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 EPR experiment, special relativity, and the distinction between effects and signals

Jeffrey J. Trester

Published Jan 1, 1989• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1119/1.15879

Related papers

EPR, Relativity, and the GHZ Experiment

Constantine Pagonis, Michael L. G. Redhead, Patrick La Rivière

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1996•1 citation

Ghostly action at a distance: A non-technical explanation of the Bell inequality

Mark Alford

We present a non-mathematical explanation of Bell's inequality. Using the inequality, we show how the results of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiments violate the principle of strong locality. This indicates, given some reasonable-sounding assumptions, that some sort of faster-than-light influence is present in nature. We discuss the implications, emphasizing the relationship between EPR and the Principle of Relativity, the distinction between causal influences and signals, and the tension between EPR and determinism.

arXiv:1506.02179•American Journal of Physics•May 23, 2016•9 citations

The EPR Paradox, Actions at a Distance and the Theory of Relativity

Oreste Piccioni, Werner A. W. Mehlhop, Brian C. Wright

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1989•0 citations

EPR Paradox Solved by Special Theory of Relativity

Justin Lee

This paper uses the special theory of relativity to introduce a novel solution to EinsteinPodolskyRosen paradox.More specically, the faster-than-light communication is described to explain two types of EPR paradox experiments: photon polarization and electronpositron pair spins.Most importantly, this paper explains why this faster-than-light communication does not violate the special theory of relativity.

Acta Physica Polonica A•May 1, 2014•5 citations

Causality and realism in the EPR experiment

Haṡok Chang, Nancy Delaney Cartwright

Erkenntnis•Mar 1, 1993•40 citations

The Continuity Equation as a Bridge between Quantum and Classical Probabilities

Nikolay Leonidovich Chuprikov, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

We argue that quantum mechanics, in reality, respects the principles of a macroscopic realism (PMRs). The current quantum theory to tell us that “…the state of a system can be instantaneously changed by a distant measurement…” is not a physical one. Its key statements—that the violation of Bell's inequality in the EPR‐Bell experiments verifies nonlocality, and nonlocal correlations respect special relativity—are false. Both the EPR‐Bell experiments and theorems to support the “non‐signalling principle” resort to the quantum mechanical averaging rule which is inapplicable to Cat states because such averaging violates the correspondence principle (CP). The main idea of the paper is exemplified by our model of a one‐dimensional completed scattering.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations
We present a non-mathematical explanation of Bell's inequality. Using the inequality, we show how the results of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiments violate the principle of strong locality. This indicates, given some reasonable-sounding assumptions, that some sort of faster-than-light influence is present in nature. We discuss the implications, emphasizing the relationship between EPR and the Principle of Relativity, the distinction between causal influences and signals, and the tension between EPR and determinism.
We argue that quantum mechanics, in reality, respects the principles of a macroscopic realism (PMRs). The current quantum theory to tell us that “…the state of a system can be instantaneously changed by a distant measurement…” is not a physical one. Its key statements—that the violation of Bell's inequality in the EPR‐Bell experiments verifies nonlocality, and nonlocal correlations respect special relativity—are false. Both the EPR‐Bell experiments and theorems to support the “non‐signalling principle” resort to the quantum mechanical averaging rule which is inapplicable to Cat states because such averaging violates the correspondence principle (CP). The main idea of the paper is exemplified by our model of a one‐dimensional completed scattering.