Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Multi-Screen Entanglement in Tensorial Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that entanglement is best understood as an intensive property of a multi-screen experimental arrangement, and that Tensorial Quantum Mechanics makes this precise through the Basis and Factorization Invariance theorems.

desk verdict TQM position paper: EA is just a density matrix; multi-screen entanglement never defined; load-bearing theorems unproved — not ready for review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04397 v1 pith:H367D66D submitted 2024-12-05 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Christian de Ronde , Raimundo Fernández Mouján , César Massri This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph
keywords multi-screenentanglementtensorialquantummechanicsbasisinvariancefactorizationintensivestateofaffairspotentiaexperimentalarrangementmeasures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the familiar obstacles of multipartite entanglement — the explosion of entanglement classes, basis dependence, and hard optimization problems — are artifacts of the standard vectorial formulation of quantum mechanics, and that they disappear when entanglement is described in Tensorial Quantum Mechanics (TQM). In TQM a physical situation is an Intensive State of Affairs: an assignment of intensities, called potentia, to projection operators over a Hilbert space. A concrete experimental setup is a tensor that represents an arrangement of screens and detectors. The paper's central claims are the Basis Invariance Theorem, that arrangements of the same complexity are equivalent under change of basis, and the Factorization Invariance Theorem, that every arrangement of degree $N$ is contained in any higher-degree arrangement built from the same underlying quantum laboratory (Q-Lab). If these hold, entanglement becomes a basis-invariant property of the experimental arrangement rather than of particles, and working with any number of screens is as straightforward as working with one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the experimental arrangement $EA^{N,i_1\ldots i_n}_{\Psi,B}$, a tensor over a factorization $\mathbb{C}^{i_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbb{C}^{i_n}$, where the basis $\{|k_1\ldots k_n\rangle\}$ fixes a choice of screens and detectors and the tensor components are the potentia (intensities) of joint powers of action. The Basis Invariance Theorem acts on this object by changing the basis while keeping the degree $N$ fixed, and the Factorization Invariance Theorem acts by changing the factorization, i.e., adding or removing screens; both transformations reduce to the standard tensor transformation law. The argument's work is done by these two theorems: they are what makes the intensity assignment invariant across different experimental arrangements, so that any screen configuration is a legitimate, comparable representation of the same Q-Lab, i.e., the same Intensive State of Affairs.

What would settle it

Take a specific experimental arrangement such as the four-screen tensor $\frac{1}{2}|0101\rangle\langle0101| + \frac{1}{2}|1111\rangle\langle1111|$, remove the fourth screen by the contraction rule, and compare the resulting three-screen tensor with the one obtained by first applying a non-product basis change and then removing the fourth screen; the two results must agree if the two invariance theorems are consistent. A single concrete mismatch would directly disprove the factorization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, in TQM, entanglement is an intensive multi-screen phenomenon rather than a property of composite particles. The state of affairs is given by an Intensive State of Affairs $\Psi$, and each concrete choice of screens, detectors, and basis determines an experimental arrangement, a tensor $EA_{\Psi,B}$ whose components are the potentia of joint powers and their coherent relations. The paper asserts two results about these tensors: all arrangements of the same degree of complexity are equivalent under basis change, and any arrangement of degree $N$ can be embedded in an arrangement of degree $N+M$ within the same Q-Lab, so decreasing the number of screens or detectors never produces information that was not already present. On this picture the multipartite puzzles of standard quantum theory — infinitely many entanglement classes, basis-dependent entanglement, and the difficulty of quantifying genuine multipartite entanglement — are consequences of a wrong choice of formalism and do not arise when entanglement is analyzed through experimental arrangements.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the unproved claim that the Basis Invariance and Factorization Invariance theorems hold as stated for the finite-dimensional screen arrangements used in the paper; if either theorem fails, the claimed invariant comparison of experimental arrangements collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two invariance theorems hold, entanglement can be redefined as an intensive property of an experimental arrangement, so the question 'is this state entangled?' becomes a question about a chosen screen-and-detector setup rather than about an abstract state in a fixed Hilbert space.
  • Adding or removing screens becomes a routine tensor operation: every lower-complexity arrangement is contained in a higher-complexity one from the same Q-Lab, so no new conceptual machinery is needed for three, four, or seven screens.
  • The standard multipartite entanglement classification by equivalence classes under local operations becomes unnecessary, because the framework replaces state equivalence with basis and factorization invariance of experimental arrangements.
  • The same graphical representation — points for one screen, lines for two, filled polytopes for $n$ screens — extends to any number of screens and detectors, which the paper uses as evidence that complexity growth is not a conceptual obstacle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the Factorization Invariance Theorem is correct, it suggests a partial ordering of experimental arrangements by informational content (higher degree contains lower degree), a principle the paper states informally but does not formalize.
  • Editorial inference: the identification of entanglement with the full arrangement tensor implies that conventional entanglement measures are factorization-relative rather than fundamental; this is a stronger claim than the formal theorems alone and would require additional philosophical argument.
  • Editorial inference: a direct laboratory test could compare the measured intensities of joint detector clicks in arrangements with different numbers of screens and check the tensor transformation law, although the paper does not propose an experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'tensorial quantum mechanics' (TQM) framework in which an experimental arrangement (EA) is defined as a matrix indexed by multi-screen detector outcomes (Definition 2.7). It claims this provides an invariant-objective formalization of 'multi-screen entanglement' that escapes the difficulties of standard multipartite entanglement. The two central theorems, Basis Invariance (Theorem 2.9) and Factorization Invariance (Theorem 2.10), are stated without proof. The paper argues that the multipartite entanglement obstacles listed in Section 4 disappear within TQM, and illustrates this with a four-screen example that removes one screen.

Significance. If the program were fully developed, grounding entanglement in experimental arrangements rather than particles could be a conceptual shift with connections to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and to the Deutsch-Hayden descriptors and Raymond-Robichaud noumenal states mentioned in Section 4. The paper is openly programmatic and explicitly relates to existing approaches, which is a useful framing. However, the present manuscript does not establish the central claim: the formal object reduces to standard density matrices, the key theorems are unproved, and the sole example is fully separable. No definition of entanglement in TQM is given, so the claimed advantages over multipartite entanglement theory are not demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2 (Theorems 2.9 and 2.10)] The two theorems that carry the paper's central claim are stated without proof or precise formal statement. The text only says 'see for a detailed analysis [10,16]' and then gives a basis-change formula. The reader cannot verify what 'equivalent' (Theorem 2.9) or 'reproduced in a higher-complexity arrangement' (Theorem 2.10) means, nor under what conditions they hold. Because these theorems are the basis for the claimed invariance of multi-screen entanglement and the containment of lower-complexity arrangements in higher-complexity ones, the central argument is not self-contained.
  2. [Section 2 (Definition 2.7)] The EA is defined as a matrix Σ α^{k'...}_{k...} |k...><k'...| on the tensor product C^{i1}⊗...⊗C^{in}. This is exactly a density matrix on a tensor-product Hilbert space, up to the usual Hermiticity and trace conditions, which are not stated. The text itself concedes that the two-screen case 'is linked to the orthodox extension to density matrices.' Consequently, the Section 4 obstacles—infinite SLOCC classes, failure of the genuine requirement, geometric and optimization complexity—are properties of exactly this class of objects. The paper provides no argument that relabeling 'parties' as 'screens' changes any of these properties.
  3. [Section 4 (example)] The single quantitative example, EA = 1/2 |0101><0101| + 1/2 |1111><1111|, is a convex combination of two product-state projectors, hence fully separable by every standard multipartite separability criterion. As such, it does not illustrate the phenomenon the paper claims to formalize. Moreover, the paper nowhere defines what it means for a general EA to be 'entangled'; the phrase 'multi-screen entanglement' is used throughout but never formally introduced.
  4. [Section 2 (Definitions 2.3 and 2.5)] There is an unstated jump from the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space H in the definition of ISA to the finite-dimensional screen spaces C^n. Definition 2.7 says an EA is 'given an ISA, Ψ', but no construction is provided that maps a GIV on G(H) to the coefficients α in the finite-dimensional expansion. This gap makes it impossible to check whether the EAs of the paper are actually derived from the ISA formalism.
  5. [Section 4 (final paragraph)] The claim that 'applying instead TQM, all these obstacles and problems ... simply disappear' is asserted without any derivation or reference to a proof; the only citations are to the authors' own [11,12]. The preceding example does not address any of the listed obstacles (no SLOCC classification, no measure, no optimization). Since this is the paper's main conclusion, the claim is unsupported as it stands.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] There are typos: 'completely straight forward' should be 'completely straightforward', and 'pure sate' should be 'pure state'.
  2. [Sections 1 and 4] Typos: Section 1 has 'the filed' instead of 'the field'; Section 4 has 'leaser complexity' instead of 'lesser complexity'.
  3. [Throughout] The terminology is inconsistent: the title uses 'Tensorial' but Section 2 speaks of a 'tensional formulation' and 'these leads to what we call a multi-screen analysis'; please standardize the terminology and grammar.
  4. [References] Reference [2] lists 'Aronson, S.' but the correct spelling is 'Aaronson, S.'; reference [28] is missing the author's initial.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The paper's central claim that TQM makes multipartite entanglement problems 'simply disappear' is supported by the authors' own prior work [10,11,12,16]; the two invariance theorems are unproved here, and the central EA object is a standard density matrix on a tensor-product Hilbert space, relabeled as a screen arrangement.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, after Definition 2.8; Theorems 2.9 and 2.10]
    "If the number of powers (i.e., the degree of complexity) remains the same after the rearrangement, then the Basis Invariance Theorem tell us that the new experimental arrangement is equivalent to the previous one, but if the complexity of the new experimental arrangement drops, then the Factorization Invariance Theorem tell us that all the knowledge in the new experimental arrangement was already contained in the previous one (see for a detailed analysis [10, 16])."

    Theorems 2.9 and 2.10 are the load-bearing premises for the paper's claim that changing experimental arrangements is 'completely straight forward' and that lower-complexity EAs are contained in higher-complexity ones. In this paper they are stated without proof and justified only by the authors' own [10,16]. No independent proof, machine-checked formalization, or external reproduction is cited. The subsequent conclusion that all multipartite obstacles 'simply disappear' therefore inherits its support from this self-citation chain rather than from a derivation contained in the paper.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4, after the bullet list of multipartite obstacles]
    "These obstacles make the study of multipartite entanglement a complex field full of difficulties and dead ends which add to the long list of problems already present within SQM itself. However, applying instead TQM, all these obstacles and problems, as shown in [11, 12], simply disappear."

    This sentence is the paper's central payoff: the infinite SLOCC classes, lack of multipartite measures, the genuine requirement, geometric complexity, and hard optimization procedures are declared to disappear under TQM. The only support offered is the citation to [11,12], both authored by the same three authors and not independent, machine-checked, or reproduced here. The paper does not show how any of these obstacles is resolved for the EA objects it defines; it simply asserts the resolution by reference to prior self-citations.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Definition 2.7 and the final paragraph of Section 2]
    "Definition 2.7. Experimental Arrangement: ... EA N,i1...in Ψ,B = Σ i1 k1,k′1=1 · · · Σ in kn,k′n=1 α k′1,...,k′n k1,...,kn |k1 . . . kn⟩⟨k′1 . . . k′n|. Notice that while the case of a single screen corresponds to the orthodox vectorial approach, the case of two screens is linked to the orthodox extension to density matrices."

    The EA of Definition 2.7 is literally a matrix on the tensor-product Hilbert space, i.e., a density operator in Standard Quantum Mechanics, and the paper itself acknowledges that the two-screen case is 'linked to the orthodox extension to density matrices'. The claimed multi-screen analysis is therefore the standard density-matrix formalism with 'parties' renamed as 'screens'. The Section 4 obstacles are known properties of exactly these matrices, so they are not shown to vanish; they are renamed away. Presenting a relabeled standard object as the solution to the multipartite-entanglement problem is a renaming of a known result, not a new derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's central claim is short and terminates in self-citation. The two theorems that are supposed to guarantee basis and factorization invariance, Theorems 2.9 and 2.10, are stated without proof and referred to [10,16], both authored by the present authors. The Section 4 conclusion that all multipartite obstacles 'simply disappear' is directly supported by [11,12], again by the same authors, with no independent or machine-checked derivation supplied in this work. The external comparisons to Deutsch-Hayden, Raymond-Robichaud, and Bedard are similarity claims, not derivations that the listed obstacles disappear. In addition, the formal object EA is a standard density matrix on a tensor-product Hilbert space, and the paper admits that the two-screen case is the orthodox density-matrix extension; calling this 'multi-screen entanglement' is a relabeling rather than a new mathematical result. The paper's only quantitative example, EA = 1/2|0101><0101| + 1/2|1111><1111|, is a convex combination of product-state projectors and hence fully separable under standard criteria, which further shows that no new notion of an 'entangled EA' is actually defined. These considerations are not merely correctness concerns: the central claim that multipartite entanglement problems disappear is not independently derived but asserted via a self-citation chain and by renaming known density-matrix objects, so the circularity score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the paper is a formal-conceptual proposal. The central claims rest on the existence of a global intensive valuation, on the two invariance theorems taken from the authors' own earlier work, and on the dictionary matching screens to tensor factors. The main invented conceptual entity is the power of action, a reinterpretation of projectors with intensities; it has no independent falsifiable handle.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A Global Intensive Valuation exists on the graph of projectors of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, with Ψ(I)=1 and countable additivity for piecewise orthogonal projectors.
    Definition 2.3 assumes such a valuation without proof; it is needed for the ISA concept that underlies all experimental arrangements.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 2.9, Basis Invariance Theorem: all experimental arrangements of the same complexity are equivalent independent of basis.
    Stated without proof and referenced to the authors' own [10,16]; it is load-bearing for the claimed basis-invariant account of entanglement.
  • ad hoc to paper Theorem 2.10, Factorization Invariance Theorem: experiments in an arrangement can be reproduced in any arrangement of higher complexity within the same Q-Lab.
    Also stated without proof and referenced to [10,16]; it underpins the claim that adding screens is always consistent.
  • domain assumption Screens and detectors can be identified with tensor factors and bases of finite-dimensional complex spaces.
    Definitions 2.5 through 2.7 make this identification; it is the conceptual bridge that lets the formalism call a tensor an experimental arrangement.
invented entities (1)
  • Power of action (potentia)
    purpose: A projector with an intensity, used to replace particle-based causal explanations of measurement with an invariant 'power' acting globally on detectors.
    No new falsifiable prediction is attached; it is a reinterpretation of standard projection operators as objective intensive actualizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Screen Entanglement in Tensorial Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H367D66D

@misc{pith2026241204397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Screen Entanglement in Tensorial Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H367D66D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04397}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we present an invariant-objective formalization of multi screen-entanglement grounded on Tensorial Quantum Mechanics (TQM) [12]. This new tensorial formulation of the theory of quanta -- basically, an extension of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics -- allows not only to escape the many problems present in the current account of multi-partite entanglement grounded on the Dirac-Von Neumann Standard formulation of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) but, more importantly, to consistently represent entanglement phenomena when considering a multiplicity of different screens and detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One screen with one detector where the only power of action has intensity 1. If we go to the case of two detectors in one screen we recover the known situation of a Stern-Gerlach experiment described by two powers with a specific potentia each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One screen with two detectors where the first power of action has intensity 0.7 and the second power has intensity 0.3. Notice that the following representation is what the orthodox literature considers a pure state |k⟩ in a six dimensional Hilbert space obtainable with certainty (see [14]) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. One screen with six detectors where the first power has intensity 1. It is easy to see why, contrary to SQM, where the notion of pure sate is kernel and contra-posed to the notion of mixture, in TQM this is the less interesting case, the one with less complexity, and consequently, the one that provides less knowledge with respect to the state of affairs in question. While in the case of one screen powers are represe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two screens with two different configurations of detectors. If we add one more screen the powers become filled triangles like we show in the next two examples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three screens with two and three detectors where each different power is depicted as a specific triangle. In order to produce a more readable figure, it may be convenient to depict only some of the powers. For example, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three screens with two detectors each. Some of the powers are shown. Notice that we can add several screens without entering in a contradiction with the set of concepts that we already developed. In particular, for n screens the powers will be represented by filled pol…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Five screens with two detectors each. In the left, all the powers are shown. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Seven screens with three detectors each. In the left, all powers are represented. 4 Multi-Partite Entanglement vs Multi-Screen Entanglement There are many advantages to the multi-screen proposal when compared to the multi-partite approach. First, while in the multi-par…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Four screens with two detectors where 2 different powers are depicted as a specific squares. In this case, the experimental arrangement is given by the following tensor: EAΨ,B = 1 2 |0101⟩⟨0101| + 1 2 |1111⟩⟨1111|. Now, if we remove the fourth screen, that is, if we co…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The new experimental arrangement after removing a screen. The new experimental arrangement is then given by the following tensor: EAΨ,B′ = 1 2 |010⟩⟨010| + 1 2 |111⟩⟨111|. Acknowledgements The authors state that there is no conflict of interest. This work was partiall…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerts, D., 1981, The one and the many: towards a unification of the quantum a classical description of one and many physical entities , Doctoral dissertation, Brussels Free University, Brussels

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    Aronson, S., 2013, Quantum Computing since Democritus , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    The ABC of Deutsch-Hayden Descriptors

    B´ edard, C.A., 2020,“The ABC of Deutsch-Hayden descriptors”, preprint (quant-ph/2012.11189)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    The cost of quantum locality

    B´ edard, C.A., 2021, “The cost of quantum locality”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 477, 20200602

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    & Zyczkowski, K., 2006, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entan- glement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Bengtsson, I. & Zyczkowski, K., 2006, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entan- glement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement

    Bengtsson, I. & Zyczkowski, K., 2016, “A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement”, preprint (quant- ph:1612.07747)

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Characterizing entanglement

    Bruß, D., 2002, “Characterizing entanglement”, Journal of Mathematical Physics , 43, 4237-4251

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Entanglement for all quantum states

    de la Torre, A.C., Goyeneche, D. & Leitao, L., 2010, “Entanglement for all quantum states”, European Journal of Physics , 31, 325-332

    work page 2010

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Logic in Historical and Philosophical Perspec- tive

    de Ronde, C., Domenech, G. & Freytes, H., 2018, “Quantum Logic in Historical and Philosophical Perspec- tive”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , URL: https://iep.utm.edu/qu-logic/

    2018

  2. [10]

    Equivalence Relations in Quantum Theory: An Objective Account of Bases and Factorizations

    de Ronde, C., Fern´ andez Mouj´ an, R. & Massri, C., 2024, “Equivalence Relations in Quantum Theory: An Objective Account of Bases and Factorizations”, sent (quant-ph:2404.14891)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Everything is Entangled in Quantum Mechanics: On the Measures of Quantum Entanglement

    de Ronde, C., Fern´ andez Mouj´ an, R. & Massri, C., 2024, “Everything is Entangled in Quantum Mechanics: On the Measures of Quantum Entanglement”, European Physical Journal Plus , forthcoming

    2024

  4. [12]

    Tensorial Quantum Mechanics: Back to Heisen- berg and Beyond

    de Ronde, C., Fern´ andez Mouj´ an, R. & Massri, C., 2024, “Tensorial Quantum Mechanics: Back to Heisen- berg and Beyond”, sent (quant-ph:2410.09535)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen- Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations

    de Ronde, C. & Massri, C., 2021, “The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen- Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations.”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 60, 429-456

    2021

  6. [14]

    Against the Tyranny of Pure States in Quantum Theory

    de Ronde, C. & Massri, C., 2021, “Against the Tyranny of Pure States in Quantum Theory”, Foundations of Science, 27, 27-41

    2021

  7. [15]

    The Many Inconsistencies of the Purity-Mixture Distinction in Standard Quantum Mechanics

    de Ronde, C. & Massri, C., 2022, “The Many Inconsistencies of the Purity-Mixture Distinction in Standard Quantum Mechanics”, sent (quant-ph:2208.10574)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Relational quantum entanglement beyond non-separable and contextual relativism

    de Ronde, C. & Massri, C., 2023, “Relational quantum entanglement beyond non-separable and contextual relativism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 97, 68-78

    2023

  9. [17]

    Information flow in entangled quantum systems

    Deutsch, D. & Hayden, P., 2000, “Information flow in entangled quantum systems”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A , 456, 1759-1774

    2000

  10. [18]

    Some Puzzles and Unresolved Issues About Quantum Entanglement

    Earman, J., 2015, “Some Puzzles and Unresolved Issues About Quantum Entanglement”, Erkenntnis, 80, 303-337

    2015

  11. [19]

    On the problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics

    Kochen, S. & Specker, E., 1967, “On the problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics , 17, 59-87. Reprinted in Hooker, 1975, 293-328

    1967

  12. [20]

    Multipartite entanglement measures: a review

    Ma, M., Li, Y. & Shang, J., 2023, “Multipartite entanglement measures: a review”, Fundamental Research, forthcoming (quant-ph:2309.09459)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mermin, D., 2007, Quantum Computer Science , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10

    2007

  14. [22]

    Multipartite entanglement among single spins in diamond

    Neumann, P., Mizuochi, N., Rempp, F., Hemmer, P., Watanabe, H., Yamasaki, S., Jacques, V., Gaebel, T., Jelezko, F. & Wrachtrup, J., 2008. “Multipartite entanglement among single spins in diamond”, Science, 320, 1326-1329

    2008

  15. [23]

    Nielsen & Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information , Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge

  16. [24]

    Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts

    Piron, C., 1976, Foundations of Quantum Physics , W.A. Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts

    1976

  17. [25]

    The equivalence of local-realistic and no-signalling theories

    Raymond-Robichaud, P., 2017, “The equivalence of local-realistic and no-signalling theories”, preprint (quant-ph/1710.01380)

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A local-realistic model for quantum theory

    Raymond-Robichaud, P., 2020, “A local-realistic model for quantum theory”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477, 20200897, (quant-ph/2010.14303)

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Multipartite entanglement theory with entanglement-nonincreasing operations

    Streltsov, A., 2023, “Multipartite entanglement theory with entanglement-nonincreasing operations”, preprint, (quant-ph:2305.18999)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wilde, M.M., 2013, Quantum information Theory , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    2013

  21. [29]

    Multipartite Entanglement: A Journey through Geom- etry

    Xie, S., Younis, D., Mei, Y. & Eberly, J.H., 2024, “Multipartite Entanglement: A Journey through Geom- etry”, Entropy, 26, 217. 11

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.