Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Discovery of entanglement generation by elastic collision to realise the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment

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 The original EPR thought experiment gets a concrete entanglement-generating mechanism: a one-dimensional elastic collision between a momentum-squeezed light particle and a position-squeezed heavy particle with mass ratio 3:1.

desk verdict A novel and conceptually clear recipe for generating EPR position-momentum entanglement via a 3:1 elastic collision, but the load-bearing semiclassical approximation is never quantified and no entanglement criterion is evaluated for finite squeezing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09721 v2 pith:U6GVMASF submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.pop-ph

Roman Schnabel This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.pop-ph
keywords EPRparadoxentanglementgenerationelasticcollisionsqueezedstatescontinuousvariablesGaussianiontrapmomentumtransfer
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 supplies the missing step in the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment: a concrete interaction that actually creates the position-momentum entangled pair EPR only assumed. The interaction is a one-dimensional elastic collision between two particles of mass ratio 3:1, one prepared in a momentum-squeezed state and the other in a position-squeezed state. Conservation of energy and momentum then redistributes the squeezed uncertainties so that the two particles' momenta become perfectly correlated and their positions perfectly anti-correlated. In the limit of infinite squeezing, a measurement on one particle lets you predict the other's position or momentum with certainty. The paper also sketches a feasible experimental realization with two trapped ions of unequal mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 50% momentum transfer imposed by the 3:1 mass ratio in a one-dimensional elastic collision, combined with one-way redistribution of squeezed uncertainties. With $m_B = 3m_A$, energy and momentum conservation force the heavy particle's momentum to be split equally between the two particles after the collision, so a momentum-squeezed B transfers its momentum uncertainty to both A and B in equal shares, creating perfect momentum correlation. The light particle A, initially squeezed in momentum and therefore anti-squeezed in position, makes the collision time uncertain; that timing jitter maps A's large position uncertainty onto both particles with opposite signs, creating perfect anti-correlation of positions.

What would settle it

Solve the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for two Gaussian wave packets of mass ratio 3:1 undergoing a one-dimensional elastic collision, and compute the continuous-variable inseparability parameter or the EPR-steering variance product for the post-collision state; if the full solution does not show correlations tighter than the EPR threshold, the semi-classical derivation fails. A direct experimental check is the proposed ion experiment: after the collision, measure both positions and momenta and test whether the inferred variances satisfy the EPR criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a single elastic collision in one dimension, with mass ratio $m_B = 3m_A$, is a source of EPR entanglement for the centre-of-mass positions and momenta of two free particles. If particle A (the lighter one) starts at rest with negligible momentum spread but large position spread, and particle B (three times heavier) approaches it with a well-defined position but a large momentum spread, then the collision halves B's velocity and gives A a velocity 3/2 of B's initial one. Because the uncertainty in B's momentum is shared equally, the final momenta are identical in every run; because A's uncertain position makes the collision time uncertain, the final positions are anti-correlated by exactly the same amount. The paper argues this is the previously unknown mechanism that completes the original EPR thought experiment, and that it follows just from quantum uncertainty plus conservation laws.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation treats the collision semi-classically: each run has a definite collision time, and quantum interference between the overlapping wave packets during the collision is neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The original EPR thought experiment is completed: a concrete, physically plausible creation mechanism now exists for the exact position-momentum entangled state EPR described.
  • A one-dimensional elastic collision with mass ratio 3:1 acts as a continuous-variable entangling gate: it maps squeezed momentum noise onto correlated momenta and squeezed position noise onto anti-correlated positions.
  • The scheme can be implemented with two trapped ions of unequal mass (e.g., potassium and cesium) in a linear Paul trap, with measurements performed after the wave packets have separated.
  • The mechanism implies that entanglement generation does not require a specially engineered interaction Hamiltonian; ordinary elastic scattering plus squeezed initial states suffices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same 3:1 collision protocol could be adapted to produce entanglement in higher dimensions or in colliding clouds of ultracold atoms, where squeezed motional states are routinely prepared.
  • The paper's semi-classical treatment leaves open a quantitative test: a full quantum scattering calculation should reveal a threshold collision speed below which wave-packet overlap and interference become non-negligible and the predicted correlations degrade.
  • If the scheme is realized, it would give a new source of continuous-variable entanglement carried by massive particles, complementing optical squeezed-light sources and possibly enabling new tests of quantum mechanics with macroscopic objects.
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. This manuscript proposes that a one-dimensional elastic collision between two particles with mass ratio m_B = 3 m_A, one prepared in a momentum-squeezed state (particle A) and the other in a position-squeezed state (particle B), generates Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations of position and momentum. The author derives the 1:3 mass ratio from energy and momentum conservation under a 50% momentum-transfer condition, and uses a semi-classical model of individual collision runs to argue that the post-collision positions are anti-correlated and the momenta are correlated. A linear Paul trap experiment with two ions of different species is outlined as an implementation.

Significance. If the claimed effect were rigorously established, the paper would close a notable gap in the original EPR argument by supplying a concrete state-preparation mechanism for a massive-particle EPR state. The derivation of the mass ratio is parameter-free, the proposal is experimentally concrete, and the connection to Gaussian EPR criteria is relevant. However, the manuscript in its current form does not provide a quantum-mechanical proof that the post-collision state is entangled; the central claim therefore remains unsubstantiated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Emergent EPR quantum correlations (Eqs. 10-11)] The paper's main conclusion that the collision produces EPR entanglement is never tested against a standard entanglement criterion. The run-wise semi-classical argument in Eqs. (10)-(11) concludes perfect anti-correlation of the positions and correlation of the momenta, but the paper does not compute the variances Var(x_A+x_B) and Var(p_A-p_B) of the actual quantum state, nor does it apply the Gaussian inseparability criterion of Refs. [23,24] or the EPR steering criterion of Refs. [25,26]. These criteria are introduced in the Introduction but are never used. A claim of entanglement generation requires showing that the post-collision state violates the appropriate inequality; the present argument only shows that specific classical equations of motion yield correlated outcomes in an ideal limit.
  2. [State preparation / semi-classical approximation (Eqs. 8-11 and Supplementary Information)] The semi-classical approximation at the heart of the derivation drops terms proportional to δv_B without a quantitative validity bound. In Eqs. (8)-(11), terms involving δv_B are neglected because they are asserted to be small compared with ⟨v_B⟩δt_coll. However, δv_B is set by the anti-squeezed momentum of B, and the magnitude of the omitted contributions relative to the leading terms depends on the ratio ⟨v_B⟩/(ℏ/(m_B Δx_B)), which is constrained only by inequality (3) and by the free parameters x0, v0, and the squeezing factors. The Supplementary Information's admission that the collision time must be described by an arrival-time operator underscores that the c-number treatment of t_coll is an approximation. Without a quantitative bound or a full Gaussian covariance calculation, the predicted perfect correlations are not established.
  3. [1D-Collision with 50% momentum transfer (Eqs. 4-7)] The claim that the strongest quantum correlation occurs when the prepared bodies have a collision with 50% momentum transfer is asserted, not derived. This condition is the basis for the mass-ratio result m_B = 3 m_A in Eqs. (4)-(7). The paper does not optimize over mass ratios or squeezing parameters; it postulates 50% transfer and derives the corresponding mass ratio. If the 50% condition is not proven optimal, the 1:3 ratio is not a prediction from first principles. At minimum, the paper should state this as an explicit assumption and justify it or relax the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The expression as typeset in Eq. (10) appears dimensionally inconsistent: the factor (3x0/2)/(⟨v_B(t0)⟩ + δt_coll,i/2) mixes a velocity in the denominator with a time. The intended expression should be clarified.
  2. [Proposal for an implementation with ions] The phrase 'EPR pardoxon' near the end of the ion-trap section should read 'EPR paradox'.
  3. [Abstract and Fig. 1 caption] The statement that measurements allow 'absolutely precise' inference is only true in the infinite-squeezing limit; the finite-squeezing conditions under which the correlations approximate this limit are not quantified, and this qualification should appear where the claim is made.
  4. [Supplementary Information, phase-space figure caption] The parenthetical remark that the collision time must be described by an arrival-time operator is a significant caveat and should be discussed in the main text rather than only in the supplementary caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the derivation is self-contained apart from minor background self-citations.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular in the sense that matters here. The paper begins from momentum and energy conservation (Eqs. (4)-(6)), derives the 1:3 mass ratio (Eq. (7)), and then propagates the stated initial Gaussian uncertainties through the collision-time relation (Eq. (9)) to obtain the position correlations in Eqs. (10)-(11). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the 50% momentum-transfer condition is an explicit optimality assumption, and the correlation statements are computed consequences rather than restatements of the inputs. The author's previous work appears only as background for continuous-variable EPR, steering, and squeezed states (Refs. [13], [26], [27]); these citations are not load-bearing for the collision derivation, and the actual inseparability criteria cited are external works ([23, 24]). The semi-classical treatment and the supplementary remark that the collision time is really an arrival-time operator are stated limitations or correctness risks, not hidden equivalences. The absence of an explicit Duan-Simon or Reid-criterion evaluation is an omitted check, not a circular step. I found no equation that is equal to another by construction and no fitted input that is later presented as a prediction, so the circularity burden is minimal; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor background self-citations that do not support the central claim.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claim rests on conservation laws plus a semi-classical modeling choice and an unproven optimality condition for the 50% momentum transfer.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Semi-classical approximation: the collision can be described by classical trajectories with Gaussian uncertainties, neglecting interference between overlapping wave packets.
    The derivation of the correlations in Eqs. (8)-(11) treats each collision as having definite position and momentum values per run. No full Schrodinger equation solution is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The 50% momentum transfer condition yields the strongest quantum correlation.
    The paper asserts this optimality without proof; it is used to fix the mass ratio mB=3mA in Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption Measurements are performed after the wave packets are clearly separated, so the semi-classical treatment is valid at the measurement time.
    Stated in the Introduction; it justifies neglecting interference at detection but not during the collision.
  • domain assumption The Coulomb interaction in the proposed Paul-trap experiment can be approximated as an instantaneous elastic collision.
    The experimental section does not model the finite duration or the potential shape of the ion-ion interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of entanglement generation by elastic collision to realise the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6GVMASF

@misc{pith2026250509721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of entanglement generation by elastic collision to realise the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6GVMASF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09721}
}
read the original abstract

The amazing quantum effect of `entanglement' was discovered in the 1935 thought experiment by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (`EPR'). The ensuing research opened up fundamental questions and led to experiments that proved that quantum theory cannot be completed by local hidden variables. Remarkably, EPR did not discuss how to create the entanglement in their thought experiment. Here I add this part. What is required in the original EPR thought experiment is a simple elastic particle collision, an unbalanced mass ratio of e.g. 1:3 and initial states that are position and momentum squeezed, respectively. In the limiting case of infinite squeeze factors, the measurement of the position or momentum of one particle allows an absolutely precise conclusion to be drawn about the value of the same quantity of the other particle. The EPR idea has never been tested in this way. I outline a way to do this.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Consid- ered Complete?,

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Consid- ered Complete?,” Physical Review, vol. 47, pp. 777–780, may 1935

    work page 1935

  2. [2]

    Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories,

    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, “Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories,” Physical Review Let- ters, vol. 28, pp. 938–941, apr 1972

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell‘s Theorem,

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, “Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell‘s Theorem,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 47, p. 460, 1981

    1981

  4. [4]

    Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement,

    J.-W. J. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Wein- furter, and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement,” Nature, vol. 403, pp. 515–9, feb 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Discussion of Probability Relations be- tween Separated Systems,

    E. Schr¨ odinger, “Discussion of Probability Relations be- tween Separated Systems,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , vol. 31, pp. 555– 563, oct 1935

    work page 1935

  6. [6]

    Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers,

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. G. Roger, “Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 49, pp. 1804–1807, dec 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Experimental entanglement of four particles,

    C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, Myatt, Rowe, Turchette, Itano, Wineland, and Monroe, “Experimental entanglement of four particles,” Nature, vol. 404, p. 256, 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Step-by- Step Engineered Multiparticle Entanglement,

    A. Rauschenbeutel, G. Nogues, S. Osnaghi, P. Bertet, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, “Step-by- Step Engineered Multiparticle Entanglement,” Science, vol. 288, pp. 2024–2028, jun 2000

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Entangled mechanical oscillators,

    J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, J. M. Amini, D. Hanneke, R. Oz- eri, C. Langer, J. J. Bollinger, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, “Entangled mechanical oscillators,” Nature, vol. 459, pp. 683–685, jun 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Loophole- free Bell inequality violation using electron spins sepa- rated by 1.3 kilometres,

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, “Loophole- free Bell...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Remote quantum entanglement between two micromechanical os- cillators,

    R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovi´ c, C. L¨ oschnauer, M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, “Remote quantum entanglement between two micromechanical os- cillators,” Nature, vol. 556, no. 7702, pp. 473–477, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables,

    Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble, and K. C. Peng, “Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 68, pp. 3663–3666, jun 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    Ex- perimental investigation of continuous-variable quantum teleportation,

    W. P. Bowen, N. Treps, B. C. Buchler, R. Schnabel, T. C. Ralph, H.-A. Bachor, T. Symul, and P. K. Lam, “Ex- perimental investigation of continuous-variable quantum teleportation,” Physical Review A , vol. 67, p. 032302, mar 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Tasca, R.W

    R.S Aspden, D.S. Tasca, R.W. Boyd, and M.J. Padgett, EPR-based ghost imaging using a single-photon-sensitive camera, New Journal of Physics 15 073032 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Kumar, G

    A. Kumar, G. Nirala, and A.M. Marino, Ein- stein?Podolsky?Rosen paradox with position?momentum entangled macroscopic twin beams, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 6, 045016 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Experi- mental long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic ob- jects.,

    B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, “Experi- mental long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic ob- jects.,” Nature, vol. 413, pp. 400–3, sep 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Satisfying the Einstein?Podolsky?Rosen cri- terion with massive particles.,

    J. Peise, I. Kruse, K. Lange, B. L¨ ucke, L. Pezze, J. Arlt, W. Ertmer, K. Hammerer, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, “Satisfying the Einstein?Podolsky?Rosen cri- terion with massive particles.,” Nature Communication, vol. 6, 8984 pp. 1–8, nov 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Giulini, “On Galilei Invariance in Quantum Mechan- ics and the Bargmann Superselection Rule, Annals of Physics, vol 249, 222-235, 1996

    D. Giulini, “On Galilei Invariance in Quantum Mechan- ics and the Bargmann Superselection Rule, Annals of Physics, vol 249, 222-235, 1996

    1996

  11. [19]

    ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,

    W. Heisenberg, “ ¨Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, vol. 43, pp. 172–198, mar 1927

    1927

  12. [20]

    Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewe- gungstypen,

    E. H. Kennard, “Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewe- gungstypen,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, vol. 44, pp. 326–352, apr 1927

    1927

  13. [21]

    Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie,

    H. Weyl, “Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, vol. 46, pp. 1–46, nov 1927

    1927

  14. [22]

    The Uncertainty Principle,

    H. P. Robertson, “The Uncertainty Principle,” Physical Review, vol. 34, pp. 163–164, jul 1929

    1929

  15. [23]

    Insepara- bility criterion for continuous variable systems,

    L. Duan, G. Giedke, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Insepara- bility criterion for continuous variable systems,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 84, pp. 2722–5, mar 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems,

    R. Simon, “Peres-Horodecki Separability Criterion for Continuous Variable Systems,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 84, p. 2726, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric ampli- fication,

    M. Reid, “Demonstration of the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox using nondegenerate parametric ampli- fication,” Physical Review A , vol. 40, pp. 913–923, jul 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    Observation of one-way Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering,

    V. H¨ andchen, T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, A. Samblowski, T. Franz, R. F. Werner, and R. Schnabel, “Observation of one-way Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering,” Nature Pho- tonics, vol. 6, pp. 598–601, aug 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Squeezed states of light and their applica- tions in laser interferometers,

    R. Schnabel, “Squeezed states of light and their applica- tions in laser interferometers,” Physics Reports, vol. 684, pp. 1–51, apr 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,” Physics, vol. 1, pp. 195–200, 1964

    1964

  21. [29]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable the- ories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable the- ories,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 23, p. 880, 1969

    1969

  22. [30]

    Bell’s theorem: experi- mental tests and implications,

    J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, “Bell’s theorem: experi- mental tests and implications,” Rep. Prog. Phys., vol. 41, p. 1881, 1978

    1978

  23. [31]

    Violation of Bell’s Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions,

    G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Violation of Bell’s Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 81, pp. 5039–5043, dec 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    Bell violation using en- tangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption,

    M. Giustina, A. Mech, S. Ramelow, B. Wittmann, J. Kofler, J. Beyer, A. Lita, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, R. Ursin, and A. Zeilinger, “Bell violation using en- tangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption,” Nature, vol. 497, pp. 227–30, may 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Speakable and unspeakable in quantum me- chanics,

    J. S. Bell, “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum me- chanics,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987, Chap. 21

    1987

  26. [34]

    Nonlocality of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state in the Wigner represen- tation,

    K. Banaszek and K. W´ odkiewicz, “Nonlocality of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state in the Wigner represen- tation,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 58, 4345, 1998. 6

    1998

  27. [35]

    Wigner function as the expectation value of a parity operator,

    A. Royer, “Wigner function as the expectation value of a parity operator,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 15, 1977. Acknowlegement This work was partially performed within the Euro- pean Research Council (ERC) Project MassQ (Grant No. 339897) and within Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EX...

    1977

  28. [36]

    On the time operator in quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for energy and time

    J. Kijowski, “On the time operator in quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for energy and time”, Reports on Mathematical Physics , vol. 6, 361–386, 1974

    1974

  29. [37]

    Exact energy–time uncertainty relation for arrival time by absorption

    J. Kiukas, A. Ruschhaupt, P. O. Schmidt, and R. F. Werner, “Exact energy–time uncertainty relation for arrival time by absorption”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , vol. 45, 185301, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

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