# Entanglement and conservation

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.

-
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
add comment

## 1 Answer

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.

-
add comment