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/0402094 · International Journal of Quantum Information

PROPER AND IMPROPER SEPARABILITY

Christopher G. Timpson, Harvey R. Brown

Published Dec 1, 2005• 26 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The distinction between proper and improper mixtures is a staple of the discussion of foundational questions in quantum mechanics. Here we note an analogous distinction in the context of the theory of entanglement. The terminology of "proper" versus "improper" separability is proposed to mark the distinction.
DOI
10.1142/s0219749905001493

Related papers

All quantum mixtures are proper

Leonardo Castellani

It is argued that proper and improper quantum mixed states have no observable differences, and hence should not be distinguished. This has implications for subjective approaches to quantum mechanics, and invalidates one of the main motivations for relational interpretations.

arXiv:2201.04143•International Journal of Quantum Information•Mar 10, 2023•2 citations

Indistinguishability and improper mixtures

Kirkpatrick, K. A.

All quantum mixtures are what d'Espagnat has termed "improper." His "proper" mixture cannot be created -- if welcher weg, or distinguishing, information exists, an improper mixture results, while in the absence of such information, the resulting "mixture" is a pure state. D'Espagnat has claimed that an interpretation of the improper mixture in terms of subensembles leads to logical inconsistency; this claim is shown to be incorrect, as d'Espagnat's argument fails to account for the indistinguishability of the pure-state subensembles.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109146•Sep 27, 2001•11 citations

The Many Inconsistencies of the Purity-Mixture Distinction in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Christian DE RONDE, César Massri

The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.

arXiv:2208.10574•Aug 22, 2022•3 citations

On the Usefulness of Philosophical Terminological Rigorousness in Quantum Mechanics

A. V. Grigorov

A lot of the confusion with regards to the meaning of Quantum Mechanics arises from improper use of language (in the philosophical sense). The following brief discussion demonstrates how this could be avoided, and the benefits of using more philosophically rigorous language and concepts.

•Feb 1, 2019•0 citations

Factorization and Entanglement in Quantum Systems

Jon Eakins, George Jaroszkiewicz

We discuss the question of entanglement versus separability of pure quantum states in direct product Hilbert spaces, and the relevance of this issue to physics. Different types of separability may be possible, depending on the particular factorization of the Hilbert space. A given orthonormal basis set for a Hilbert space is defined to be of type (p,q) if p elements of the basis are entangled and q are separable, relative to a given bi-partite factorization of that space. We conjecture that not all basis types exist for a given Hilbert space. The phenomenon of entanglement is of central importance in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Historically, entanglement was the focus of the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paper [1], which suggested that standard quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of physical reality. The central argument of the EPR paper was that more information about incompatible variables such as momentum and position could in principle be deduced about an entangled two particle quantum state than quantum mechanics permits, effectively giving information about each particle

•Oct 6, 2002•13 citations

ENTANGLEMENT, LOCALITY, AND SEPARABILITY: A TREATISE ON DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS

THOMAS KESSEMEIER, Thomas Krüger

Within the framework of a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, entanglement (in a mathematical sense) manifests itself in the non-separability of the statistical operator ρ representing the ensemble in question. In experiments, on the other hand, entanglement can be detected, in the form of non-locality, by the violation of Bell's inequality Δ ≤ 2. How can these different viewpoints be reconciled? We first show that (non-)separability follows different laws to (non-)locality, and, moreover, it is much more difficult to characterize as long as the mostly employed operational rather than an ontic definition of separability is used. In consequence, (i) "entanglement" has two different meanings which may or may not be realized simultaneously on one and the same ensemble, and (ii) we have to disadvise the use of the common separability definition which is still employed by the majority of the physical community.

International Journal of Quantum Information•Feb 1, 2007•1 citation
All quantum mixtures are what d'Espagnat has termed "improper." His "proper" mixture cannot be created -- if welcher weg, or distinguishing, information exists, an improper mixture results, while in the absence of such information, the resulting "mixture" is a pure state. D'Espagnat has claimed that an interpretation of the improper mixture in terms of subensembles leads to logical inconsistency; this claim is shown to be incorrect, as d'Espagnat's argument fails to account for the indistinguishability of the pure-state subensembles.
The distinction between pure states and mixed states is a kernel ingredient of what is considered to be the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and plays today a kernel role in foundational debates about the meaning of quantum probability, the separability of quantum systems, the definition and measure of entanglement, etc. In this work we attempt to expose the many inconsistencies introduced by this distinction and the serious consequences this has for many ongoing research programs within quantum physics which apply these notions uncritically.
We discuss the question of entanglement versus separability of pure quantum states in direct product Hilbert spaces, and the relevance of this issue to physics. Different types of separability may be possible, depending on the particular factorization of the Hilbert space. A given orthonormal basis set for a Hilbert space is defined to be of type (p,q) if p elements of the basis are entangled and q are separable, relative to a given bi-partite factorization of that space. We conjecture that not all basis types exist for a given Hilbert space. The phenomenon of entanglement is of central importance in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Historically, entanglement was the focus of the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paper [1], which suggested that standard quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of physical reality. The central argument of the EPR paper was that more information about incompatible variables such as momentum and position could in principle be deduced about an entangled two particle quantum state than quantum mechanics permits, effectively giving information about each particle
Within the framework of a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, entanglement (in a mathematical sense) manifests itself in the non-separability of the statistical operator ρ representing the ensemble in question. In experiments, on the other hand, entanglement can be detected, in the form of non-locality, by the violation of Bell's inequality Δ ≤ 2. How can these different viewpoints be reconciled? We first show that (non-)separability follows different laws to (non-)locality, and, moreover, it is much more difficult to characterize as long as the mostly employed operational rather than an ontic definition of separability is used. In consequence, (i) "entanglement" has two different meanings which may or may not be realized simultaneously on one and the same ensemble, and (ii) we have to disadvise the use of the common separability definition which is still employed by the majority of the physical community.