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

Physics Letters A

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem: A new solution

Roland L. Omnes

Published Jun 1, 1989• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/0375-9601(89)90018-2

Related papers

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Towards a Deeper Understanding of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Problem

Thomas Krüger

Foundations of Physics•Nov 1, 2000•7 citations

A new approach to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Tirzah Kaufherr

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 1985•0 citations

EPR-Problem (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Problem)

Peter Mittelstaedt

Compendium of Quantum Physics•Jan 1, 2009•0 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

New loophole for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

Michel Feldmann

arXiv:quant-ph/9904051•Foundations of Physics Letters•Feb 1, 1995•22 citations
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.