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/9708045

On the solution of the EPR paradox and the explanation of the violation of Bell's inequality

Gyula Bene

Published Aug 27, 1997• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A new interpretation offers a consistent conceptual basis for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox is solved and the violation of Bell's inequality is explained by maintaining realism, inductive inference and Einstein separability.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9708045

Related papers

Explanation of the violation of Bell's inequality by maintaining Einstein separability

Gyula Bene

A new interpretation offers a consistent conceptual basis for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The violation of Bell's inequality is explained by maintaining realism, inductive inference and Einstein separability.

arXiv:quant-ph/9708044•Aug 26, 1997•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

Quantum phenomena do not violate the principle of locality - a new interpretation with physical consequences -

Gyula Bene

A new interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics explains the violation of Bell's inequality by maintaining realism and the principle of locality.

arXiv:quant-ph/9706043•Jun 18, 1997•3 citations

SOME NOTES ON AERTS' INTERPRETATION OF THE EPR-PARADOX AND THE VIOLATION OF BELL-INEQUALITIES

Wim Christiaens

I give an analysis of what happens in the case of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment according to the creation-discovery view. According to many physicists the correlations in the experiment indicating a violations of Bell-inequalities are cases of outcome-dependence and not parameter dependence. It is shown that we can interpret the outcome independence violating correlations as an indication that quantum entities do not always exist in space, and that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment involves a localization of one entity, that in the course of this localization is ‘broken’ into two entities.

•Jun 1, 2002•6 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Entanglement 1: Signatures of EPR correlations for continuous variables

M. D. Reid

A generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument for measurements with continuous variable outcomes is presented to establish criteria for the demonstration of the EPR paradox, for situations where the correlation between spatially separated subsystems is not perfect. Two types of criteria for EPR correlations are determined. The first type are based on measurements of the variances of conditional probability distributions and are necessary to reflect directly the situation of the original EPR paradox. The second weaker set of EPR criteria are based on the proven failure of (Bell-type) local realistic theories which could be consistent with a local quantum description for each subsystem. The relationship with criteria sufficient to prove entanglement is established, to show that any demonstration of EPR correlations will also signify entanglement. It is also shown how a demonstration of entanglement between two spatially separated subsystems, if not able to interpreted as a violation of a Bell-type inequality, may be interpreted as a demonstration of the EPR correlations. In particular it is explained how the experimental observation of two-mode squeezing using spatially separated detectors will signify not only entanglement but EPR correlations defined in a general sense.

arXiv:quant-ph/0112038•Dec 7, 2001•2 citations

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
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.
I give an analysis of what happens in the case of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment according to the creation-discovery view. According to many physicists the correlations in the experiment indicating a violations of Bell-inequalities are cases of outcome-dependence and not parameter dependence. It is shown that we can interpret the outcome independence violating correlations as an indication that quantum entities do not always exist in space, and that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment involves a localization of one entity, that in the course of this localization is ‘broken’ into two entities.
A generalization of the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument for measurements with continuous variable outcomes is presented to establish criteria for the demonstration of the EPR paradox, for situations where the correlation between spatially separated subsystems is not perfect. Two types of criteria for EPR correlations are determined. The first type are based on measurements of the variances of conditional probability distributions and are necessary to reflect directly the situation of the original EPR paradox. The second weaker set of EPR criteria are based on the proven failure of (Bell-type) local realistic theories which could be consistent with a local quantum description for each subsystem. The relationship with criteria sufficient to prove entanglement is established, to show that any demonstration of EPR correlations will also signify entanglement. It is also shown how a demonstration of entanglement between two spatially separated subsystems, if not able to interpreted as a violation of a Bell-type inequality, may be interpreted as a demonstration of the EPR correlations. In particular it is explained how the experimental observation of two-mode squeezing using spatially separated detectors will signify not only entanglement but EPR correlations defined in a general sense.
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.