Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0706.2848

Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality: Are they Correctly Understood?

Elias P. Gyftopoulos

Published Jun 19, 2007• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a brief article [1], Seife refers to works by Einstein and Schroedinger and concludes that there is a relentless murmur of confusion underneath the chorus of praise for quantum theory. It is noteworthy that a "murmur" is not necessarily a cause for replacement of any scientific theory, and that the issues raised by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and Schroedinger's responses to the EPR paper have been satisfactorily resolved by Gyftopoulos and von Spakovsky [2] in a manner that renders the relentless murmur mute and unwarranted.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0706.2848

Related papers

Nonlocal Interconnectedness as a Fundamental Principle of Reality

Two significant principles of the 20th century are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the nonlocality principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox [1]. Both these elements of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implicatio like Bell’s Theorem and Space-Like Interconnect-edness and Other Collective Coherent Phenomena Involve nonlocality. We also present a discussion of the EPR paradox and other experiments that may demand a nonlocal explanation of the phenomenon they display.

Series on knots and everything•Mar 1, 2011•0 citations

History of Quantum Mechanics or the Comedy of Errors

Jean Bricmont

The goal of this paper is to explain how the views of Albert Einstein, John Bell and others, about nonlocality and the conceptual issues raised by quantum mechanics, have been rather systematically misunderstood by the majority of physicists.

arXiv:1703.00294•Mar 1, 2017•2 citations

Certifying Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering via the local uncertainty principle

Yi-Zheng Zhen, Yu-Lin Zheng, Wen-Fei Cao +4 more

Uncertainty principle lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, while nonlocality is an intriguing phenomenon of quantum mechanics to rule out local causal theories. One subtle form of nonlocality is so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering, which holds the potential for shared entanglement verification even if the one-sided measurement device is untrusted. However, certifying EPR steering remains a big challenge presently. Here, we employ the local uncertainty relation to provide an experimental friendly approach for EPR steering verification. We show that the strength of EPR steering is quantitatively linked to the strength of the uncertainty relation, as well as the amount of entanglement. We find also that the realignment method works for detecting EPR steering of an arbitrary dimensional system.

Physical Review A•Jan 12, 2016•64 citations

Comment on arXiv:2604.09826: Discovery of the Solution to the "Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen Paradox"

Mikołaj Sienicki, Krzysztof Sienicki

Roman Schnabel's article argues that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox can be resolved by identifying a flaw in what the author calls the "EPR implication" and by using radioactive alpha decay as an example showing that predictability does not exclude genuine randomness. The paper is clearly written and addresses an important foundational question. In our view, however, its main conclusion does not follow. The article narrows the original EPR argument, attributes too much to Bell-inequality violations, and replaces the central EPR structure - which involves incompatible observables and locality-based reasoning - with a simpler case of correlated random events. The result is an interesting interpretive remark, but not, we think, a satisfactory scientific resolution of the EPR problem.

quant-pharXiv:2604.13135•Apr 15, 2026•0 citations

On the relation between the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and the problem of nonlocality in quantum mechanics

Willem M. de Muynck

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 1986•6 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Nonlocality - The EPR Argument Reconsidered

G. C. Ghirardi, Renata Grassi

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1995•2 citations
In a brief article [1], Seife refers to works by Einstein and Schroedinger and concludes that there is a relentless murmur of confusion underneath the chorus of praise for quantum theory. It is noteworthy that a "murmur" is not necessarily a cause for replacement of any scientific theory, and that the issues raised by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and Schroedinger's responses to the EPR paper have been satisfactorily resolved by Gyftopoulos and von Spakovsky [2] in a manner that renders the relentless murmur mute and unwarranted.
Two significant principles of the 20th century are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the nonlocality principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox [1]. Both these elements of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implicatio like Bell’s Theorem and Space-Like Interconnect-edness and Other Collective Coherent Phenomena Involve nonlocality. We also present a discussion of the EPR paradox and other experiments that may demand a nonlocal explanation of the phenomenon they display.
Uncertainty principle lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, while nonlocality is an intriguing phenomenon of quantum mechanics to rule out local causal theories. One subtle form of nonlocality is so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) steering, which holds the potential for shared entanglement verification even if the one-sided measurement device is untrusted. However, certifying EPR steering remains a big challenge presently. Here, we employ the local uncertainty relation to provide an experimental friendly approach for EPR steering verification. We show that the strength of EPR steering is quantitatively linked to the strength of the uncertainty relation, as well as the amount of entanglement. We find also that the realignment method works for detecting EPR steering of an arbitrary dimensional system.
Roman Schnabel's article argues that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox can be resolved by identifying a flaw in what the author calls the "EPR implication" and by using radioactive alpha decay as an example showing that predictability does not exclude genuine randomness. The paper is clearly written and addresses an important foundational question. In our view, however, its main conclusion does not follow. The article narrows the original EPR argument, attributes too much to Bell-inequality violations, and replaces the central EPR structure - which involves incompatible observables and locality-based reasoning - with a simpler case of correlated random events. The result is an interesting interpretive remark, but not, we think, a satisfactory scientific resolution of the EPR problem.