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

American Journal of Modern Physics

Closer Look at EPR Paradox and Bell’s Inequality

Vladimir K. Ignatovich

Published Apr 17, 2015• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.

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, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality

Guy Blaylock

Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.

arXiv:0902.3827•American Journal of Physics•Dec 14, 2009•59 citations

Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?

Tartaglia, Angelo

The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that if the quantum objects are considered as carrying `instruction leaflets' with them, telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus, then any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.

•Jan 1, 1998•11 citations

Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?

A Tartaglia

The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that if the quantum objects are considered as carrying `instruction leaflets' with them, telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus, then any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.

arXiv:quant-ph/9805074•European Journal of Physics•May 1, 1998•6 citations

On Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality

Uddin, Mafiz

EPR showed that two particles emitted from a source can be entangled by a shared wavefunction where two non-commuting observables (position, momentum) can be simultaneously real, leading to a contradiction with quantum mechanics (two non-commuting variables can not be simultaneously real). John Bell derived an inequality where any local hidden variables prediction is bounded and quantum mechanics can violate the inequality. Bell tests on correlated photon pairs showed a clear violation of the Bell inequality and agreement with quantum mechanics. This study revealed that the Bell inequality holds at any individual instances in a given system but it does not hold over the entire population. The Bell inequality is not an incompatibility criterion for local hidden variables vs quantum mechanics rather it is a criterion for an individual nature vs population dynamics. The nonlocality prediction given by wavefunction is a system approximation and local causality (photon polarization) provides a complete description of the Bell tests. The paper concludes with great satisfaction that the measurement of two correlated photons at a distance was a local cause (photon-filter interaction did not violate the special theory of relativity).

arXiv:2506.00366•May 31, 2025•0 citations

On the implication of Bell’s probability distribution and proposed experiments of quantum measurement

Hai-Long Zhao

In derivating of Bell’s inequalities, the probability distribution is supposed to be a function only of a hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell’s correlation function is the distribution of joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. It is therefore a function of both the hidden variable and the settings. In this case, Bell’s inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell’s locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, and hence violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. To explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that a polarization-entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any nonlocal influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of the polarization-entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with the same quantum state behave the same under the same measuring conditions.

arXiv:0906.0279•Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics•Dec 1, 2013•4 citations
The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.
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.
Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.
EPR showed that two particles emitted from a source can be entangled by a shared wavefunction where two non-commuting observables (position, momentum) can be simultaneously real, leading to a contradiction with quantum mechanics (two non-commuting variables can not be simultaneously real). John Bell derived an inequality where any local hidden variables prediction is bounded and quantum mechanics can violate the inequality. Bell tests on correlated photon pairs showed a clear violation of the Bell inequality and agreement with quantum mechanics. This study revealed that the Bell inequality holds at any individual instances in a given system but it does not hold over the entire population. The Bell inequality is not an incompatibility criterion for local hidden variables vs quantum mechanics rather it is a criterion for an individual nature vs population dynamics. The nonlocality prediction given by wavefunction is a system approximation and local causality (photon polarization) provides a complete description of the Bell tests. The paper concludes with great satisfaction that the measurement of two correlated photons at a distance was a local cause (photon-filter interaction did not violate the special theory of relativity).
In derivating of Bell’s inequalities, the probability distribution is supposed to be a function only of a hidden variable. We point out that the true implication of the probability distribution of Bell’s correlation function is the distribution of joint measurement outcomes on the two sides. It is therefore a function of both the hidden variable and the settings. In this case, Bell’s inequalities fail. Our further analysis shows that Bell’s locality holds neither for dependent events nor for independent events. We think that the measurements of EPR pairs are dependent events, and hence violation of Bell’s inequalities cannot rule out the existence of local hidden variable. To explain the results of EPR-type experiments, we suppose that a polarization-entangled photon pair can be composed of two circularly or linearly polarized photons with correlated hidden variables, and a couple of experiments of quantum measurement are proposed. The first uses delayed measurement on one photon of the EPR pair to demonstrate directly whether measurement on the other could have any nonlocal influence on it. Then several experiments are suggested to reveal the components of the polarization-entangled photon pair. The last one uses successive polarization measurements on a pair of EPR photons to show that two photons with the same quantum state behave the same under the same measuring conditions.