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

Kybernetes

Cybernetical physics Part II: the EPR paradox and its implications

Uri Fidelman

Published Feb 13, 2009• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) paradox applying the multidimensionality of time and the perpendicularity of the temporal axes. Design/methodology/approach The paper is an extension of the application of neuropsychology to physics, as previously described in Part I, to cosmology. Findings The paper removes the apparent contradictions in physics implied by the EPR paradox. Practical implications A theoretical basis for a possible instantaneous (faster than light) sending of messages to everywhere in the cosmos is provided. Originality/value This theory is entirely new. The possible application is independent from the existence of tachions.

DOI
10.1108/03684920910932699

Related papers

The solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.

arXiv:2208.13831•Aug 29, 2022•1 citation

Avoiding Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox: Towards a More Physically Adequate Description of a Quantum State

Joseph Bernal, Olga M. Kosheleva, Владик Крейнович

The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

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

Donald L. Reisler

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.

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1971•5 citations

ON AERTS’ OVERLOOKED SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX

Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.

arXiv:1805.02869•Nov 20, 2018•2 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

Research on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

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

This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.

•Jun 1, 1989•0 citations
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) paradox applying the multidimensionality of time and the perpendicularity of the temporal axes. Design/methodology/approach The paper is an extension of the application of neuropsychology to physics, as previously described in Part I, to cosmology. Findings The paper removes the apparent contradictions in physics implied by the EPR paradox. Practical implications A theoretical basis for a possible instantaneous (faster than light) sending of messages to everywhere in the cosmos is provided. Originality/value This theory is entirely new. The possible application is independent from the existence of tachions.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.
The famous EPR paradox shows that if we describe quantum particles in the usual way -- by their wave functions -- then we get the following seeming contradiction. If we entangle the states of the two particles, then move them far away from each other, and measure the state of the first particle, then the state of the second particle immediately changes -- which contradicts to special relativity, according to which such immediate-action-at-a-distance is not possible. It is known that, from the physical viewpoint, this is not a real paradox: if we measure any property of the second particle, the results will not change whether we perform the measurement on the first particle or not. What the above argument shows is that the usual wave function description of a quantum state does not always adequately describe the corresponding physics. In this paper, we propose a new, more physically adequate description of a quantum state, a description in which there is no EPR paradox: measurements performed at the first particle does not change the state of the remote second one.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox was enunciated in 1935 and since then it has made a lot of ink flow. Being a subtle result, it has also been largely misunderstood. Indeed, if questioned about its solution, many physicists will still affirm today that the paradox has been solved by the Bell-test experimental results, which have shown that entangled states are real. However, this remains a wrong view, as the validity of the EPR ex-absurdum reasoning is independent from the Bell-test experiments, and the possible structural shortcomings it evidenced cannot be eliminated. These were correctly identified by the Belgian physicist Diederik Aerts, in the eighties of last century, and are about the inability of the quantum formalism to describe separate physical systems. The purpose of the present article is to bring Aerts' overlooked result to the attention again of the physics' community, explaining its content and implications.
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.
This report discusses the following: The analysis of the singlet state of separate fermions proves that the EPR contradicts QM. The violation of special relativity. The Schroedinger equation and the EPR. The conservation of angular momentum. The proposal of collapse. The factorization of the spin states. The superposition principle. No paradox exists within the theory. The original state of Einstein et al is not a valid example of the EPR, and it seems impossible to construct a valid linear momentum example. This is another indication that the EPR contradicts QM. Actions at a distance, the model of Einstein et al for particles with mass, and Bell's inequalities and their physical meaning.