In this paper the notion of an EPR state for the composite S of two quantum systems S1,S2, relative to S2 and a set 𝒪 of bounded observables of S2, is introduced in the spirit of the classical examples of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen and Bohm. We restrict ourselves mostly to EPR states of finite norm. The main results are contained in Theorems 3–6 and imply that if EPR states of finite norm relative to (S2,O) exist, then the elements of 𝒪 have discrete probability distributions and the Von Neumann algebra generated by 𝒪 is essentially imbeddable inside S1 by an antiunitary map. The EPR states then correspond to the different imbeddings and certain additional parameters, and are explicitly given by formulas which generalize the famous example of Bohm. If 𝒪 generates all bounded observables, S2 must be of finite dimension and can be imbedded inside S1 by an antiunitary map, and the EPR states relative to S2 are then in canonical bijection with the different imbeddings of S2 inside S1; moreover they are then given by formulas which are exactly those of the generalized Bohm states. The notion of EPR states of infinite norm is also explored and it is shown that the original state of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen can be realized as a renormalized limit of EPR states of finite quantum systems considered by Weyl, Schwinger, and many others. Finally, a family of states of infinite norm generalizing the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen example is explicitly given.
In this paper the notion of an EPR state for the composite S of two quantum systems S1,S2, relative to S2 and a set 𝒪 of bounded observables of S2, is introduced in the spirit of the classical examples of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen and Bohm. We restrict ourselves mostly to EPR states of finite norm. The main results are contained in Theorems 3–6 and imply that if EPR states of finite norm relative to (S2,O) exist, then the elements of 𝒪 have discrete probability distributions and the Von Neumann algebra generated by 𝒪 is essentially imbeddable inside S1 by an antiunitary map. The EPR states then correspond to the different imbeddings and certain additional parameters, and are explicitly given by formulas which generalize the famous example of Bohm. If 𝒪 generates all bounded observables, S2 must be of finite dimension and can be imbedded inside S1 by an antiunitary map, and the EPR states relative to S2 are then in canonical bijection with the different imbeddings of S2 inside S1; moreover they are then given by formulas which are exactly those of the generalized Bohm states. The notion of EPR states of infinite norm is also explored and it is shown that the original state of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen can be realized as a renormalized limit of EPR states of finite quantum systems considered by Weyl, Schwinger, and many others. Finally, a family of states of infinite norm generalizing the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen example is explicitly given.
The nonlocality of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) states is discussed in the framework of Weyl algebras. To include all possible limits of expectation values, the associated canonical cyclic representations of EPR states are considered. The momentum and position operators of individual particles do not exist in such representations, which explains the uncertainty principle in these cases. However, there are still one-to-one correspondences between the local Weyl operators associated with individual particles. The local observable algebras of individual particles are Type II1 von Neumann algebras and have numerous projection operators. The states obtained by applying local projection operations to the EPR states have perfect correlations between local subalgebras. Bell’s inequality is maximally violated by these states. The lack of atomic projections of Type II1 von Neumann algebras implies that the EPR states cannot be disentangled by local projection operations.
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.
From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.
Assessment of Einstein's argument Is quantum mechanics complete and local … It was observed in §1.4 that Einstein's method of criticizing the orthodox view of quantum theory was to focus on examples whose special characteristics could be used to show that adherence to the completeness assumption compels one to adopt ‘unnatural theoretical interpretations’. It was a way not of disproving the conventional interpretation by attempting to locate in it some logical flaw, but of pushing it into a corner that in Einstein's view no one would seriously want to inhabit. The paper of Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (EPR) (1935) is the most famous component of this programme and the purpose of this chapter is to analyse the extent to which the arguments presented in it are compatible with the quantum theory of motion. From contemporaneous correspondence it appears that the EPR paper was written by Podolsky and that Einstein did not consider that the point which was really troubling him had been made explicit (Fine, 1986, Chap. 3). According to Einstein's accounts, EPR had the following purpose: to show that if one believes the wavefunction exhausts all the statements that can be meaningfully asserted about a physical system, then one must also accept that the real physical state of the system depends on what befalls another system with which it has previously interacted, no matter how far apart the two systems may become.
Correlations between distant particles are central to many puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics and, at the same time, underpin various applications such as quantum cryptography and metrology. Originally in 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) used these correlations to argue against the completeness of quantum mechanics. To formalize their argument, Schrödinger subsequently introduced the notion of quantum steering. Still, the question of which quantum states can be used for EPR steering and which cannot remained open. Here we show that quantum steering can be viewed as an inclusion problem in convex geometry. For the case of two spin-1/2 particles, this approach completely characterizes the set of states leading to EPR steering. In addition, we discuss the generalization to higher-dimensional systems as well as generalized measurements. Our results find applications in various protocols in quantum information processing, and moreover they are linked to quantum mechanical phenomena such as uncertainty relations and the question of which observables in quantum mechanics are jointly measurable.
Bohm version of the EPR paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems A and B and an appropriate initial entangled state, a measurement of a property on system A can be an indirect measurement of B in the sense that from the outcome of the A measurement one can infer with probability 1 a property of B , because the two systems are correlated. There are cases in which either of two properties of B represented by noncommuting projectors can be measured indirectly in this manner, and EPR argued that this implied that system B could possess two incompatible properties at the same time, contrary to the principles of quantum theory. In order to understand this argument, it is best to apply it to a specific model system, and we shall do so using Bohm's formulation of the EPR paradox in which the systems A and B are two spin-half particles a and b in two different regions of space, with their spin degrees of freedom initially in a spin singlet state (23.2). As an aid to later discussion, we write the argument in the form of a set of numbered assertions leading to a paradox: a result which seems plausible, but contradicts the basic principles of quantum theory. The assertions E1–E4 are not intended to be exact counterparts of statements in the original EPR paper, even when the latter are translated into the language of spin-half particles. However, the general idea is very similar, and the basic conundrum is the same.