See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221701330

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Article

CITATIONS READS

11 864

7 authors, including:

Peter Drummond Ping Koy Lam

Swinburne University of Technology Australian National University
483 PUBLICATIONS   12,722 CITATIONS    424 PUBLICATIONS   11,822 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hans-A Bachor Ulrik L. Andersen

Australian National University Technical University of Denmark
248 PUBLICATIONS   4,406 CITATIONS    256 PUBLICATIONS   4,273 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Neuro science View project

Polarization squeezing and entanglement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ping Koy Lam on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
M. D. Reid1 , P. D. Drummond1 , W. P. Bowen2
P. K. Lam3 , H. A. Bachor3 , U. L. Andersen4 and G. Leuchs4
1 ACQAO, School of Physical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
2 Physics Department, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
3 ACQAO, Building 38, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
4 Max-Planck Forschungsgruppe, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg, Erlangen, Germany

This report covers a Colloquium review[1] commissioned by the most prestigious review journal in
Physics - Reviews of Modern Physics. The Colloquium covers the field of the EPR paradox from the
original paper of Einstein Podolsky and Rosen, together with the responses of Schroedinger and Bohr,
through to modern proposals of how to demonstrate and utilise the paradox as an inequality in an
optical or ultra-cold atom experiment.

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen[2] originated the famous EPR paradox. Their argument concerned two
spatially separated particles with perfectly correlated positions and momenta, as predicted by quantum
mechanics, and showed an inconsistency between the premise of local realism and the completeness
of quantum mechanics. Thus, the insightful analysis of EPR played a key development role in showing
how quantum reality differs from classical reality. The purpose of the Colloquium review is to analyze
the theoretical and experimental status of the EPR paradox at the start of the twenty-first century.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen gedanken-experiment was realized through a series of important devel-

opments. The first was theoretical: a practical inequality that could be experimentally violated, rather
than an unattainable state with perfect correlations[3]. The second was the transformation of the EPR
concept to a second-quantization environment, in which field quadratures that are measurable at the
quantum limit replaced the original momentum and position variables[4]. The third was an actual ex-
perimental measurement violating the inferred Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which was therefore
the first demonstration of continuous-variable entanglement.

This recent theoretical work as well as the best quality current experiments[5, 6, 7] were carried out
by researchers within the ACQAO Center and its partner Centers. Accordingly, the review has been a
great opportunity to bring together theoretical and experimental researchers throughout ACQAO, and
to describe both theoretical and practical experimental work in a unified way.

In the review, we analyse the experimental confirmation of the EPR paradox in laser-based exper-
iments. As well as the EPR paradox itself, we treat the links and relationships with entanglement
criteria[8], and Bell’s inequalities. Recent experiments covered include the continuous-wave parametric
amplifier experiments and the fibre soliton technique, which gives a pulsed signature of the paradox. In
addition, we discuss the current proposals for extending these types of experiment to massive-particle
systems, including spin-squeezing, atomic position entanglement, and quadrature entanglement in
ultra-cold atoms[9].

References

[1] M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen and G. Leuchs, submitted
to Rev. Mod Phys.
[2] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
[3] M. D. Reid, Phys. Rev. A 40, 913 (1989).
[4] M. D. Reid and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2731 (1988).
[5] W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, P. K. Lam, T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 043601 (2003).
[6] W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, H. A. Bachor and P. K. Lam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 203601 (2002).
[7] C. Silberhorn, P. K. Lam, O. Weiss, F. Koenig, N. Korolkova and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4267 (20001).
[8] O. Gl`‘ockl, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012306 (2006).
[9] K. V. Kheruntsyan, M. K. Olsen, and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150405 (2005).
View publication stats