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/0609126

SU(2) Relativity and the EPR Paradox

Paul O’Hara

Published Sep 17, 2006• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In the normal presentation of the EPR problem a comparison is made between the (weak) Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which seems to suggest that at times action at a distance may take place, and the hidden parameter interpretation which must satisfy Bell's inequality, in contradiction to the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this paper, we consider a relativistic approach to the paradox. However, the frame of reference under consideration is not the usual Lorenz frame but rather the spin frame of reference which is invariant with respect to the SU(2) group.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0609126

Related papers

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and SU(2) relativity

Paul O’Hara

The EPR paradox dates back to 1935 when Einstein et al., through the use of non commuting operators, proposed that quantum mechanics was not complete[1] in that it suggested a "spooky action at a distance." Later in 1964 John Bell was able to express the dilemma in a simple inequality[2] involving spin singlet states. If the inequality were satisfied then Einstein was correct and if it were violated then it favored the quantum mechanics point of view. In what follows, we present two approaches to Bell's inequality, and then offer an interpretation from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics based on the principle that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is then combined with the properties of the SU (2) group to give a more intuitive understanding of non-locality and spin entanglement from the perspective of the relativistic characteristics of rotations.

arXiv:1901.07371•Journal of Physics Conference Series•May 1, 2019•3 citations

Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity: A Possible Solution to the Paradox?

Yoram Kirsh

Demonstrations of quantum entanglement which confirm the violation of Bell's inequality indicate that under certain conditions action at a distance is possible. This consequence seems to contradict the relativistic principle of causality, which asserts that an effect never precedes its cause, in any reference frame. By analyzing a numerical example of Bell's experiment with entangled pairs of photons, we show how observers in two inertial reference frames can disagree about the causality relation between two events. One observer claims that event 1 is the cause of event 2, while the other claims that event 1 is the result of event 2. The solution we suggest to the paradox is that in entangled systems, one can find pairs of "entangled events" which have symmetrical causality relations. Each of the events can serve as a cause or as an effect, depending on the frame of reference in which they are observed.

arXiv:1811.00378•Oct 29, 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

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Final report

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

Space-Time Structure as Hidden Variable

Bart Jongejan

EPR correlations exist and can be observed independently of any a priori given frame of reference. We can even construct a frame of reference that is based on these correlations. This observation-based frame of reference is equivalent to the customary a priori given frame of reference of the laboratory when describing real EPR experiments. J.S. Bell has argued that local hidden parameter theories that reproduce the predictions of Quantum Mechanics cannot exist, but the counterfactual reasoning leading to Bell's conclusion is physically meaningless if the frame of reference that is based on EPR-correlations is accepted as the backdrop for EPR-type experiments. The refutal of Bell's proof opens up for the construction of a viable hidden parameter theory. A model of a spin h/2 particle in terms of a non-flat metric of space-time is shown to be able to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics in the Bohm-Aharonov version of the EPR experiment, without introducing non-locality.

arXiv:quant-ph/0007010•Jul 5, 2000•0 citations

Über das Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxon / On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Peter Mittelstaedt

The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A•Apr 1, 1974•1 citation
In the normal presentation of the EPR problem a comparison is made between the (weak) Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which seems to suggest that at times action at a distance may take place, and the hidden parameter interpretation which must satisfy Bell's inequality, in contradiction to the predictions of quantum mechanics. In this paper, we consider a relativistic approach to the paradox. However, the frame of reference under consideration is not the usual Lorenz frame but rather the spin frame of reference which is invariant with respect to the SU(2) group.
The EPR paradox dates back to 1935 when Einstein et al., through the use of non commuting operators, proposed that quantum mechanics was not complete[1] in that it suggested a "spooky action at a distance." Later in 1964 John Bell was able to express the dilemma in a simple inequality[2] involving spin singlet states. If the inequality were satisfied then Einstein was correct and if it were violated then it favored the quantum mechanics point of view. In what follows, we present two approaches to Bell's inequality, and then offer an interpretation from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics based on the principle that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is then combined with the properties of the SU (2) group to give a more intuitive understanding of non-locality and spin entanglement from the perspective of the relativistic characteristics of rotations.
Demonstrations of quantum entanglement which confirm the violation of Bell's inequality indicate that under certain conditions action at a distance is possible. This consequence seems to contradict the relativistic principle of causality, which asserts that an effect never precedes its cause, in any reference frame. By analyzing a numerical example of Bell's experiment with entangled pairs of photons, we show how observers in two inertial reference frames can disagree about the causality relation between two events. One observer claims that event 1 is the cause of event 2, while the other claims that event 1 is the result of event 2. The solution we suggest to the paradox is that in entangled systems, one can find pairs of "entangled events" which have symmetrical causality relations. Each of the events can serve as a cause or as an effect, depending on the frame of reference in which they are observed.
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.
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.
EPR correlations exist and can be observed independently of any a priori given frame of reference. We can even construct a frame of reference that is based on these correlations. This observation-based frame of reference is equivalent to the customary a priori given frame of reference of the laboratory when describing real EPR experiments. J.S. Bell has argued that local hidden parameter theories that reproduce the predictions of Quantum Mechanics cannot exist, but the counterfactual reasoning leading to Bell's conclusion is physically meaningless if the frame of reference that is based on EPR-correlations is accepted as the backdrop for EPR-type experiments. The refutal of Bell's proof opens up for the construction of a viable hidden parameter theory. A model of a spin h/2 particle in terms of a non-flat metric of space-time is shown to be able to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics in the Bohm-Aharonov version of the EPR experiment, without introducing non-locality.
The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.