Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Closer Look at EPR Paradox and Bell’s Inequality
Current Issue
Volume 2, 2015
Issue 2 (April)
Pages: 16-20   |   Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2015   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 27   Since Aug. 28, 2015 Views: 971   Since Aug. 28, 2015
Authors
[1]
Vladimir K. Ignatovich, Frank Laboratory of Neutron Physics of Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia.
Abstract
The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.
Keywords
Quantum Mechanics, Uncertainty Relations, EPR Paradox, Bell’s Inequality, Hidden Parameters, Photon Polarization
Reference
[1]
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Physical Review. May 15, 1935, v47, pp 777-780.
[2]
J.S. Bell. Physics 1 (1964) 195; J.S. Bell. “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics." Cambridge University press, 2004, p. 14.
[3]
Aspect A, Grangier P, Roger G. “Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell's theorem.” Phys. Rev. Let. 47 (1981) 460.
[4]
C.A. Kocher, E.D. Commins, ``Polarization correlation of photons emitted in an atomic cascade.'' Phys. Rev. Let 18 (1967) 575-577.
[5]
V.K. Ignatovich “On EPR paradox, Bell's inequalities and experiments which prove nothing.” Concepts of Phys. Old and new 5(2008):227.
[6]
M. Utsuro, V.K. Ignatovich, “Handbook of neutron optics” Wiley-VCH, Berlin (2010) p. 465.
[7]
V.K. Ignatovich “Comment on “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” “American Journal of Modern Physics and Application 1(2014)1-6.
[8]
J. von Neumann, “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics” Princeton U.P., Princeton, 1955.
[9]
D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov.”Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky," Phys. Rev. 108 (1957) 1070.
[10]
F. Laloe, “Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems."Am. J. Phys. 69 (2001) 655-701.
[11]
T. Norsen, “John S. Bell's concept of local causality,” Am. J. Phys. 79 1261-1275 (2011)
[12]
N.D. Mermin. “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell”. Rev. Mod. Phys, 65 (1993) 803.
[13]
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, ‘‘Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variables theories,’’ Phys. Rev. Let. 23 ( 1969) 880.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved