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

arXiv:quant-ph/0202175

Photons uncertainty removes Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Daniele Tommasini

Published Feb 28, 2002• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued that the quantum-mechanical probabilistic description of physical reality had to be incomplete, in order to avoid an instantaneous action between distant measurements. This suggested the need for additional "hidden variables", allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, but such a solution has been disproved experimentally. Here, I present an opposite solution, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum theory of Particle Physics, predicting that the number of photons is always uncertain. No violation of locality is allowed for the physical reality, and the theory can fulfill the EPR criterion of completeness.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0202175

Related papers

Photon uncertainty solves the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Daniele Tommasini

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen pointed out that the quantum-mechanical description of “physical reality” implies an unphysical, instantaneous action between distant measurements. To avoid such an action at a distance, these three concluded that quantum mechanics had to be incomplete. However, its extensions involving additional “hidden variables,” allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, have been disproved experimentally (Bell’s theorem). In this paper, an opposite solution of the paradox is presented, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum field theory (QFT) description of particle physics, which prevents the preparation of any state having a definite number of particles. The resulting uncertainty in photon radiation has interesting consequences in quantum information theory (e.g., cryptography and teleportation). Moreover, since it allows for fewer elements of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) physical reality than the old non-relativistic quantum mechanics, QFT satisfies the EPR condition of completeness without the need for hidden variables. The residual physical reality never violates locality; thus, the unique objective proof of “quantum nonlocality” is removed in an interpretation-independent way. At the same time, the supposed nonlocality of the EPR correlations turns out to be a problem in interpretation of the measurement process. If we do not rely on hidden variables or new physics beyond QFT, the viable interpretation is a minimal statistical one, which preserves locality and Lorentz symmetry.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206137•Optics and Spectroscopy•May 1, 2003•3 citations

The solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.

arXiv:2208.13831•Aug 29, 2022•1 citation

Quantum Theory finally reconciled with Special Relativity

Daniele Tommasini

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This paradox is supposed to be related to the probabilistic nature of the theory, but since deterministic alternatives involving "Hidden Variables" hardly agree with the experiments, the scientific community is now accepting this ``quantum nonlocality" as if it were a reality. However, I have argued recently that Quantum Electrodynamics is free from the EPR paradox, due to an indetermination on the number of the unobserved "soft photons" that can be present in any step of any experiment. Here, I will provide a more general proof, based on an approach to the "problem of measurement" that implies the full reconciliation of Quantum Field Theory with Special Relativity. I will then conclude with some considerations on the interpretation of the Quantum Theory itself.

arXiv:quant-ph/0111083•Nov 15, 2001•0 citations

On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

James S. Bell

Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 3, 2004•26 citations

Relativity, entanglement and the physical reality of the photon

Suresh Chandra Tiwari

Recent experiments on the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting claim to test the compatibility between nonlocal quantum entanglement and the (special) theory of relativity. Confirmation of quantum theory has led to the interpretation that Einstein's image of physical reality for each photon in the EPR pair cannot be maintained. A detailed critique on two representative experiments is presented following the original EPR notion of local realism. It is argued that relativity does not enter into the picture, however for the Bell-Bohm version of local realism in terms of hidden variables such experiments are significant. Of the two alternatives, namely incompleteness of quantum theory for describing an individual quantum system, and the ensemble view, it is only the former that has been ruled out by the experiments. An alternative approach gives a statistical ensemble interpretation of the observed data, and the significant conclusion that these experiments do not deny physical reality of the photon is obtained. After discussing the need for a photon model, a vortex structure is proposed based on the space-time invariant property-spin, and pure gauge fields. To test the prime role of spin for photons and the angular-momentum interpretation of electromagnetic fields, experimental schemes feasible in modern laboratories are suggested.

Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics•Feb 15, 2002•8 citations

Macroscopic elements of reality and the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paradox

M. D. Reid

We consider a new version of the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) paradox in which the measurements have limited accuracy, so that a photon number is specified only to plus or minus a macroscopic number of photons. In our example the minimum quantum uncertainty product for the two relevant conjugate quantities is itself a macroscopic photon number. This new version of the EPR situation is stronger than the original microscopic versions, which were based on the validity, now disproved by Bell experiments, of `local realism' at a microscopic level. The new version is based on the validity of `macroscopic local realism', which has to date not been questioned.

Quantum and Semiclassical Optics Journal of the European Optical Society Part B•Jun 1, 1997•9 citations
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued that the quantum-mechanical probabilistic description of physical reality had to be incomplete, in order to avoid an instantaneous action between distant measurements. This suggested the need for additional "hidden variables", allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, but such a solution has been disproved experimentally. Here, I present an opposite solution, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum theory of Particle Physics, predicting that the number of photons is always uncertain. No violation of locality is allowed for the physical reality, and the theory can fulfill the EPR criterion of completeness.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen pointed out that the quantum-mechanical description of “physical reality” implies an unphysical, instantaneous action between distant measurements. To avoid such an action at a distance, these three concluded that quantum mechanics had to be incomplete. However, its extensions involving additional “hidden variables,” allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, have been disproved experimentally (Bell’s theorem). In this paper, an opposite solution of the paradox is presented, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum field theory (QFT) description of particle physics, which prevents the preparation of any state having a definite number of particles. The resulting uncertainty in photon radiation has interesting consequences in quantum information theory (e.g., cryptography and teleportation). Moreover, since it allows for fewer elements of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) physical reality than the old non-relativistic quantum mechanics, QFT satisfies the EPR condition of completeness without the need for hidden variables. The residual physical reality never violates locality; thus, the unique objective proof of “quantum nonlocality” is removed in an interpretation-independent way. At the same time, the supposed nonlocality of the EPR correlations turns out to be a problem in interpretation of the measurement process. If we do not rely on hidden variables or new physics beyond QFT, the viable interpretation is a minimal statistical one, which preserves locality and Lorentz symmetry.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This paradox is supposed to be related to the probabilistic nature of the theory, but since deterministic alternatives involving "Hidden Variables" hardly agree with the experiments, the scientific community is now accepting this ``quantum nonlocality" as if it were a reality. However, I have argued recently that Quantum Electrodynamics is free from the EPR paradox, due to an indetermination on the number of the unobserved "soft photons" that can be present in any step of any experiment. Here, I will provide a more general proof, based on an approach to the "problem of measurement" that implies the full reconciliation of Quantum Field Theory with Special Relativity. I will then conclude with some considerations on the interpretation of the Quantum Theory itself.
Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .
Recent experiments on the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting claim to test the compatibility between nonlocal quantum entanglement and the (special) theory of relativity. Confirmation of quantum theory has led to the interpretation that Einstein's image of physical reality for each photon in the EPR pair cannot be maintained. A detailed critique on two representative experiments is presented following the original EPR notion of local realism. It is argued that relativity does not enter into the picture, however for the Bell-Bohm version of local realism in terms of hidden variables such experiments are significant. Of the two alternatives, namely incompleteness of quantum theory for describing an individual quantum system, and the ensemble view, it is only the former that has been ruled out by the experiments. An alternative approach gives a statistical ensemble interpretation of the observed data, and the significant conclusion that these experiments do not deny physical reality of the photon is obtained. After discussing the need for a photon model, a vortex structure is proposed based on the space-time invariant property-spin, and pure gauge fields. To test the prime role of spin for photons and the angular-momentum interpretation of electromagnetic fields, experimental schemes feasible in modern laboratories are suggested.
We consider a new version of the Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) paradox in which the measurements have limited accuracy, so that a photon number is specified only to plus or minus a macroscopic number of photons. In our example the minimum quantum uncertainty product for the two relevant conjugate quantities is itself a macroscopic photon number. This new version of the EPR situation is stronger than the original microscopic versions, which were based on the validity, now disproved by Bell experiments, of `local realism' at a microscopic level. The new version is based on the validity of `macroscopic local realism', which has to date not been questioned.