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/9811004 · Physical Review A

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox without entanglement

Ryszard Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki

Published Nov 1, 1999• 15 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It is argued that the nonlocality without entanglement discovered quite recently by Bennett et al. [Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999)] should rather be interpreted as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox without entanglement. It would be a true demonstration of nonlocality without entanglement if one knew that quantum mechanics provides the best possible means for extracting information from a physical system, i.e., that it is ``informationally complete.''

DOI
10.1103/physreva.60.4144

Related papers

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Re-Examined

David H. Sharp

This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr.

Philosophy of Science•Jul 1, 1961•27 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

Quantum mechanics versus local realism : the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

F. Selleri

1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.

Plenum Press eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•64 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

Avoiding Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox: Towards a More Physically Adequate Description of a Quantum State

Joseph Bernal, Olga M. Kosheleva, Владик Крейнович

The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Macroscopic quantum Schrödinger and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradoxes

M. D. Reid, Eric G. Cavalcanti

We propose macroscopic generalizations of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox in which the completeness of quantum mechanics is contrasted with forms of macroscopic reality and macroscopic local reality defined in relation to Schrödinger's original ‘cat’ paradox.

Journal of Modern Optics•Nov 10, 2005•5 citations
It is argued that the nonlocality without entanglement discovered quite recently by Bennett et al. [Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999)] should rather be interpreted as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox without entanglement. It would be a true demonstration of nonlocality without entanglement if one knew that quantum mechanics provides the best possible means for extracting information from a physical system, i.e., that it is ``informationally complete.''
This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr.
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.
1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.
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 .
The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.