Abstract
Most of the nearly innumerable attempts to provide for a sound understanding of the gedanken experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) contain additional ideas, notions or features imposed on pioneer or traditional quantum mechanics (TQM). In the present paper the problem is analyzed without employing any new or philosophically contested concept. We do even without referring to the probability calculus, and we especially avoid any admixture of realistic ideas. Neither entanglement nor special features of “states” are used. Instead, formulating strictly within the framework of TQM and using an ensemble approach, the crucial point is boiled down to the decision between separability and non-separability. The corresponding second-order correlation functions Δs and Δn−s, resp., which predict the experimental outcome, may differ by a factor of 2 if certain operator pairs are maximally non-commuting. Even in the case of commuting pairs, an experimentally relevant difference between the Δ-functions might exist. Taking into account the experimental evidence, it is unavoidable to accept that the sub-ensembles involved in EPR-type experiments are in fact non-separable. This result has been obtained without resort to Bell's inequality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
A. Avramesco, ``The Einstein–Bohr Debate,” lecture presented at the International Conference on ``Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism” (Urbino, Italy, 1985).
K. Goö del, Monatshefte Math. Phys. 38, 173 (1931). [Goö del's theorem states that every for-malized theory contains essential prerequisites which in itself are not elements of said theory. These extra-theoretical ingredients take care of the self-consistency of the theory. They cannot be explained by the theory. Instead they are responsible that the theory itself can explain anything at all.]
B. d'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, 1976), Chap. 8.
D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).
J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
J. S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966).
E. Schroö dinger, Naturwiss. 23, 807, 823, and 844 (1935).
L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1665 (1993).
T. Krüger, in Waves and Particles in Light and Matter, A. van der Merwe and A. Garuccio, eds. (Plenum, New York, 1994), pp. 369ff. 1889 Towards a Deeper Understanding of the EPR Problem
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).
A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982).
A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
W. Perrie, A. J. Duncan, H. J. Beyer, and H. Kleinpoppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1790 (1985).
D. Home and F. Selleri, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 14, No. 9 (1991).
L. De Caro and A. Garuccio, Phys. Rev. A 50, R2803 (1994).
P. R. Tapster, J. G. Rarity, and P. C. M. Owens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1923 (1994).
B. J. Oliver and C. R. Stroud, Jr., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1426 (1987).
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Creé peau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
L. Davidovich, N. Zagury, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. A 50, R895 (1994).
J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 50, R2799 (1994).
S. Haroche, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 755, 73 (1995).
C. C. Gerry, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2857 (1996).
E. Hagley, X. Maître, G. Nogues, C. Wunderlich, M. Brune, J.M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79,1 (1997).
T. Kruü ger, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 64, 679 (1997).
A. Shimony, in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, NATO ASI Series B, Vol. 226, A. I. Miller, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1990), pp. 33ff.
R. F. Bordley, Phys. Essays 10, 401 (1997).
H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 46, 6860 (1992).
H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3182 (1994).
M. Dickson and R. Clifton, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4251 (1994).
H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4257 (1994).
L. E. Ballentine, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).
J. S. Bell, in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, NATO ASI Series B, Vol. 226, A. I. Miller, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1990), pp. 17ff.
R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
A. Peres, LANL e-print archive, quant-ph/9707026 (1997).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1 (1996).
N. J. Cerf, C. Adami, and R. M. Gingrich, Phys. Rev. A 60, 898 (1999).
O. Rudolph, J. Phys. A 33, 3951 (2000).
E. P. Wigner, Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005 (1970).
V. Capasso, D. Fortunato, and F. Selleri, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 7, 319 (1973).
L. J. Landau, Phys. Lett. A 120, 54 (1987).
D. Bohm, B. J. Hiley, and P. N. Kaloyerou, Phys. Reports 144, 321 (1987).
Q. Zheng and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Essays 9, 447 (1996).
E. Bitsakis, Phys. Essays 9, 487 (1996).
A. Jabs, Phys. Essays 9, 36 (1996).
D. Athearn, Phys. Essays 10, 558 (1997).
D. Canals-Frau, Phys. Essays 11, 46 (1998).
D. Athearn, On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation (State University of New York Press, New York, 1994).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krüger, T. Towards a Deeper Understanding of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Problem. Foundations of Physics 30, 1869–1890 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003758305043
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003758305043