Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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.

share|cite|improve this question
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. – Peter Shor Mar 10 '12 at 19:34
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. – Terry Bollinger Mar 11 '12 at 2:28
up vote 1 down vote accepted

No. The applicability of entanglement to all conserved quantities was covered in no less than the original EPR paper. @PeterShor answered my question, not me, but since he put it into a comment I'm adding this explicit answer to close out my own question. Peter, should you happen by, please feel free to copy your comment into an answer and I'll re-designate that as the real answer to give proper credit.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.