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:1101.1905

The EPR Paradox for the Uninitiated

Alexander Lesov

Published Jan 10, 2011• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Quantum mechanics is very odd. It presents both an immensely practical and a deeply troubling conception of the physical world. As such, its uses stretch from optimizing nanoelectronics to examining the very nature of reality. In this article we will see how quantum mechanics forces us into a dramatic rethinking of one of the most fundamental tenets of modern science, locality. The article is written in a popular style for anyone interested in this subject.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1101.1905

Related papers

The EPR paradox, hidden variables, and Bell's theorem

Marlan O. Scully, Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 4, 1997•1 citation

Epilogue: Beneath reality

John H. Marburger

The odd concepts of quantum physics are nearly a century old. They may seem difficult and forbidding at first sight, but the barrier to understanding is not their difficulty but their differentness . Unlike classical models, quantum theory does not attempt to simulate Nature. It gives us information about observations of Nature. But it does contain a “theoretical entity” that claims to contain all information, observation notwithstanding, namely the quantum state vector in Hilbert space. Scientists routinely use the language of Hilbert space, and nonscientists do not use it at all, which is understandable but unfortunate. A sort of baby-talk has become the lingua franca for much of the popular journalism of quantum physics, an awkward patois that combines some of the early groping language of Bohr, de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg with more modern words about symmetries and states. Earnest amateurs still ask me about the mystery of Bohr orbits. There is no mystery because there are no orbits, except as historical curiosities. Same for “wave–particle duality.” Same for “quantum jumps.” A friend once asked me to address a philosophy seminar about the “paradoxes of quantum mechanics.” He said he had approached C. N. Yang first, who replied “What paradoxes?” There are some mathematical and logical rough spots in our current best theory of matter, and perhaps some of them can be framed as paradoxes. But the theory is actually rather straightforward, and it has a perfectly clear interpretation linked to experiments that, in their simplest form, anyone can perform (and students do routinely in college laboratories). No empirical observations are known that are inconsistent with the quantum framework.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 28, 2011•0 citations

Интерпретация квантовой механики

Верхозин Анатолий Николаевич

A brief review of basic concepts (interpretations) of quantum mechanics is given. Each of the above interpretations has a number of controversial points, which allow discussion to develop their understanding of the mechanism of the paradoxical quantum phenomena. The article is written for students-economists studying the concepts of modern science and all readers interested in the questions: what is beyond the reality of the quantum-mechanical experiment or does our perception create, in some sense, the physical world. The author believes that the development of quantum information technology is impossible without an answer to these fundamental questions.

Вестник Псковского государственного университета. Серия: Экономика. Право. Управление•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

Locality and quantum mechanics

William George Unruh

It is argued that it is best not to think of quantum mechanics as non-local, but rather that it is non-realistic.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Foundations of quantum mechanics and their impact on contemporary society'.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•May 28, 2018•4 citations

Nature of Reality: Physical, Metaphysical and Mystical Aspects

Hardev Singh Virk

Nature of Reality has been subject of investigations since historical times both in science and religion. The physical interpretation of Reality has experienced a dynamic change from Aristotle to Einstein. Relativity theory and Quantum mechanics have led to formulations of new concepts regarding space, time, matter and reality. Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg and the concept of dual nature of matter and radiation by Louis de Broglie gave a serious blow to the philosophy of determinism based on Newtonian Mechanics and Cartesian world view. The great debates between Einstein and Bohr at Solvay Conferences about the inadequacy of quantum mechanics to describe physical aspect of Reality are a part of history of science now. EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem have introduced the idea of connectedness and consciousness in Quantum Reality. Experience is the ultimate test of truth or Reality for the Indian philosopher. The Reality is trans-empirical, hence, it cannot be known through sense experience in the way in which empirical/scientific knowledge is gained. Reality is better understood or comprehended through intuitive experience for it transcends both the rational and the sensory aspects of human experience. Keywords: Reality, Newtonian World view, Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty Principle, EPR Paradox, Metaphysics, Mysticism Cite this Article Hardev Singh Virk. Nature of Reality: Physical, Metaphysical and Mystical Aspects. Omniscience: A Multi-disciplinary Journal (OSMJ). 2015; 5(2): 10–15p.

OmniScience A Multi-disciplinary Journal•Aug 10, 2015•0 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics Paradoxical?

Philip R. Wallace

Physics Essays•Dec 1, 1991•1 citation
Quantum mechanics is very odd. It presents both an immensely practical and a deeply troubling conception of the physical world. As such, its uses stretch from optimizing nanoelectronics to examining the very nature of reality. In this article we will see how quantum mechanics forces us into a dramatic rethinking of one of the most fundamental tenets of modern science, locality. The article is written in a popular style for anyone interested in this subject.
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
The odd concepts of quantum physics are nearly a century old. They may seem difficult and forbidding at first sight, but the barrier to understanding is not their difficulty but their differentness . Unlike classical models, quantum theory does not attempt to simulate Nature. It gives us information about observations of Nature. But it does contain a “theoretical entity” that claims to contain all information, observation notwithstanding, namely the quantum state vector in Hilbert space. Scientists routinely use the language of Hilbert space, and nonscientists do not use it at all, which is understandable but unfortunate. A sort of baby-talk has become the lingua franca for much of the popular journalism of quantum physics, an awkward patois that combines some of the early groping language of Bohr, de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg with more modern words about symmetries and states. Earnest amateurs still ask me about the mystery of Bohr orbits. There is no mystery because there are no orbits, except as historical curiosities. Same for “wave–particle duality.” Same for “quantum jumps.” A friend once asked me to address a philosophy seminar about the “paradoxes of quantum mechanics.” He said he had approached C. N. Yang first, who replied “What paradoxes?” There are some mathematical and logical rough spots in our current best theory of matter, and perhaps some of them can be framed as paradoxes. But the theory is actually rather straightforward, and it has a perfectly clear interpretation linked to experiments that, in their simplest form, anyone can perform (and students do routinely in college laboratories). No empirical observations are known that are inconsistent with the quantum framework.
A brief review of basic concepts (interpretations) of quantum mechanics is given. Each of the above interpretations has a number of controversial points, which allow discussion to develop their understanding of the mechanism of the paradoxical quantum phenomena. The article is written for students-economists studying the concepts of modern science and all readers interested in the questions: what is beyond the reality of the quantum-mechanical experiment or does our perception create, in some sense, the physical world. The author believes that the development of quantum information technology is impossible without an answer to these fundamental questions.
Nature of Reality has been subject of investigations since historical times both in science and religion. The physical interpretation of Reality has experienced a dynamic change from Aristotle to Einstein. Relativity theory and Quantum mechanics have led to formulations of new concepts regarding space, time, matter and reality. Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg and the concept of dual nature of matter and radiation by Louis de Broglie gave a serious blow to the philosophy of determinism based on Newtonian Mechanics and Cartesian world view. The great debates between Einstein and Bohr at Solvay Conferences about the inadequacy of quantum mechanics to describe physical aspect of Reality are a part of history of science now. EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem have introduced the idea of connectedness and consciousness in Quantum Reality. Experience is the ultimate test of truth or Reality for the Indian philosopher. The Reality is trans-empirical, hence, it cannot be known through sense experience in the way in which empirical/scientific knowledge is gained. Reality is better understood or comprehended through intuitive experience for it transcends both the rational and the sensory aspects of human experience. Keywords: Reality, Newtonian World view, Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty Principle, EPR Paradox, Metaphysics, Mysticism Cite this Article Hardev Singh Virk. Nature of Reality: Physical, Metaphysical and Mystical Aspects. Omniscience: A Multi-disciplinary Journal (OSMJ). 2015; 5(2): 10–15p.