In Bohm's version of the EPR gedanken experiment, the spin of the second particle along any vector is minus the spin of the other particle along the same vector. It seems that either the choice of vector along which one projects the spin of the first particle influences at superluminal speed the state of the second particle, or naive realism holds true i.e., the projections of the spin of any EPR particle along all the vectors are determined before any measurement occurs). Naive realism is negated by Bell's theory that originated and is still most often presented as related to non-locality, a relation whose necessity has recently been proven to be false. I advocate here that the solution of the apparent paradox lies in the fact that the spin of the second particle is determined along any vector, but not along all vectors. Such an any-all distinction was already present in quantum mechanics, for instance in the fact that the spin can be measured along any vector but not at once along all vectors, as a result of the Uncertainty Principle. The time symmetry of the any-all distinction defended here is in fact reminiscent of (and I claim, due to) the time symmetry of the Uncertainty Principle described by Einstein, Tolman, and Podolsky in 1931, in a paper entitled ``Knowledge of Past and Future in Quantum Mechanics" that is enough to negate naive realism and to hint at the any-all distinction. A simple classical model is next built, which captures aspects of the any-all distinction: the goal is of course not to have a classical exact model, but to provide a caricature that might help some people.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox gives an argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics based on a plausible criterion for reality, as well as the assumption of locality. A general view is that the argument is compromised, because EPR's premises are falsified by Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and Bell experiments. In this paper, we present an EPR argument based on premises not falsified by these experiments. First, we consider macroscopic EPR-Bohm, Bell, and GHZ experiments using spins ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{S}}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$ defined by two macroscopically distinct states. The analyzers that realize the unitary operations ${U}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$ determining the measurement settings $\ensuremath{\theta}$ are nonlinear devices creating macroscopic superposition states. We note two definitions of macroscopic realism (MR). For a system with two macroscopically distinct states available to it, MR posits a predetermined outcome for the measurement ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{S}}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$ distinguishing between the states. Deterministic macroscopic realism assumes MR for the system defined prior to the interaction ${U}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$ being carried out but is falsifiable by the macroscopic Bell and GHZ proposals. Motivated by arguments to uphold MR (without resorting to decoherence), as well as no-signaling and the properties of a meter, we define a set of premises referred to as weak macroscopic realism (wMR). Weak macroscopic realism (wMR) posits MR for the system after ${U}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$, at the time
tf---when the system is prepared with respect to the measurement basis, ready for a ``pointer'' measurement and readout. For this system, wMR posits that the outcome of ${\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{S}}_{\ensuremath{\theta}}$ is determined and not changed by interactions that might subsequently occur at a remote system
B. The premise wMR also posits a weaker version of EPR's criterion for reality. Importantly, we show that the GHZ and Bell predictions are consistent with wMR. Yet, an EPR paradox arises for a macroscopic EPR-Bohm state, based on wMR. As considered by Schr\"odinger, it is possible to measure two complementary spins of system
A simultaneously, ``one by direct, the other by indirect measurement'': If we assume wMR, then once both settings are fixed, the outcomes of the two spins are both determined. We revisit the original EPR paradox and find a similar result: An EPR argument can be based on a set of premises, weak local realism, which we show are not falsifiable by GHZ or Bell experiments.
Local realism has been knocked down by the experiments with entangled pairs of particles based on Bell's theorem(J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964)). However, there has been continuing debate on whether locality or realism is the problem. In this work, we analyzed the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment of Bohm's version using information theory and thermodynamics. The inference of non-locality from EPR experiments will be against the principle of non-realism of quantum mechanics. Therefore, the experiments about quantum entanglement cannot provide any proof to accuse locality.
Bohm's spin polarization modification of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen has served as the basis for numerous analyses of the roles of hidden variables and Einstein locality in quantum mechanics. The present note points out how corresponding analyses can be carried out on the original formulation of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in terms of observations of position and momentum. Concrete conceptual experiments are proposed to furnish tangible illustrations of EPR tests of reality, and a position-momentum variant of Bell's inequality is formulated. Implications regarding joint measurements of position and momentum, delayed choice experiments, and superluminal communication are discussed briefly.
Abstract The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” does not imply non‐local interactions or an “action‐at‐a‐distance”. Contrary, the EPR proves the measurements at one particle does not have influences at canonical variables of the other particles if the quantum‐mechanical commutation relations are true. But, the EPR implices correlations between the particles which come in by “subjective knowledge”. These correlations are a priori informations about the relative motion or, complementarily, about the motion of the center of mass. The impression of an action‐at‐a‐distance is produced by the use of usual particle coordinates in the EPR‐arrangements. The discussion of the Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” (EPR) has been going on over fifty years. EINSTEIN, PODOLSKY, and ROSEN formulated their famous paradox in 1935, and in the discussion between N. BOHR (1935, 1949) and A. EINSTEIN (1936, 1948); A. EINSTEIN (1948) made his point that the EPR implied an “action‐at‐a‐distance” for quantum‐mechanical particles (without obvious classical interactions). His argument is the starting point for the recent discussion about EPR and causality (see A. Aspect, 1981).
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox gives an argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics based on the premises of local realism. A general view is that the argument is compromised, because EPR's premises are falsified by Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) and Bell experiments. In this paper, we present an EPR argument based on premises not falsifiable by these experiments. We propose macroscopic EPR and GHZ experiments using spins
Sθ defined by two macroscopically distinct states. The analyzers that realize the unitary operations
Uθ determining the measurement settings
θ are devices that create macroscopic superposition states. For a system with two macroscopically distinct states available, macroscopic realism (MR) posits a predetermined outcome for a measurement
Sθ distinguishing between the states. Deterministic macroscopic realism (dMR) posits MR for the system prior to the interaction
Uθ. Weak macroscopic realism (wMR) posits MR for the system after
Uθ, at the time
tf (when the system is prepared for a final "pointer" measurement), the outcome of
Sθ not being changed by interactions that might occur at a remote system
B. The premise also posits that if the outcome for
SθA of a system
A can be predicted by a pointer measurement on a system
B defined after the interaction fixing the setting at
B, then the outcome for
SθA is determined at this time. The GHZ predictions negate dMR but are consistent with wMR. Yet, an EPR paradox arises based on wMR for the set-up proposed by Schrödinger, where one measures two complementary spins simultaneously, "one by direct, the other by indirect" measurement. We revisit the original EPR paradox and find similarly that an EPR argument can be based on a weak form of local realism not falsifiable by GHZ or Bell tests.
There is an opinion that the Bohm reformulation of the EPR paradox in terms of spin variables is equivalent to the original one. In this note we show that such an opinion is not justified. We apply to the original EPR problem the method which was used by Bell for the Bohm reformulation. He has shown that correlation function of two spins cannot be represented by classical correlation of separated bounded random processes. This Bell`s theorem has been interpreted as incompatibility of local realism with quantum mechanics. We show that, in contrast to Bell`s theorem for spin or polarization correlation functions, the correlation of positions (or momenta) of two particles, depending on the rotation angles, in the original EPR model always admits a representation in the form of classical correlation of separated random processes. In this sense there exists a local realistic representation for the original EPR model but there is no such a representation for the Bohm spin reformulation of the EPR paradox. It shows also that the phenomena of quantum nonlocality is based not only on the properties of entangled states but also on the using of particular bounded observables.