Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
Eugen Muchowski
E-mail: eugen@muchowski.de
Address: Primelstraße 10, D-85591 Vaterstetten
2016-04-28
Abstract. A system of two polarized photons in singlet state appears as being in one of two
product states independent of any measurement. These states depend on the selected
polarization angles. With the polarizers on either side perpendicular to each other, both photons
pass the polarizers without any disturbance. Action at a distance is therefore not needed to
explain the results of the measurements. In general, the elements of physical reality demanded
by EPR are the polarization states of the two photons of the entangled pair. As these are local
elements in the regions of space of the polarizers the EPR paradox for the case of entangled
photons can be regarded as resolved.
1. Introduction
The polarization behaviour of entangled photons is widely discussed. A general overview is given by
Laloe [1]. The paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [2] had initiated a discussion whether the
theory of quantum mechanics (QM) is incomplete. The EPR argument when applied to entangled
photons says as follows (see also Aspect et al. [3]): Suppose we have a pair of entangled photons in
singlet state. Both photons are propagating in opposite directions towards polarization measuring
devices A and B consisting of polarizing beam splitters and detectors. A coincidence measuring
device encounters coinciding events at the two detectors. When after measurement of the polarization
of one photon the polarization of the other photon can be predicted in advance with certainty, there
must exist an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity according to EPR.
John Bell with his celebrated theorem [4] was the first to prove that it is impossible to explain the
predictions of quantum mechanics with local variables. QM were a nonlocal theory, many authors
claim [5], and there would be action at a distance in order to have a far distant photon forced to a
particular polarization upon measurement of the peer particle. This action at a distance is faster than
light as was experimentally proven by some authors including Weihs [6]. However, it was stated, that
no information transport is possible through the quantum channel of entangled photons [7]. Without
coincidence measurement between both sides which is restricted to the speed of light no significant
signal can be detected on either side. After Bell there was no chance left for a local theory with hidden
variables. Some authors have therefore established nonlocal models in order to explain the predictions
of QM, see Leggett [8]. Branciard and others [9] have experimentally falsified Leggett’s model in
agreement with QM. So up to date there exists no statistical model neither local nor nonlocal able to
explain what were behind quantum physics. Ballentine [10] and others have already pointed out that
the reduced states on either side of the entangled photon pair are mixtures.
1
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
2. MethodandReasoning
In this paper we use a different approach to explain the behaviour of entangled photons. We do not
add another statistical theory. Instead we try to find the solution within the framework of QM itself.
With two particles at a distance distant action is inevitable if there were action at all. Then a promising
approach is to assume, the two entangled photons are in an eigenstate of a projection operator before
the measurement. Matching setting of the polarizers presupposed, the polarization of the photon pair
will not be affected during the measurement and no distant action is required to explain the results.
In order to exclude action at a distance, one has to prove that a measurement at one photon does not
affect the state of the other photon of the entangled pair. Otherwise its state would change after it had
left the photon source. The proof is given in the next section and sketched below in three assertions:
1. The reduced state of the photons at each side is a mixed state of photons with polarization
perpendicular to each other in equal shares. (See Ballentine [10, p. 216], applied to spin 1
particles.) The density matrices of the mixtures are rotationally invariant. Thus the photon
state at each side is a mixed state of polarization α and α+π/2 at equal shares for any selected
polarization angle α.
2. The singlet state is a superposition of two separable states, each of which is a product state of
the two photon states.
3. The system represented by the singlet state appears as being in one of the two product states
mentioned above prior to a measurement. With the polarizers on either side perpendicular to
each other both photons pass the polarizers without disturbance.
3. Theentangledphotonpairisinaproductstatepriortomeasurement
Suppose we have a pair of entangled photons in singlet state. Both photons are propagating in opposite
directions towards polarization measuring devices A and B consisting of polarizing beam splitters and
detectors. A coincidence measuring device encounters simultaneous events at the two detectors. The
polarizing angles can be adjusted at each side.
In the following we use subscript 1 for side A and subscript 2 for side B. The Hilbert space for the
combined system is H12 = H1VH2. The coordinate system is perpendicular to the propagation direction
of the photons. Normalized base vectors are |H1> and |V1> for system 1 on side A and |H2> and |V2>
for system 2 on Side B. |H1> and |H2> correspond to the x-axis and |V1> and |V2> correspond to the yaxis. Angular measurement starts from the x-axis counter clockwise. |Ψα,β > defines a product state of
system 1 with system 2 with polarization α and β respectively.
The source is assumed to be in the singlet state:
|Ψ> =1/√2(|H1V2>-|V1H2>).
(1)
With the product states
|Ψα,α+π/2> = {cos(α)|H1> +sin(α)|V1>} V {cos(α+π/2)|H2>+sin(α+π/2)|V2>}
= -cos(α)sin(α)|H1H2> +cos2(α)|H1V2> -sin2(α)|V1H2> +sin(α)cos(α)|V1V2>
2
(2)
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
and
|Ψα+π/2,α+π> = {cos(α+π/2)|H1>+sin(α+π/2)|V1>}V {cos(α+π)|H2>+sin(α+π)|V2>}
= sin(α)cos(α)|H1H2> +sin2(α)|H1V2> -cos2(α)|V1H2> -cos(α)sin(α)|V1V2>
(3)
we obtain the superposition
|Ψ> = 1/√2|Ψ α,α+π/2> +1/√2|Ψ α+π/2, α+π > =1/√2(|H1V2>-|V1H2>).
(4)
Assertion 1 says the reduced states of the photons at each side are mixtures of two states with
polarization α and α+π/2 in equal shares for any selected polarization angle α. This means we can
freely choose a polarization angle α and obtain the mixed states accordingly. Choosing the two states
of the mixture of system 1(side A) with polarization angles α and α+π/2 respectively and of system
2(side B) with polarization angles α+π/2 and α+π respectively, one gets the four possible product
states
|Ψα,α+π/2> = {cos(α)|H1> +sin(α)|V1>} V {cos(α+π/2)|H2>+sin(α+π/2)|V2>},
(5)
|Ψα+π/2,α+π> = {cos(α+π/2)|H1>+sin(α+π/2)|V1>}V {cos(α+π)|H2>+sin(α+π)|V2>},
(6)
|Ψα,α+π> = {cos(α)|H1> +sin(α)|V1>} V {cos(α+π)|H2>+sin(α+π)|V2>} and
(7)
|Ψα+π/2,α+π/2> = {cos(α+π/2)|H1>+sin(α+π/2)|V1>}V{cos(α+π/2)|H2>+sin(α+π/2)|V2>}.
(8)
Only the first two product states (5) and (6) do contribute to the singlet state as can be seen from eq.
(4). Hence, it is not possible at all to find a photon pair from the singlet state in one of the two states
(7) and (8). So it remains that half of the photons of system 1 with polarization α constitute the product
state |Ψα,α+π/2> with half of the photons of system 2 featuring polarization angle α+π/2. The same
applies to the pair α+π/2, α+π constituting the product state |Ψα+π/2,α+π>.
Thus, the system represented by the singlet state is in one of the two product states |Ψα,α+π/2> and
|Ψα+π/2,α+π> for any selected polarization angle α independent of a measurement. This is true for any
single photon pair from the entangled state. While there is no preferred value of α we can ask the
following:
Suppose the polarizer setting α at side A and α+π/2 at side B. The system was in singlet state before a
polarization measurement was performed showing an outcome of α at side A and α+π/2 at side B. Can
we say anything specific about in which product state the system was before the measurement? Yes,
we can. Any state before measurement other than |Ψα,α+π/2> would not reproduce the experimental
outcome of the singlet state.
Could the 2-particle system have been in another state e.g. |Ψγ,γ+π/2> before the measurement although
the polarizer at side A is set to α? We will see this is either in conflict with the predictions of quantum
physics or equivalent to the case γ=α. Having the target state with the same polarizer angles α at A and
B the probability that a photon passes at A and the peer passes at B is
P = (<Ψα,α| Ψγ,γ+π/2 >)2 = sin2(α-γ) cos2(α-γ).
3
(9)
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
P greater zero is excluded as it is neither experimentally observed nor theoretically possible with the
singlet state. Therefor (α–γ) = 0 or (α–γ) = +/-π/2 respectively. The cases γ = α +/- π/2 are also
excluded if a photon was observed at side A at an angle α. Thus, if a photon was observed at side A at
an angle α the system represented by the singlet state was in deed in state |Ψα,α+π/2> before the
measurement. The proper state depends on the polarizer setting not in the sense that the polarizer
setting influences the state in an occult manner but rather that the polarizers at either side collect all
photons which are in the respective state given by their setting. With the conclusions above we can
positively answer the question: “Is it thinkable that the photon pair is in such a definite state before
measurement that it passes the polarizers without disturbance?”
The mixture property is not absolute as it depends on the selected polarization angle. It is rotationally
invariant whereas a mixture consisting of two definite states would be not. A superposition of product
states as mentioned above can be regarded as a mixture of those states for any selected polarization
angle. Doing so would predict the same measurement outcome e.g. infringing Bells inequality as the
singlet state does. See also eq. (20).
4. Eigenstatesexistforarbitrarypolarizationangledifference
In the following we extend the analysis from the singlet state to a wider set of entangled states. The
polarization difference between the two photons of the entangled pair is now an arbitrary angle ϑ
instead of the right angle with the singlet state. Suppose we have a pair of photons now with arbitrary
entangled state. The setup is as above. With the eigenstates
|Ψα,α+ϑ > = {cos(α) |H1> +sin(α) |V1>}V {cos(α+ϑ ) |H2> +sin(α+ϑ ) |V2>} and
(10)
|Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2> = {cos(α+π/2)|H1> +sin(α+π/2)|V1>}V {cos(α+ϑ+π/2 )|H2> +sin(α+ϑ+π/2 )|V2>}
(11)
we obtain the superposition
|Ψ> = 1/√2|Ψα,α+ϑ> +1/√2|Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2>
(12)
which can be written as
|Ψ> = 1/√2{cos(ϑ)(|H1H2> +|V1V2>) + sin(ϑ)(|H1V2>-|V1H2>)}
(13)
and equals the singlet state for for ϑ = π/2. Then the probability to detect a photon at a polarization
angle β at side B after the peer photon was observed at an angle α at side A is
<Ψα,β|Ψα, α+ϑ >2 = {cos(α)cos(β)cos(α)cos(α+ϑ ) + cos(α) sin(β)cos(α)sin(α+ϑ)
+ sin(α)cos(β)sin(α)cos(α+ϑ ) + sin(α)sin(β)sin(α)sin(α+ϑ)}2 =cos2(β-α-ϑ).
This is the law of Malus for ϑ =0.
Using straight forward calculation one easily obtains the reduced states on either side being
rotationally invariant mixtures as stated in assertion 1. Thus the reasoning of paragraph 3 does also
apply to arbitrary entangled states of eqs. (12) and (13) respectively. And the conclusion also holds
true that the entangled system with arbitrary entangled photons is in one of the two states |Ψα,α+ϑ> and
|Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2> respectively independent of any measurement.
4
(14)
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
Being in one of two product states (10) and (11) the entangled system behaves like a mixture of the
two states. In the following we show that a mixture and a superposition of the (α-dependent) product
states (10) and (11) predict the same probabilities for any measurement result. With the nomenclatures
above we obtain the density matrix of the superposed state as
ρS= ½ {|Ψα,α+ϑ> +|Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2>}V {<Ψα,α+ϑ|+<Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2|}
(15)
and of the mixed state as
ρM= ½ {|Ψα,α+ϑ> <Ψα,α+ϑ| + |Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2><Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2}
(16)
From Eq. (15) and (16) we obtain
ρS= ρM + ½{|Ψα,α+ϑ> <Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2|+ |Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2><Ψα,α+ϑ|}.
(17)
ρS and ρM are not equal. But when applied to calculate the probability for a photon pair passing a target
<Ψα,β|, we find for the pure state
PS = TR((ρM + ½{|Ψα,α+ϑ> <Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2|+ |Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2><Ψα,α+ϑ|})|Ψα,β><Ψα,β|) having
(18)
PS = TR(ρM |Ψα,β><Ψα,β|) +
½TR( |Ψα,α+ϑ> <Ψ α+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2||Ψα,β><Ψα,β| + |Ψα+π/2,α+ϑ+π/2><Ψα,α+ϑ||Ψα,β><Ψα,β|)
(19)
As all states are product states with the photon states at each side perpendicular to each other the trace
over last term in Eq. (26) vanishes and we get
PS = TR(ρM |Ψα,β><Ψα,β|) = PM which is the same but calculated from the mixed state.
(20)
5. Singlephotonsarealsointhemeasuredstatepriortomeasurement
With the entangled pair being in one of the two states (5) and (6) the photons at either side are also in a
definite state prior to a measurement. Then it is an obvious question, whether this is the case with
entangled photons only or with a mixture of single photons as well. Assume a photon beam with a
density matrix ρ = ½ (|Ψα>< Ψα| + |Ψα+π/2>< Ψα+π/2|) and have a polarizing beam splitter with two
detectors at the exits at the polarization angles α and α+π/2 respectively put into the beam. One half of
the photons will be encountered in the detector at α and the other half at α+π/2 respectively. In which
state are the photons before measurement?
With 50% of the photons in state |Ψα> and 50% in state |Ψα+π/2> before measurement the photons pass
the polarizer without any disturbance. Assuming the system were in state
ρ' = ½(|Ψβ >< Ψβ| + |Ψβ+π/2>< Ψβ+π/2|) would predict the same measurement outcome. As the physics
doesn’t change with the change of the viewing angle there is also no disturbance by the measurement
device. No disturbance means a photon from a mixture is in any case in the measured state prior to a
measurement. The proper state depends on the polarizer setting not in the sense that the polarizer
setting influences the state in an occult manner but rather that the polarizer collects all photons which
are in the respective state given by its setting.
5
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
6. Results
The singlet state of entangled photons is a superposition of two product states. The states depend on
the selected polarization angle. The system appears as being in one of the two states independent of
any measurement. Matching polarizer setting presupposed, these states are eigenstates of the
appropriate projection operators. With the polarizers on either side perpendicular to each other both
photons pass the polarizers without any disturbance. Action at a distance is therefore not needed to
explain the results of the measurements. All actions are local. Eigenstates were calculated not only for
the singlet state but also for arbitrary polarization angle difference between the two photons on either
side.
7. DiscussionandConclusion
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [2] demanded there should exist an element of physical reality if one
can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity. With the setting of the polarizers, for the
singlet state perpendicular to each other, there are only two possibilities of product states which can be
measured by such device with certainty. The eventually measured state exists from the birth of the
entangled pair and is found with certainty behind the polarizers. This is a local action if there were
action at all. In general, the elements of physical reality demanded by EPR are the polarization states
of the two photons of the entangled pair. As these are local elements in the regions of space of the
polarizers the EPR paradox for the case of entangled photons can be regarded as resolved.
Is this a contradiction to Bell's theorem [4]? No, because no hidden variables were introduced during
the course of the derivation and no infringement of Bell's theorem occurs as a consequence of the
conclusions above. All measurement results predicted are exactly in accordance with the predictions of
quantum physics. However, Bell’s generalization regarding the singlet state that the statistical
predictions of quantum mechanics were incompatible with separable predetermination is not supported
by the findings of this paper as the system in singlet state was found to be in one of two separable
states prior to a measurement. Bell had proved that no theory using hidden variables is able to explain
the predictions of quantum physics. This remains true. But within quantum physics the system can be
shown to be in a product state before measurement. Thus, nonlocality is not necessarily a consequence
of entanglement.
It was argued by EPR [2] quantum mechanics were incomplete as the singlet state does not take any
information about a specific solution whereas after measurement on one side the other side’s result can
be predicted with certainty. As the system in singlet state was found to be in one of two product states
prior to a measurement, the selected state is bearing specific information about the results on either
side.
Vollmer [11] and others have experimentally shown that it is possible to distribute entanglement with
separable carriers. As entangled photons are themselves in a separable state, these experiments can
well be understood.
6
Resolving the EPR Paradox for the Case of entangled Photons
We finally can say, the reality of entangled photon states is a multiple reality, real from any selected
point of view. The reason for this is that the mixed states of polarized photons on either side of the
experiment are a reality for any selected orientation of the polarization axes. Together with Malus’s
law is it this, why no approach with hidden variables succeeded in describing the predictions of
quantum physics. The results do also apply to comparable situations with entangled photons. The
phenomenon of teleportation for instance can also be explained with the assertions of this paper.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Harald Weinfurter and Prof. Dr. Michael Wolf for fruitful discussions
on the subject.
References
[1] Laloe, F.: Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes and
theorems. American Journal of Physics 69, 655 (2001)
[2] Einstein A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N.: Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical
Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47,777 (1935)
[3] Aspect, A., Grangier, P. & Roger, G. Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm
Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell's inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, (1982) 91-94
[4] Bell, J.S.: On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics (Long Island City N.Y.) 1, 195
(1964)
[5] Christensen, Bradley G., et al. "Exploring the limits of quantum nonlocality with entangled
photons." arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01649 (2015).
[6] Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A.: Violation of Bell's
Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998)
[7] Clauser, J. F. and M. A. Horne, M. A.: Experimental consequences of objective local theories.
Phys. Rev. D, 10, 526 (1974)
[8] Leggett, A. J.: Nonlocal Hidden-Variable Theories and Quantum Mechanics: An Incompatibility
Theorem. Found. of Phys., 33, 1469 (2003).
[9] Branciard, C., Ling, A., Gisin, N., Kurtsiefer, C., Lamas-Linares, A., and Scarani, V.:
Experimental Falsification of Leggett’s Nonlocal Variable Model. Phys Rev. Lett. 99, 210407
(2007)
[10] Ballentine, L. E., Quantum Mechanics: A modern Development; World Scientific Publishing Co.
Pte. Ltd Singapore (2010)
[11] Vollmer, C. E., Schulze, D., Eberle, T., Händchen, V., Fiurasek, J. and Schnabel, R.:
Experimental Entanglement Distribution by Separable States. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 230505
(2013)
7