A Geometrical Representation of Entanglement as Internal Constraint



We study a system of two entangled spin 1/2, were the spin's are represented by a sphere model developed within the hidden measurement approach which is a generalization of the Bloch sphere representation, such that also the measurements are represented. We show how an arbitrary tensor product state can be described in a complete way by a specific internal constraint between the ray or density states of the two spin 1/2. We derive a geometrical view of entanglement as a “rotation” and “stretching” of the sphere representing the states of the second particle as measurements are performed on the first particle. In the case of the singlet state entanglement can be represented by a real physical constraint, namely by means of a rigid rod.


entanglement geometrical representation Schmidt diagonalization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 27, 202–210.ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (1987). The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model. In Information, Complexity, and Control in Quantum Physics, A. Blanquiere, S. Diner, and G. Lochak, eds., Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
  3. Aerts, D. (1991a). A macroscopical classical laboratory situation with only macroscopical classical entities giving rise to a quantum mechanical probability model. In Quantum Probability and Related Topics, Vol. VI, L. Accardi, ed., World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 75–85.Google Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (1991b). A mechanistic classical laboratory situation violating the Bell inequalities with 2□2, exactly ‘in the same way’ as its violations by the EPR experiments. Helvetica Physica ActaGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts, D. and Durt, T. (1994a). Quantum, classical and intermediate, an illustrative example. Foundation of Physics 24Google Scholar
  6. Aerts, D. and Durt, T. (1994b). Quantum, classical and intermediate: A measurement model. In Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, K. V. Laurikainen, C. Montonen, and K. Sunnaborg, eds., Editions Frontieres, Gives Sur Yvettes, France.Google Scholar
  7. Aerts, D. and Aerts, S. (1997). The hidden measurement formalism: Quantum mechanics as a consequence of fluctuations on the measurement. In New Developments on Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics, M. Ferrero and A. van der Merwe, eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Aerts, D., Aerts, S., Coecke, B., D'Hooghe, B., Durt, T. and Valckenborgh, F. (1997). A model with varying fluctuations in the measurement context. In New Developments on Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics, M. Ferrero and A. van der Merwe, eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Coecke, B. (1998). A representation for compound systems as individual entities: Hard acts of creation and hidden correlations. Foundation of Physics 28, 1109.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Coecke, B. (2000). Structural characterization of compoundness. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 39, 585.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Nielsen, M. and Chuang, I. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centrum Leo Apostel (CLEA)Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Fund for Scientific Research—FlandersBelgium
  3. 3.Centrum Leo Apostel (CLEA)Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations