The concept of elements of physical reality (e.p.r.) in quantum mechanics as defined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is discussed in the context of the EPR–Bohm and the EPR–Bell experiments on a pair of spin 1/2 particles in the singlet state. It is argued that EPR's definition of e.p.r. is appropriate to the EPR–Bell experiment rather than to the EPR–Bohm experiment, and that Bohr's interpretation of e.p.r. is also consistent with such a viewpoint. It is shown that the observed correlation between the spins of the two particles in the EPR–Bell experiment is just a manifestation of the correlation that exists between the wave functions of the particles in the singlet state and a consequence of the fact that a Stern–Gerlach magnet does not change the state of a particle but only transforms its wave function into a representation defined by the axis of the magnet. As such, the correlation is suggested to be an affirmation of Einstein's concept of locality, and not an evidence for nonlocality.
The concept of elements of physical reality (e.p.r.) in quantum mechanics as defined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is discussed in the context of the EPR–Bohm and the EPR–Bell experiments on a pair of spin 1/2 particles in the singlet state. It is argued that EPR's definition of e.p.r. is appropriate to the EPR–Bell experiment rather than to the EPR–Bohm experiment, and that Bohr's interpretation of e.p.r. is also consistent with such a viewpoint. It is shown that the observed correlation between the spins of the two particles in the EPR–Bell experiment is just a manifestation of the correlation that exists between the wave functions of the particles in the singlet state and a consequence of the fact that a Stern–Gerlach magnet does not change the state of a particle but only transforms its wave function into a representation defined by the axis of the magnet. As such, the correlation is suggested to be an affirmation of Einstein's concept of locality, and not an evidence for nonlocality.
Recent experiments on the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting claim to test the compatibility between nonlocal quantum entanglement and the (special) theory of relativity. Confirmation of quantum theory has led to the interpretation that Einstein's image of physical reality for each photon in the EPR pair cannot be maintained. A detailed critique on two representative experiments is presented following the original EPR notion of local realism. It is argued that relativity does not enter into the picture, however for the Bell-Bohm version of local realism in terms of hidden variables such experiments are significant. Of the two alternatives, namely incompleteness of quantum theory for describing an individual quantum system, and the ensemble view, it is only the former that has been ruled out by the experiments. An alternative approach gives a statistical ensemble interpretation of the observed data, and the significant conclusion that these experiments do not deny physical reality of the photon is obtained. After discussing the need for a photon model, a vortex structure is proposed based on the space-time invariant property-spin, and pure gauge fields. To test the prime role of spin for photons and the angular-momentum interpretation of electromagnetic fields, experimental schemes feasible in modern laboratories are suggested.
There is an opinion that the Bohm reformulation of the EPR paradox in terms of spin variables is equivalent to the original one. In this note we show that such an opinion is not justified. We apply to the original EPR problem the method which was used by Bell for the Bohm reformulation. He has shown that correlation function of two spins cannot be represented by classical correlation of separated bounded random processes. This Bell`s theorem has been interpreted as incompatibility of local realism with quantum mechanics. We show that, in contrast to Bell`s theorem for spin or polarization correlation functions, the correlation of positions (or momenta) of two particles, depending on the rotation angles, in the original EPR model always admits a representation in the form of classical correlation of separated random processes. In this sense there exists a local realistic representation for the original EPR model but there is no such a representation for the Bohm spin reformulation of the EPR paradox. It shows also that the phenomena of quantum nonlocality is based not only on the properties of entangled states but also on the using of particular bounded observables.
The long-standing puzzle of the nonlocal Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations is resolved. The correct quantum mechanical correlations arise for the case of entangled particles when strict locality is assumed for the probability amplitudes instead of locality for probabilities. Locality of amplitudes implies that measurement on one particle does not collapse the companion particle to a definite state. Sixty five years ago, the most significant paper questioning a fundamental aspect of quantum phenomena was written by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1]. They addressed the question whether the wave-function represented a complete description of reality in quantum mechanics, and argued that it didn’t. Bohr’s reply to this paper [2] was not sufficient to resolve the fundamental issues raised by EPR. Decades later, Bohm rephrased the EPR problem [3] in terms of particles correlated in their spin and this helped enormously in analyzing the problem with clarity. John Bell analyzed the EPR problem in the early sixties and established the Bell’s inequalities obeyed by
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.
The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities.
From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.