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

American Journal of Physics

The Epistemological Basis of Einstein's, Podolsky's, and Rosen's Objection to Quantum Theory

Donald L. Reisler

Published Jul 1, 1971• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox continues to be the center of great controversey and illumination within quantum theory. In this paper we examine Einstein's scientific epistemology in order to discover the basis for his objections to quantum theory. Then we discuss the consequences and implications of this for the EPR paradox and the quantum mechanical method of state representation.

DOI
10.1119/1.1986291

Related papers

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox and Local Hidden—Variables Theories

Henryk Paul

Abstract Einstein's severe critique of quantum mechanics took its ultimate form in the so‐called Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. The latter remained a subject of mere dispute, until a remarkable progress was initiated in 1964 by Bell who showed that quantum mechanical correlations specific for an EPR type experiment cannot be reproduced in any local hidden—variables theory. Afterwards, realistic versions of EPR experiments have been conceived and, in fact, carried out. The objective of the present paper is to give a review of this recent exciting development, both theoretical and experimental, which reveals one of the most striking features of quantum theory, the “quantum interconnectedness of distant systems”.

Fortschritte der Physik•Jan 1, 1980•12 citations

The EPR Paradox of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Four Unpublished Letters between A. Einstein and the Mathematician J. L. B. Cooper, Reproduced in Full and Examined

P. L. Butzer, D. E. Edmunds, Gert Roepstorff +2 more

Abstract This paper presents correspondence between Albert Einstein and the mathematical analyst J. L. B. Cooper on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox of quantum theory published in 1935. Two letters written by Cooper, and the replies from Einstein, all written between October and December 1949, are retyped and added as facsimiles. The lack of agreement, arising from very different points of view, is analysed, taking into account the complex underlying mathematical and physical factors that arise naturally in connection with the EPR paradox.

Results in Mathematics•Feb 14, 2026•0 citations

Non-Locality as a Fundamental Principle of Reality: Bell's Theorem and Space-Like Interconnectedness

ELIZABETH A. RAUSCHER

Two very significant principles with vast ramifications discovered in the 20th century are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Nonlocality Principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox. These aspects of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implications. The fundamental bases of nonlocality in quantum theory lie in the EPR paradox, as well as other experiments that demand a nonlocal explanation for the phenomenon they display. The fundamental basis of nonlocality in the universe is fundamental to the properties of consciousness. We examined both micro and macroscopic nonlocality.

Cosmos and history•Mar 25, 2017•0 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.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A•Apr 1, 1974•1 citation

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Reexamined

Gen-Ichiro Nagasaka

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is an old problem which started back in 1935 with an article in Physical Review titled ‘Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Physical Reality Completely?’ These authors assert that quantum mechanics, being inconsistent, cannot describe physical reality completely. In the present paper the nature of the inconsistency will be analyzed and it will be shown that the E.P.R. paradox is essentially of formal nature and that the apparent formal inconsistency may be regarded as a consequence of unjustifiable presupposition. According to quantum mechanical theory the states of a microscopic system may be represented by state vectors and in the absence of any disturbance from outside the state vectors will change continuously with time according to Schrodinger's equation.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1970•0 citations

Reflections Concerning Niels Bohr's Refutation of the Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen‐Paradox

Klaus Fuchs

Abstract The controverse discussion between Bohr and Einstein concerning the interpretation of quantum theory is resumed by a reappraisal of some arguments in the view of epistemological problems, which have come to the fore in recent times.

Annalen der Physik•Jan 1, 1985•0 citations
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox continues to be the center of great controversey and illumination within quantum theory. In this paper we examine Einstein's scientific epistemology in order to discover the basis for his objections to quantum theory. Then we discuss the consequences and implications of this for the EPR paradox and the quantum mechanical method of state representation.
Abstract Einstein's severe critique of quantum mechanics took its ultimate form in the so‐called Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. The latter remained a subject of mere dispute, until a remarkable progress was initiated in 1964 by Bell who showed that quantum mechanical correlations specific for an EPR type experiment cannot be reproduced in any local hidden—variables theory. Afterwards, realistic versions of EPR experiments have been conceived and, in fact, carried out. The objective of the present paper is to give a review of this recent exciting development, both theoretical and experimental, which reveals one of the most striking features of quantum theory, the “quantum interconnectedness of distant systems”.
Abstract This paper presents correspondence between Albert Einstein and the mathematical analyst J. L. B. Cooper on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox of quantum theory published in 1935. Two letters written by Cooper, and the replies from Einstein, all written between October and December 1949, are retyped and added as facsimiles. The lack of agreement, arising from very different points of view, is analysed, taking into account the complex underlying mathematical and physical factors that arise naturally in connection with the EPR paradox.
Two very significant principles with vast ramifications discovered in the 20th century are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Nonlocality Principles of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox. These aspects of quantum theory have major physical and philosophical implications. The fundamental bases of nonlocality in quantum theory lie in the EPR paradox, as well as other experiments that demand a nonlocal explanation for the phenomenon they display. The fundamental basis of nonlocality in the universe is fundamental to the properties of consciousness. We examined both micro and macroscopic nonlocality.
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 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is an old problem which started back in 1935 with an article in Physical Review titled ‘Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Physical Reality Completely?’ These authors assert that quantum mechanics, being inconsistent, cannot describe physical reality completely. In the present paper the nature of the inconsistency will be analyzed and it will be shown that the E.P.R. paradox is essentially of formal nature and that the apparent formal inconsistency may be regarded as a consequence of unjustifiable presupposition. According to quantum mechanical theory the states of a microscopic system may be represented by state vectors and in the absence of any disturbance from outside the state vectors will change continuously with time according to Schrodinger's equation.