: p. 183). We already know that entanglement means non-factorizability of the state vector describing a system with at least two different degrees of freedom. In this chapter, we shall see that this may be the case also for systems that are very far away (space-like distant) from each other and we shall learn many interesting consequences of this state of affairs. Recent developments show that one may entangle even particles that have never interacted with each other. The starting point of the following analysis is necessarily represented by the pioneering paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who inaugurated an incredible series of theoretical and experimental investigations right up to the present day that have confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics. The “irony” of this history is that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, EPR for short, aimed to present a definitive proof of the inconsistency of quantum mechanics relative to classical physical theory. In fact, they initiated one of the most prolific fields of modern science.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 16, 2009•0 citations

ON THE PROPAGATION OF SEMICLASSICAL WIGNER FUNCTIONS

P. P. De, Pedro de M. Rios, A. M. Ozorio +1 more

Abstract. We establish the difference between the propagation of semiclassical Wigner functions and classical Liouville propagation. First we re-discuss the semiclassical limit for the propagator of Wigner functions, which on its own leads to their classical propagation. Then, via stationary phase evaluation of the full integral evolution equation, using the semiclassical expressions of Wigner functions, we provide the correct geometrical prescription for their semiclassical propagation. This is determined by the classical trajectories of the tips of the chords defined by the initial semiclassical Wigner function and centered on their arguments, in contrast to the Liouville propagation which is determined by the classical trajectories of the arguments themselves. 1. introduction The Wigner [11] function W is a representation of the quantum density operator ˆρ as a real function on phase space, for a non-relativistic dynamical system with classical-quantum correspondence and n degrees of freedom. Here, all the underlying geometry is euclidean and we can include the Wigner function within the general framework of Weyl representation of operators: Â → A ∈ Ck IR (IR2n), so W(x) = (2π�) −n ρ(x) , where x ≡ (p1,...pn, q1,...qn) denotes a point in phase space. In this context, the quantum evolution of the density operator ˆρt effected by an autonomous external hamiltonian

•Jan 1, 2001•39 citations
Abstract. For a maximally entangled eigenstate of a system of two non-interacting identical one dimensional harmonic oscilators, at the semiclassical level, it is not obviously true that a nonlinear interaction with one of the subsystems leaves the reduced semiclassical Wigner function of the other subsystem unaffected. Once stated, we advance some wild speculations regarding this seeming puzzle. 1. introduction When Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [6] explored the “strange ” behaviour of entangled states, their main goal was to set forth an argument concerning the ontology of quantum mechanics. Only quite later, did Bell [2] show that some of the discussion had a definite empirical bearing, namely, on matters related to the nonlocal character of quantum mechanics. After the empirical confirmation of this latter [1], emphasis has been placed on the “peaceful coexistence ” [15] of this kind of nonlocality and the partial order of spacetime events derived from the principle of relativity [5]. In terms of the Wigner [17] function W, the cartesian Weyl [16] representation of the density operator ˆρ as a real function on euclidean phase space, this question is addressed in the following way: let x1 and x2 denote the phase space points of two subsystems whose total system is in an entangled eigenstate of the hamiltonian ˆ H1 + ˆ H2, with corresponding Wigner function W0(x1, x2).
The long-standing puzzle of the nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations is resolved. The correct quantum mechanical correlations arise for the case of entangled particles when strict locality is assumed for the probability amplitudes instead of locality for probabilities. Locality of amplitudes implies that measurement on one particle does not collapse the companion particle to a definite state. Sixty five years ago, the most significant paper questioning a fundamental aspect of quantum phenomena was written by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1]. They addressed the question whether the wave-function represented a complete description of reality in quantum mechanics, and argued that it didn’t. Bohr’s reply to this paper [2] was not sufficient to resolve the fundamental issues raised by EPR. Decades later, Bohm rephrased the EPR problem [3] in terms of particles correlated in their spin and this helped enormously in analyzing the problem with clarity. John Bell analyzed the EPR problem in the early sixties and established the Bell’s inequalities obeyed by
Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).
In classical mechanics, two (or more) systems that do not interact – that do not exert any kind of force on each other – are completely separated (see Sec. 1.1), i.e. experiments performed locally on one of them cannot in any way influence experiments performed locally on the other. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, admits that there can be a form of interdependence even in absence of physical interaction. This type of correlation goes under the name of entanglement (see Def. 5.1: p. 183). We already know that entanglement means non-factorizability of the state vector describing a system with at least two different degrees of freedom. In this chapter, we shall see that this may be the case also for systems that are very far away (space-like distant) from each other and we shall learn many interesting consequences of this state of affairs. Recent developments show that one may entangle even particles that have never interacted with each other. The starting point of the following analysis is necessarily represented by the pioneering paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who inaugurated an incredible series of theoretical and experimental investigations right up to the present day that have confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics. The “irony” of this history is that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, EPR for short, aimed to present a definitive proof of the inconsistency of quantum mechanics relative to classical physical theory. In fact, they initiated one of the most prolific fields of modern science.
Abstract. We establish the difference between the propagation of semiclassical Wigner functions and classical Liouville propagation. First we re-discuss the semiclassical limit for the propagator of Wigner functions, which on its own leads to their classical propagation. Then, via stationary phase evaluation of the full integral evolution equation, using the semiclassical expressions of Wigner functions, we provide the correct geometrical prescription for their semiclassical propagation. This is determined by the classical trajectories of the tips of the chords defined by the initial semiclassical Wigner function and centered on their arguments, in contrast to the Liouville propagation which is determined by the classical trajectories of the arguments themselves. 1. introduction The Wigner [11] function W is a representation of the quantum density operator ˆρ as a real function on phase space, for a non-relativistic dynamical system with classical-quantum correspondence and n degrees of freedom. Here, all the underlying geometry is euclidean and we can include the Wigner function within the general framework of Weyl representation of operators: Â → A ∈ Ck IR (IR2n), so W(x) = (2π�) −n ρ(x) , where x ≡ (p1,...pn, q1,...qn) denotes a point in phase space. In this context, the quantum evolution of the density operator ˆρt effected by an autonomous external hamiltonian