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

European Journal of Physics

A comment on `EPR and the Copenhagen interpretation'

J. M. Domingos, Fernando Nogueira, Maria Helena Caldeira, F. Sampaio dos Aidos

Published Mar 1, 1998• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We comment on a recently published criticism of our analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.
DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/19/2/015

Related papers

Comment on "Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell Paradoxes"

N. David Mermin

Physical Review Letters•Oct 18, 1982•19 citations

EPR and the Copenhagen interpretation

Vladimir Hnizdo

The `Copenhagen-interpretation' analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in a recent paper by Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira and dos Aidos is criticized as a misrepresentation of both the EPR argument and the Copenhagen interpretation. Zusammenfassung. In einem kürzlichen Artikel haben Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira und dos Aidos das Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) Paradoxon mit Hilfe der `Kopenhagener Interpretation' analysiert. Wir kritisieren hier diesen Ansatz als Fehlinterpretation sowohl des EPR-Arguments als auch der Kopenhagener Interpretation.

European Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 1997•4 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 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox and the Relevant Philosophical Problems

HE ZUO-XIU

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1996•0 citations

A Critique Of John Bell's 1964 Article On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox

Roger Mc Murtrie

•Oct 3, 2026•0 citations

On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument: Its recent critique and its meaning

Nickola Stefanov Todorov

Physics Letters A•Aug 1, 1983•0 citations
The `Copenhagen-interpretation' analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in a recent paper by Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira and dos Aidos is criticized as a misrepresentation of both the EPR argument and the Copenhagen interpretation. Zusammenfassung. In einem kürzlichen Artikel haben Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira und dos Aidos das Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) Paradoxon mit Hilfe der `Kopenhagener Interpretation' analysiert. Wir kritisieren hier diesen Ansatz als Fehlinterpretation sowohl des EPR-Arguments als auch der Kopenhagener Interpretation.
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.