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:2604.09826

Discovery of the Solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox"

Roman Schnabel

quant-phphysics.hist-phSubmitted Apr 10, 2026• Announced Apr 14, 2026• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) published a thought experiment that is entirely correct, has been demonstrated in real experiments, and is now the most famous in quantum physics. Their pioneering work described, for the first time, quantum correlations and can be regarded as a very early glimpse into today's 'deep' quantum technologies, by which I mean those that enhance functionality by making use of quantum correlations. However, their work also contains a paradox that Erwin Schroedinger had already recognised as such in 1935 and which has since been cemented by the so-called Bell experiments. Here, I am now able to pinpoint the origin of the paradox within the chain of reasoning, which ultimately resolves the paradox.

Related papers

The solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.

arXiv:2208.13831•Aug 29, 2022•1 citation

The Einstein Paradox

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise M. Crull

The famously controversial 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) took aim at the heart of the flourishing field of quantum mechanics. The paper provoked responses from the leading theoretical physicists of the day, and brought entanglement and nonlocality to the forefront of discussion. This book looks back at the seminal year in which the EPR paper was published and explores the intense debate it unleashed. These conversations in print and in private correspondence offer significant insight into the minds of pioneering quantum physicists including Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein himself. Offering the most complete collection of sources to date – many published or translated here for the first time – this text brings a rich new context to this pivotal moment in physics history. Both researchers and students in the history and philosophy of science, and enthusiasts alike, will find this book illuminating.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 13, 2024•8 citations

ON AERTS’ OVERLOOKED SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.

arXiv:1805.02869•Nov 20, 2018•2 citations

From Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox to quantum nonlocality: experimental investigation of quantum correlations

Jin‐Shi Xu, Chuan‐Feng Li, Guang‐Can Guo

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published their influential paper proposing a now famous paradox (the EPR paradox) that threw doubt on the completeness of quantum mechanics. Two fundamental concepts: entanglement and steering, were given in the response to the EPR paper by Schrodinger, which both reflect the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell obtained an experimentally testable inequality, in which its violation contradicts the prediction of local hidden variable models and agrees with that of quantum mechanics. Since then, great efforts have been made to experimentally investigate the nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics and many distinguished quantum properties were observed. In this work, along with the discussion of the development of quantum nonlocality, we would focus on our recent experimental efforts in investigating quantum correlations and their applications with optical systems, including the study of entanglement-assisted entropic uncertainty principle, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering and the dynamics of quantum correlations.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Nov 3, 2016•0 citations

Discovery of entanglement generation by elastic collision to realise the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment

Roman Schnabel

Abstract The amazing quantum effect of ‘entanglement’ was discovered in the 1935 thought experiment by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (‘EPR’)1. The ensuing research opened up fundamental questions and led to experiments that proved that quantum theory cannot be completed by local hidden variables2–4. Remarkably, EPR did not discuss how to create the entanglement in their thought experiment. Here I add this part. What is required in the original EPR thought experiment is a simple elastic particle collision, an unbalanced mass ratio of e.g. 1:3 and initial states that are position and momentum squeezed, respectively. In the limiting case of infinite squeeze factors, the measurement of the position or momentum of one particle allows an absolutely precise conclusion to be drawn about the value of the same quantity of the other particle. The EPR idea has never been tested in this way. I outline a way to do this.

arXiv:2505.09721•npj Quantum Information•May 14, 2025•2 citations

On Bell Experiments and Quantum Entanglement

Guang-Liang Li

Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.

Qeios•Sep 4, 2023•3 citations
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) published a thought experiment that is entirely correct, has been demonstrated in real experiments, and is now the most famous in quantum physics. Their pioneering work described, for the first time, quantum correlations and can be regarded as a very early glimpse into today's 'deep' quantum technologies, by which I mean those that enhance functionality by making use of quantum correlations. However, their work also contains a paradox that Erwin Schroedinger had already recognised as such in 1935 and which has since been cemented by the so-called Bell experiments. Here, I am now able to pinpoint the origin of the paradox within the chain of reasoning, which ultimately resolves the paradox.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.
The famously controversial 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) took aim at the heart of the flourishing field of quantum mechanics. The paper provoked responses from the leading theoretical physicists of the day, and brought entanglement and nonlocality to the forefront of discussion. This book looks back at the seminal year in which the EPR paper was published and explores the intense debate it unleashed. These conversations in print and in private correspondence offer significant insight into the minds of pioneering quantum physicists including Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein himself. Offering the most complete collection of sources to date – many published or translated here for the first time – this text brings a rich new context to this pivotal moment in physics history. Both researchers and students in the history and philosophy of science, and enthusiasts alike, will find this book illuminating.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published their influential paper proposing a now famous paradox (the EPR paradox) that threw doubt on the completeness of quantum mechanics. Two fundamental concepts: entanglement and steering, were given in the response to the EPR paper by Schrodinger, which both reflect the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. In 1964, John Bell obtained an experimentally testable inequality, in which its violation contradicts the prediction of local hidden variable models and agrees with that of quantum mechanics. Since then, great efforts have been made to experimentally investigate the nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics and many distinguished quantum properties were observed. In this work, along with the discussion of the development of quantum nonlocality, we would focus on our recent experimental efforts in investigating quantum correlations and their applications with optical systems, including the study of entanglement-assisted entropic uncertainty principle, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering and the dynamics of quantum correlations.
Abstract The amazing quantum effect of ‘entanglement’ was discovered in the 1935 thought experiment by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (‘EPR’)1. The ensuing research opened up fundamental questions and led to experiments that proved that quantum theory cannot be completed by local hidden variables2–4. Remarkably, EPR did not discuss how to create the entanglement in their thought experiment. Here I add this part. What is required in the original EPR thought experiment is a simple elastic particle collision, an unbalanced mass ratio of e.g. 1:3 and initial states that are position and momentum squeezed, respectively. In the limiting case of infinite squeeze factors, the measurement of the position or momentum of one particle allows an absolutely precise conclusion to be drawn about the value of the same quantity of the other particle. The EPR idea has never been tested in this way. I outline a way to do this.
Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.