• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Entanglement and conservation

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Is the following assertion sufficiently unique to merit a paper? Every absolute conservation law implies a corresponding form of entanglement, not just spin (angular momentum). Linear momentum conservation would for example entangle originating equipment with wave packets and help determine packet dispersion rates. Mass-energy entanglement would provide a different way to look at wave function "collapse," via nominally instantaneous exclusion of finding the same mass-energy at remote locations. I have no idea what $T_3$ would be. Even some types of approximate laws may have corresponding entanglements.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Mar 10, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Terry Bollinger (110 points) [ no revision ]
Look back at the original EPR paper ... that didn't use spin-entanglement, but position and momentum. And down-conversion produces photons that are entangled with respect to frequency=energy. I also don't see why you need a conservation law to produce entanglement. I don't see what you're proposing that is new.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Peter, thank you, that is very helpful. I collect old papers and am ashamed to say I do not even have a copy of EPR in hand. Other than arguing that Einstein understood entanglement as far back as 1927 (5th Solvay) -- a history issue, not a research one. My interest thus is no more than an emphasis on diversity that was perhaps recognized better in the past.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights