Bell showed that assuming locality leads to a disagreement with quantum mechanics. Here the nature of the nonlocality that follows from quantum mechanics is investigated. Note by the Editor—Readers will recognize Professor Rosen, author of this paper, as one of the co-authors of the famous EPR paper, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, ‘‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered Complete?’’, Phys. Rev. 47, 770–780 (1935). Robert H. Romer, Editor
Bell showed that assuming locality leads to a disagreement with quantum mechanics. Here the nature of the nonlocality that follows from quantum mechanics is investigated. Note by the Editor—Readers will recognize Professor Rosen, author of this paper, as one of the co-authors of the famous EPR paper, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, ‘‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered Complete?’’, Phys. Rev. 47, 770–780 (1935). Robert H. Romer, Editor
Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.
Assessment of Einstein's argument Is quantum mechanics complete and local … It was observed in §1.4 that Einstein's method of criticizing the orthodox view of quantum theory was to focus on examples whose special characteristics could be used to show that adherence to the completeness assumption compels one to adopt ‘unnatural theoretical interpretations’. It was a way not of disproving the conventional interpretation by attempting to locate in it some logical flaw, but of pushing it into a corner that in Einstein's view no one would seriously want to inhabit. The paper of Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (EPR) (1935) is the most famous component of this programme and the purpose of this chapter is to analyse the extent to which the arguments presented in it are compatible with the quantum theory of motion. From contemporaneous correspondence it appears that the EPR paper was written by Podolsky and that Einstein did not consider that the point which was really troubling him had been made explicit (Fine, 1986, Chap. 3). According to Einstein's accounts, EPR had the following purpose: to show that if one believes the wavefunction exhausts all the statements that can be meaningfully asserted about a physical system, then one must also accept that the real physical state of the system depends on what befalls another system with which it has previously interacted, no matter how far apart the two systems may become.
In general, Albert Einstein as one of "the founding fathers of quantum mechanics" had some problems to accept especially the Copenhagen dominated interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein's dissatisfaction with Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the absence of locality and causality within the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics lead to the well known Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment. According to Einstein et al., the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics cannot be regarded as a complete physical theory. The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment was the origin of J. S. Bell's publication in 1964; known as Bell's theorem. Meanwhile, some dramatic violations of Bell's inequality (by so called Bell test experiments) have been reported which is taken as an empirical evidence against local realism and causality at quantum level and as positive evidence in favor of the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics. Thus far, Quantum mechanics is still regarded as a "strictly" non-local theory. The purpose of this publication is to refute Bell's original theorem. Thus far, if we accept Bell's theorem as correct, we must accept that +0> = +1. We can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's theorem, Bell's theorem is refuted.
In this Einstein Year of Physics it seems appropriate to look at an important aspect of Einstein's work that is often down-played: his contribution to the debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Contrary to physics ‘folklore’, Bohr had no defence against Einstein's 1935 attack (the EPR paper) on the claimed completeness of orthodox quantum mechanics. I suggest that Einstein's argument, as stated most clearly in 1946, could justly be called Einstein's reality – locality – completeness theorem, since it proves that one of these three must be false. Einstein's instinct was that completeness of orthodox quantum mechanics was the falsehood, but he failed in his quest to find a more complete theory that respected reality and locality. Einstein's theorem, and possibly Einstein's failure, inspired John Bell in 1964 to prove his reality – locality theorem. This strengthened Einstein's theorem (but showed the futility of his quest) by demonstrating that either reality or locality is a falsehood. This revealed the full non-locality of the quantum world for the first time.
When it was first put forward, special relativity struck many people as counterintuitive and possibly inconsistent, as we saw when we considered the twin paradox in Chapter 17. Quantum mechanics had a similar effect, only to a much greater and longer lasting degree, from the time of its inception in the mid 1920s until the present. This reaction to quantum theory was not confined to an initial confusion that often accompanies a new subject, but remained a life-long puzzle for Einstein, to mention only the most prominent opponent of what he took to be the reigning orthodoxy. In this chapter we study a famous attempt by Einstein and two of his colleagues to show that quantum mechanics was, if not logically inconsistent, then at least an incomplete theory. This charge of incompleteness is just that raised by Schrödinger's cat paradox (Section 21.4). THE EPR PARADOX In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966) and Nathan Rosen (1909–1995) (hereafter referred to as EPR) published a paper titled ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’. They take as their criterion for the completeness of a theory that it contains terms corresponding to every relevant entity found in reality. For example, in the classical description of a system, such as a planet going around the sun, there are symbols representing the position r , the momentum p and so forth for the various parts of the system.