The ‘EPR paradox’ is directly related to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, even though Einstein did not include the word ‘paradox’ in it. All Einstein and his co authors did was to construct an argument that concluded that quantum mechanics was ‘not complete.’ This EPR conclusion is examined in detail here and found to be based on the erroneous assumption of an ‘all values’ spread in x that leads to an unphysical exact measurement of the momentum p . The word paradox, in relation the second part of the EPR paper, was introduced by Schrödinger in 1936 and popularized by Bohm in the 1950s. Hence, we should not attach responsibility to EPR for the ‘paradox’ situation. It was Schrödinger and Bohm who attached and propagated the term paradox in relation to the EPR paper. And the literature made it famous. This is particularly lamentable since the physics of quantum entanglement is utterly free of paradoxes .The ‘EPR paradox’ is directly related to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, even though Einstein did not include the word ‘paradox’ in it. All Einstein and his co authors did was to construct an argument that concluded that quantum mechanics was ‘not complete.’ This EPR conclusion is examined in detail here and found to be based on the erroneous assumption of an ‘all values’ spread in x that leads to an unphysical exact measurement of the momentum p . The word paradox, in relation the second part of the EPR paper, was introduced by Schrödinger in 1936 and popularized by Bohm in the 1950s. Hence, we should not attach responsibility to EPR for the ‘paradox’ situation. It was Schrödinger and Bohm who attached and propagated the term paradox in relation to the EPR paper. And the literature made it famous. This is particularly lamentable since the physics of quantum entanglement is utterly free of paradoxes .

CRC Press eBooksApr 10, 20260 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and quantum steering in pulsed optomechanics

Qiongyi He, M. D. Reid

We describe how to generate an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox between a mesoscopic mechanical oscillator and an optical pulse. We find two types of paradox, defined by whether it is the oscillator or the pulse that shows the effect Schr\"odinger called ``steering''. Only the oscillator paradox addresses the question of mesoscopic local reality for a massive system. In that case, EPR's ``elements of reality'' are defined for the oscillator, and it is these elements of reality that are falsified (if quantum mechanics is complete). For this sort of paradox, we show that a thermal barrier exists, meaning that a threshold level of pulse-oscillator interaction is required for a given thermal occupation ${n}_{0}$ of the oscillator. We find there is no equivalent thermal barrier for the entanglement of the pulse with the oscillator or for the EPR paradox that addresses the local reality of the optical system. Finally, we examine the possibility of an EPR paradox between two entangled oscillators. Our work highlights the asymmetrical effect of thermal noise on quantum nonlocality.We describe how to generate an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox between a mesoscopic mechanical oscillator and an optical pulse. We find two types of paradox, defined by whether it is the oscillator or the pulse that shows the effect Schr\"odinger called ``steering''. Only the oscillator paradox addresses the question of mesoscopic local reality for a massive system. In that case, EPR's ``elements of reality'' are defined for the oscillator, and it is these elements of reality that are falsified (if quantum mechanics is complete). For this sort of paradox, we show that a thermal barrier exists, meaning that a threshold level of pulse-oscillator interaction is required for a given thermal occupation ${n}_{0}$ of the oscillator. We find there is no equivalent thermal barrier for the entanglement of the pulse with the oscillator or for the EPR paradox that addresses the local reality of the optical system. Finally, we examine the possibility of an EPR paradox between two entangled oscillators. Our work highlights the asymmetrical effect of thermal noise on quantum nonlocality.

arXiv:1211.1779Physical Review ANov 19, 201392 citations

An algebraic approach to quantum mechanics and the EPR paradox

Kay-Kong Wan, R. G. McLean

Physics Letters AMay 1, 19844 citations

A Conceptual Review of Quantum Entanglement and the EPR Paradox

Md Anwarul Islam Aion

Jan 1, 20240 citations

Über das Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxon / On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Peter Mittelstaedt

The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung AApr 1, 19741 citation

{n}_{0}

of the oscillator. We find there is no equivalent thermal barrier for the entanglement of the pulse with the oscillator or for the EPR paradox that addresses the local reality of the optical system. Finally, we examine the possibility of an EPR paradox between two entangled oscillators. Our work highlights the asymmetrical effect of thermal noise on quantum nonlocality.