Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Observation of quantum entanglement in $\Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ pair production via electron-positron annihilation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the first observation of quantum entanglement in a hyperon–antihyperon system, with a 124.9-sigma violation of the separable-state bound in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ decays from $J/\psi$.

desk verdict A checkable theory package for hyperon entanglement observables wrapped in a misleading claim: the 124.9σ 'observation' is just the BESIII αψ propagated through Eq. (70). read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09931 v1 pith:TMKWJEWO submitted 2025-05-15 hep-ph

Junle Pei , Xiqing Hao , Xiaochuan Wang , Tianjun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords quantumentanglementhyperon-antihyperonpairsLambda-antilambdaJ/psidecayangularcorrelationsseparable-stateboundsBellnonlocalityelectron-positronannihilation
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

The paper argues that $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ pairs produced in $e^+e^-$ annihilation through $J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ remain quantum-mechanically entangled through the strong production and subsequent weak decays. It constructs normalized angular-correlation observables from the decay products' directions, shows that entangled states can push $\mathcal{O}_1$ below $-1/2$ while separable states cannot, and reports $\mathcal{O}_{1,\min}^{\mathrm{Observed}} = -0.7374 \pm 0.0011 \pm 0.0016$ at $\cos\theta_\Lambda = 0$, exceeding the separable boundary by $124.9\sigma$. If the claim holds, it would be the first observation of entanglement in a baryon–antibaryon system and a new collider-based laboratory for testing nonlocality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized correlation observable $\mathcal{O}_1 = \langle\cos(\phi_1+\phi_2)\rangle / \left(-\frac{\pi^2}{32}\,\alpha_\Lambda \alpha_{\bar{\Lambda}}\right)$, built from the azimuthal angles $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ of the proton and antiproton in the $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ rest frames. Its normalization removes the weak-decay asymmetry parameters, leaving a quantity whose separable-state boundary $[-1/2,\,1/2]$ follows from factorizing the helicity amplitudes $\alpha_{k,j} = \beta_k \gamma_j$. The predicted entangled value comes from integrating the full angular distribution $W$ for the cascade $e^+e^- \to J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda} \to p\pi^- \bar{p}\pi^+$, with the $J/\psi$ form-factor ratio entering through $\alpha_\psi$. The same construction yields $\mathcal{O}_2$, $\mathcal{O}_3$, and $\mathcal{O}_4$, but only $\mathcal{O}_1$ (and in principle $\mathcal{O}_2$) can exit the separable window, and for the measured $\alpha_\psi > 0$ it is $\mathcal{O}_1$ that does so.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the actual $e^+e^- \to J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ event sample: measure the joint distribution of the proton and antiproton azimuthal angles $\phi_1+\phi_2$ in the $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ rest frames at $\cos\theta_\Lambda = 0$, apply detector corrections, and check directly whether $\mathcal{O}_1$ lies below $-1/2$; if no event-level analysis reproduces $\mathcal{O}_{1,\min} \approx -0.737$, the claimed observation is an artifact of substituting $\alpha_\psi$. Independently, verify that the separable-state boundary $[-1/2,\,1/2]$ remains valid for all factorizable states including nonzero $\Delta\phi$; if the boundary shifts, the reported significance changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observable $\mathcal{O}_1 = \langle\cos(\phi_1+\phi_2)\rangle / \left(-\frac{\pi^2}{32}\,\alpha_\Lambda \alpha_{\bar{\Lambda}}\right)$ is an entanglement witness for $J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$: separable, factorizable spin states must give $\mathcal{O}_1 \in [-1/2,\,1/2]$, whereas the entangled state produced by $e^+e^- \to J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ gives $\mathcal{O}_1 = -\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha_\psi)\,\frac{1-\cos^2\theta_\Lambda}{1+\alpha_\psi \cos^2\theta_\Lambda}$, which falls below $-1/2$ wherever $|\cos\theta_\Lambda| < 1/\sqrt{2+1/\alpha_\psi}$. Using the measured $\alpha_\psi = 0.4748 \pm 0.0022 \pm 0.0031$ gives $\mathcal{O}_{1,\min}^{\mathrm{Observed}} = -0.7374 \pm 0.0011 \pm 0.0016$, a violation of the separable-state bound by $124.9\sigma$. The paper reads this as proof that entanglement persists through both the strong production process and the weak decays $\Lambda \to p\pi^-$, $\bar{\Lambda} \to \bar{p}\pi^+$, and, since 69.3% of the decays are spacelike-separated, as support for the nonlocality of quantum mechanics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that inserting the published BESIII value of the $J/\psi$ decay asymmetry $\alpha_\psi$ into the theoretical formula for $\mathcal{O}_1$ counts as an experimental measurement of that angular correlation; if that substitution is not a real event-level measurement, the reported 124.9-$\sigma$ violation is merely propagation of a previously known parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, this is the first observation of quantum entanglement in a hyperon–antihyperon system, extending entanglement tests from photons, atoms, and top quarks to baryons produced and decaying via strong and weak interactions.
  • Entanglement surviving both the strong $J/\psi$ production and the weak $\Lambda$, $\bar{\Lambda}$ decays establishes hyperon pairs as a new laboratory for studying when quantum correlations persist in relativistic particle processes.
  • Because more than two-thirds of the decay events are spacelike-separated, the result supports the nonlocality of quantum mechanics in a high-energy setting, complementing Bell tests at low energies.
  • The observable construction provides a template for future entanglement searches in other baryon–antibaryon channels, such as $\psi(2S) \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega^-\bar{\Omega}^+$ production.
  • The framework opens the possibility of using hyperon entanglement to study CP violation, decoherence, and other fundamental effects at colliders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's reported 124.9-sigma significance is obtained by inserting the published BESIII value of $\alpha_\psi$ into the theoretical formula for $\mathcal{O}_1$; an independent measurement of $\mathcal{O}_1$ from event-level data with full detector corrections would be a substantially stronger demonstration.
  • A genuine Bell-type nonlocality test would require a Bell inequality adapted to the hyperon setting, not merely a separable-state boundary; the spacelike-separation fraction alone does not by itself rule out all local-hidden-variable models.
  • If the $\mathcal{O}_1$ witness is valid, it could serve as a cheap entanglement criterion in other $e^+e^-$ and hadron-collider baryon–antibaryon reactions where full quantum-state tomography is impractical.
  • The predicted $\cos\theta_\Lambda$ dependence of $\mathcal{O}_1$ could be used as a precision probe of decoherence: any systematic deviation from the curve predicted by $\alpha_\psi$ would signal environmental disturbance of the entangled spin state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims the first observation of quantum entanglement in Lambda-Lambdabar pairs produced via e+e- -> J/psi -> Lambda Lambdabar. The authors derive normalized spin-correlation observables O_i from the angular distributions of the subsequent weak decays, establish separable-state bounds for these observables, and then evaluate O_1 as a function of cos(theta_Lambda) using the BESIII-measured value of alpha_psi. At cos(theta_Lambda)=0 they obtain O_1 = -0.7374 +/- 0.0011 +/- 0.0016, which they interpret as a 124.9 sigma violation of the separable bound -1/2, and they further claim that because 69.3% of the decay events are spacelike-separated, the result supports nonlocality of quantum mechanics.

Significance. If the reported quantity were a genuine direct measurement of the angular correlation, the result would be of considerable interest as the first entanglement observation in a hyperon-antihyperon system. The theoretical construction of normalized observables in Section 2 is a useful and mostly coherent reformulation of the spin-correlation formalism for J/psi -> Lambda Lambdabar, and the separable-state bounds in Table 1 are derived correctly for the stated normalization. However, the central 'observation' claim is not supported by any experimental analysis contained in the manuscript: there is no event sample, no cos(theta_Lambda) binning, no detector-efficiency or acceptance treatment, and no direct measurement of the azimuthal correlation cos(phi_1+phi_2). The headline number is a one-to-one propagation of the BESIII alpha_psi input through Eq. (70), so the 124.9 sigma significance is effectively the significance with which alpha_psi differs from zero, not the significance of a measured angular correlation. The nonlocality inference from the spacelike fraction of events is also overreach, as no Bell inequality is formulated or tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (70), (77)-(78)] The claimed 'observation' is not an observation. Equation (70) expresses O_1 purely in terms of alpha_psi and cos(theta_Lambda), and Eq. (77) inserts the BESIII value alpha_psi = 0.4748 +/- 0.0022 +/- 0.0031 from Ref. [23]. The resulting value O_1min = -0.7374 +/- 0.0011 +/- 0.0016 in Eq. (78) is therefore a mathematical transformation of a published input parameter, not a measurement of any angular correlation performed in this work. The manuscript contains no event sample, no cos(theta_Lambda) binning, no detector-efficiency or acceptance corrections, no background treatment, and no direct determination of cos(phi_1+phi_2). Consequently the quoted 124.9 sigma significance is the distance of -(1+alpha_psi)/2 from -1/2 scaled by the propagated alpha_psi uncertainty, and the claim of 'first observation of entanglement in a hyperon-antihyperon system' is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (54)] The normalized angular distribution in Eq. (54) is not normalized as written. Integrating 1/2 + (2/3) alpha_psi (1 + alpha_psi cos^2 theta_Lambda) from cos(theta_Lambda) = -1 to +1 gives 1 + (4/3) alpha_psi + (4/9) alpha_psi^2, which equals about 1.72 for alpha_psi = 0.4748, not 1. The standard form should be proportional to (1 + alpha_psi cos^2 theta_Lambda)/(2(1 + alpha_psi/3)). Since this distribution underlies the experimental definition of alpha_psi and feeds into the derivation of the observables, the equation needs correction or clarification before the theoretical predictions in Eqs. (69)-(73) can be relied upon.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (56) and Sec. 4] The inference from '69.3% of decay events are spacelike-separated' to 'strong support for the non-locality of quantum mechanics' is overreach. A spacelike separation fraction does not by itself establish nonlocality: entanglement does not imply Bell-nonlocal correlations unless a Bell inequality is derived and tested with the required measurement settings, and no such inequality or loophole-free test is presented in this manuscript. The paper should either remove the nonlocality claim or replace it with a carefully qualified statement that the observed (or propagated) entanglement is consistent with quantum mechanics and that a genuine Bell test remains to be performed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The wording 'The measurements at cos(theta_Lambda)=0 yield...' is misleading because no measurement is performed in this work; the wording should be 'propagating the BESIII value of alpha_psi through Eq. (70) gives...'.
  2. [Throughout] There are several grammatical and typographical errors: 'experimental evidences' should be 'experimental evidence', 'These results not only confirms' should be 'These results not only confirm', and 'T able 1' has a stray space.
  3. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 shows shaded bands labeled as the 5 sigma confidence region of alpha_psi, but since no data points or detector-level results are shown, it is unclear what experimental content the figure represents; the caption should state explicitly that the curves and bands are derived solely from the published alpha_psi value.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (56)] The derivation of the spacelike fraction should specify the reference frame in which the decay times t_1 and t_2 are defined; the result P(Delta s^2 < 0) = sqrt(1 - 4m_Lambda^2/m_psi^2) depends on that choice and on the boost configuration, and the text should state the assumptions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The 'observed' O1min is a one-to-one rescaling of the BESIII αψ input, so the 124.9σ entanglement observation is a propagated parameter, not an event-level measurement.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3, Eqs. (70), (74), (77)-(78) and Fig. 2]
    "At cosθΛ = 0, the observables attain their minimal values: O1min =−1+αψ/2 ... The measured value of αψ is determined as [23]: αObservedψ = 0.4748±0.0022±0.0031 ... It is shown that the observed minimum value of O1 is OObserved1min =−0.7374±0.0011±0.0016 . This result demonstrates quantum entanglement in Λ ¯Λ production via e+e− annihilation at cosθΛ = 0 with a significance of 124.9σ."

    By Eq. (74), O1min is algebraically equal to −(1+αψ)/2. Substituting the published BESIII value αψ=0.4748 from Eq. (77) forces the quoted number in Eq. (78): −(1+0.4748)/2 = −0.7374, with uncertainties exactly half the αψ uncertainties. The manuscript calls this a measurement ('observed minimum value') and derives its 124.9σ significance against the separable-state bound −1/2, but it contains no event sample, no cosθΛ binning, no detector corrections, and no direct measurement of cos(φ1+φ2). The significance is statistically the same statement as BESIII's αψ>0, i.e. the distance of −(1+αψ)/2 from −1/2 divided by the propagated αψ uncertainty. The 'observation' therefore reduces by construction to a one-to-one rescaling of an external fitted input parameter, even though Eq.

full rationale

The theoretical derivation up to Eq. (70) is internally coherent and not itself circular: the separable-state bounds in Table 1 are obtained from factorized coefficients αk,j=βkγj, and Eq. (70) follows from direct integration of the published angular distribution. However, the central experimental claim is not a measurement made in this paper. Eq. (74) sets O1min=−(1+αψ)/2, Eq. (77) supplies the BESIII production parameter αψ, and Eq. (78) then quotes the arithmetic consequence as an experimentally 'observed' correlation with 124.9σ significance. No Λ−Λbar event-level analysis appears anywhere in the manuscript, so the title's 'observation of quantum entanglement' is a restatement of an existing fitted parameter in new units. The additional inference of nonlocality from the 69.3% spacelike-separated fraction is also an overreach, since entanglement and spacelike separation alone do not constitute a Bell test, but that is an inference-strength issue rather than a circular-definition issue. Because the paper's headline result is forced by construction from an input parameter, the circularity score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted external parameter, alpha_psi, plus a known angular distribution and standard separability criterion. No new particle, force, or entity is introduced. The most important ledger entry is the implicit equation between alpha_psi and O1, which converts a published parameter into the paper's headline observable.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha_psi = 0.4748 +/- 0.0022 +/- 0.0031
    Measured by BESIII in ref. [23] and used as the sole experimental input. The reported O1 values are direct functions of alpha_psi, so the violation claim inherits this parameter's value and significance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The joint angular distribution W in Eq. (59), taken from Faldt and Kupsc [22], correctly describes J/psi to Lambda Lambdabar production and decay.
    All observable predictions, including O1 and O2, are derived from this input distribution. If it is incomplete or does not apply, the central claim fails.
  • standard math Separable states satisfy the product form alpha_{k,j} = beta_k gamma_j in Eq. (41).
    This is the standard factorization criterion for product states in entanglement theory. It is reasonable but is assumed without derivation in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The published BESIII value of alpha_psi can be used directly as a measured O1 without event-level unfolding, efficiency corrections, or background subtraction.
    The paper treats the propagated number in Eq. (78) as an experimental measurement. No evidence is given that the theoretical O1 is identical to what BESIII measured, because BESIII did not report O1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of quantum entanglement in $\Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ pair production via electron-positron annihilation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMKWJEWO

@misc{pith2026250509931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of quantum entanglement in $\Lambda \bar\Lambda$ pair production via electron-positron annihilation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMKWJEWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09931}
}
abstract

We report the observation of quantum entanglement in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ pairs produced via electron-positron annihilation, specifically through the decay $J/\psi \to \Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$. By analyzing the angular correlations of the subsequent weak decays $\Lambda \to p\pi^-$ and $\bar{\Lambda} \to \bar{p}\pi^+$, we derive normalized observables $\mathcal{O}_i~(i=0,1,\ldots,4)$ that distinguish entangled states from separable ones. Theoretical predictions for these observables are established, with violations of separable-state bounds serving as unambiguous signatures of entanglement. Experimental measurements at $\cos\theta_\Lambda = 0$ yield $\mathcal{O}_{1\text{min}}^{\text{Observed}} = -0.7374\pm 0.0011\pm 0.0016$, significantly exceeding the classical limit of $-0.5$ with a statistical significance of 124.9$\sigma$. For $\left|\cos\theta_\Lambda\right|<0.4883$, the observed $\mathcal{O}_{1}^{\text{Observed}}$ consistently exhibits $\mathcal{O}_{1}^{\text{Observed}} < -\frac{1}{2}$ with a statistical significance of at least 5$\sigma$. Since $69.3\%$ of the decay events involving $\Lambda\to p+\pi^-$ and $\bar{\Lambda}\to \bar{p}+\pi^+$ are spacelike-separated, our results confirming the persistence of quantum entanglement in the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ system provide strong support for the non-locality of quantum mechanics. The findings are consistent with theoretical expectations under decoherence-free conditions, highlighting the potential of hyperon pairs as probes for fundamental quantum phenomena.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Excluding Local Hidden Variables in $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ Production: The Incompatibility with Angular-Momentum Conservation and CPT Invariance

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scalar h→ΛarΛ decay is incompatible with any angular-momentum-conserving LHVT, while pseudoscalar a→ΛarΛ can be mimicked by an LHVT only if CPT symmetry is relaxed.

  2. Bypassing Spin-Analyzing Power Dependence for Quantum Entanglement at Colliders: A Case Study of $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An entanglement witness for J/ψ→ΛΛ̄ built from angular-correlation ratios can certify entanglement without the parity-violating decay parameters, while angle-only ratio tests are shown to fail.

  3. Entanglement redistribution of hyperon-antihyperon pair via sequential decay

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In e+e−→ψ→Ξ(→Λπ)Ξ̄(→Λ̄π), the ΛΛ̄ pair's concurrence and negativity can decrease relative to the mother pair yet stay nonzero except at θ=0 and π, while quantum discord can always increase.

  4. Manipulating Bell nonlocality and entanglement in polarized electron-positron annihilation

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Polarized lepton beams can tune hyperon-antihyperon entanglement and Bell nonlocality, with transverse polarization capable of producing maximally entangled pairs.

  5. Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics

    hep-ph 2025-05 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors define quantum entanglement as the complement of a product-state subspace in complex projective space and propose azimuthal and triple-product collider observables as entanglement witnesses for ttbar, tau+...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    : Precise Measurements of Decay Parameters and CP Asym- metry with Entangled Λ − ¯Λ Pairs

    Ablikim, M., et al. : Precise Measurements of Decay Parameters and CP Asym- metry with Entangled Λ − ¯Λ Pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129(13), 131801 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.131801 arXiv:2204.11058 [hep-ex] 15

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    Bell, J.S.: On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

  3. [2]

    Freedman, S.J., Clauser, J.F.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28. 938

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28 1972

  4. [3]

    Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental tests of realistic local theories via bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460–463 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.47.460

    work page 1981

  5. [4]

    Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., Roger, G.: Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804–1807 (1982) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.1804 1982

  6. [5]

    Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Zbinden, H., Gisin, N.: Violation of bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563–3566 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3563

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.3563 1998

  7. [6]

    Nature 526, 682–686 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature15759 arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    Hensen, B., et al.: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins sep- arated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682–686 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature15759 arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Cr´ epeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K.: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky- rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895–1899 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.70.1895

    work page 1993

Show all 23 references
  1. [8]

    Nature 390(6660), 575–579 (1997) https: 13 //doi.org/10.1038/37539

    Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.-W., Mattle, K., Eibl, M., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A.: Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature 390(6660), 575–579 (1997) https: 13 //doi.org/10.1038/37539

    1997 doi

  2. [9]

    Boschi, D., Branca, S., De Martini, F., Hardy, L., Popescu, S.: Experimental realization of teleporting an unknown pure quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1121–1125 (1998) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1121

    1998 doi

  3. [10]

    : Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms

    Riebe, M., et al. : Deterministic quantum teleportation with atoms. Nature 429(6993), 734–737 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02570

    2004 doi

  4. [11]

    : Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits

    Barrett, M.D., et al. : Deterministic quantum teleportation of atomic qubits. Nature 429(6993), 737–739 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02608

    2004 doi

  5. [12]

    Nature 633, 542 (2024) arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    ATLAS Collaboration: Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector. Nature 633, 542 (2024) arXiv:2311.07288 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    : Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    Hayrapetyan, A., et al. : Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. Rept. Prog. Phys.87(11), 117801 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ad7e4d arXiv:2406.03976 [hep- ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    https://arxiv

    Pei, J., Fang, Y., Wu, L., Xu, D., Biyabi, M., Li, T.: Quantum Entanglement Theory and Its Generic Searches in High Energy Physics (2025). https://arxiv. org/abs/2505.09280

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    F¨ aldt, G.: Entanglement in joint Λ ¯Λ decay. Eur. Phys. J. A 51(7), 74 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2015-15074-3 arXiv:1306.0525 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    : Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double-strange baryons

    Ablikim, M., et al. : Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double-strange baryons. Nature 606(7912), 64–69 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-022-04624-1 arXiv:2105.11155 [hep-ex]

    2022

  10. [17]

    Scherer, S.: Introduction to chiral perturbation theory. Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003) arXiv:hep-ph/0210398

    2003 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Leader, E.: Spin in Particle Physics vol. 15. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009402040

    2001 doi

  12. [19]

    Dalkarov, O.D., Khakhulin, P.A., Voronin, A.Y.: On the electromagnetic form factors of hadrons in the time-like region near threshold. Nucl. Phys. A 833, 104–118 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.11.015 arXiv:0906.0266 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Czyz, H., Grzelinska, A., Kuhn, J.H.: Spin asymmetries and correlations in lambda-pair production through the radiative return method. Phys. Rev. D 75, 074026 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.074026 arXiv:hep- ph/0702122 14

    2007

  14. [21]

    : Review of particle physics

    Navas, S., et al. : Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 110(3), 030001 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  15. [22]

    F¨ aldt, G., Kupsc, A.: Hadronic structure functions in the e+e−→ ¯ΛΛ reaction. Phys. Lett. B 772, 16–20 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.011 arXiv:1702.07288 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.