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

Romanian Journal of Physics

EPR Paradox and Quantum Field Theories

Renata Jora

Published Dec 15, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

"We discuss the EPR paradox and study an example of this in a quantum field theoretical context. We show that there is always an alternative description of QFT in which particles that interact at a moment in time remain entangled and therefore in a form of contact at any spatial or temporal separation. Consequently the correlations of spin or other properties of the particles long time after they cease to interact is perfectly natural and justifiable."

DOI
10.59277/romjphys.2024.69.114

Related papers

On EPR Paradox, No Entanglement Theorem for Separate Particles and Consequences

V. K. Igatovich

EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.

arXiv:1007.3202•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

The EPR paradox and the uncertainty principle

M. E. McCulloch, Jaume Giné

The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.

Modern Physics Letters B•Jan 18, 2021•2 citations

Quantum paradoxes, entanglement and their explanation on the basis of quantization of fields

Alexey V. Melkikh

Quantum entanglement is discussed as a consequence of the quantization of fields. The inclusion of quantum fields self-consistently explains some quantum paradoxes (EPR and Hardy’s paradox). The definition of entanglement was introduced, which depends on the maximum energy of the interaction of particles. The destruction of entanglement is caused by the creation and annihilation of particles. On this basis, an algorithm for quantum particle evolution was formulated.

Modern Physics Letters B•Jan 13, 2017•14 citations

Spatially Separated EPR State

Masataka Ohta

Usual arguments on EPR state assume that, after particles I and II interact somewhere, they are spatially separated, which is why EPR correlation was considered to be a paradox. That is, after the interaction, particle I exists only in a spatial region A, while particle II exists only in a spatial region B located at a distance from A. However, though the separation imposes certain restriction on possible quantum state, its implication has not been properly considered. That is, though quantum state of A is a tensor product of quantum state of particle I and II in A, as quantum state of particle II in A is ground state only, the product is identical to quantum state of particle I in A. Similarly, quantum state of B is quantum state of particle II in B. Then, as entire quantum state is Cartesian, not tensor, product of quantum state of A and B, the entire quantum state is Cartesian product of quantum state of particle I and II, which means there is no tensor product term to represent quantum entanglement. For example, using binary state, (|0>, |0>) + (|1>, |1>) = (|0>, |1>) + (|1>, |0>) = (|0> + |1>, |0> + |1>). Separation process resolves entanglement. If the entire quantum state is calculated differently, by first taking Cartesian product and, then, tensor product, a tensor product term appears. However, as the term represents action at a distance and, thus, unphysical, its coefficient must always be 0. That is, quantum entanglement of EPR correlation assuming the spatial separation is a superficial mathematical artifact representing action at a distance.

•Apr 1, 2018•0 citations

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Oreste Piccioni, Werner A. W. Mehlhop, Brian C. Wright

This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.

•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations

A hidden variable solution to the EPR paradox

Jorma Jormakka

The hidden variable solution to the EPR paradox proposes that correlation of measurements of entangled particles is due to variables that get decided when the entangled particles get created. It is shown that the correlation of spin measurements in Bell's form of the EPR paradox can be explained as deriving from spin of the entangled particles in the x-direction. This spin parameter is not hidden as it is included in the standard quantum mechanical formulation.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations
"We discuss the EPR paradox and study an example of this in a quantum field theoretical context. We show that there is always an alternative description of QFT in which particles that interact at a moment in time remain entangled and therefore in a form of contact at any spatial or temporal separation. Consequently the correlations of spin or other properties of the particles long time after they cease to interact is perfectly natural and justifiable."
EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.
The EPR paradox appears when measurement results of some properties of two distantly entangled particles are correlated in a way that cannot be explained classically, and apparently violate locality. The resolution of the paradox depends on one’s interpretation of quantum mechanics. Explanations from quantum mechanics remain commonplace today, but they fail to explain the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) paradox totally in a way than can be accepted by the whole community. Here, we present a simple resolution to this paradox in which the uncertainty in the energy of the two-particle system is reduced by its lack of interaction during the journey so that the uncertainty in time becomes greater than the time they have been separating. Consequently, the present and past become indistinguishable because when we measure an observable in the system its value is the same as if the two particle were still together or very close. It is also argued that the destruction of information as the present and past become identical should release heat by Landauer’s principle, and this might make this proposal testable.
Usual arguments on EPR state assume that, after particles I and II interact somewhere, they are spatially separated, which is why EPR correlation was considered to be a paradox. That is, after the interaction, particle I exists only in a spatial region A, while particle II exists only in a spatial region B located at a distance from A. However, though the separation imposes certain restriction on possible quantum state, its implication has not been properly considered. That is, though quantum state of A is a tensor product of quantum state of particle I and II in A, as quantum state of particle II in A is ground state only, the product is identical to quantum state of particle I in A. Similarly, quantum state of B is quantum state of particle II in B. Then, as entire quantum state is Cartesian, not tensor, product of quantum state of A and B, the entire quantum state is Cartesian product of quantum state of particle I and II, which means there is no tensor product term to represent quantum entanglement. For example, using binary state, (|0>, |0>) + (|1>, |1>) = (|0>, |1>) + (|1>, |0>) = (|0> + |1>, |0> + |1>). Separation process resolves entanglement. If the entire quantum state is calculated differently, by first taking Cartesian product and, then, tensor product, a tensor product term appears. However, as the term represents action at a distance and, thus, unphysical, its coefficient must always be 0. That is, quantum entanglement of EPR correlation assuming the spatial separation is a superficial mathematical artifact representing action at a distance.
This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.