Progress of Theoretical Physics

Is the Experiment of Wu and Shaknov an Empirical Illustration of the Paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen?

Yasuo Yoshihuku

Published Dec 1, 1972• 1 citation

Abstract

Bohm and Aharonov interpreted the experiment of Wu and Shaknov as an empirical evidence of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Peres and Singer tried to deny their interpretation, but they were refuted by the former. It is shown that their reasoning for the interpretation is still unsatisfactory.

DOI: 10.1143/ptp.48.2445

Related papers

A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics

Elio Conte

We discuss the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paradox as it was formulated by Asher Peres in 1992 [4]. On this basis we realize an algebraic quantum like elaboration showing that in this formulation the paradox may be still interpreted and solved.

arXiv:0711.2260Nov 14, 20075 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 AApr 1, 19741 citation

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 PhysikJan 1, 19850 citations

Discovery of the Solution to the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox"

Roman Schnabel

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) published a thought experiment that is entirely correct, has been demonstrated in real experiments, and is now the most famous in quantum physics. Their pioneering work described, for the first time, quantum correlations and can be regarded as a very early glimpse into today's 'deep' quantum technologies, by which I mean those that enhance functionality by making use of quantum correlations. However, their work also contains a paradox that Erwin Schroedinger had already recognised as such in 1935 and which has since been cemented by the so-called Bell experiments. Here, I am now able to pinpoint the origin of the paradox within the chain of reasoning, which ultimately resolves the paradox.

quant-pharXiv:2604.09826Apr 14, 20260 citations

On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

James S. Bell

Introduction The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions. Formulation With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by Stern–Gerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ 1 and σ 2 .

Cambridge University Press eBooksJun 3, 200426 citations

SOME NOTES ON AERTS' INTERPRETATION OF THE EPR-PARADOX AND THE VIOLATION OF BELL-INEQUALITIES

Wim Christiaens

I give an analysis of what happens in the case of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment according to the creation-discovery view. According to many physicists the correlations in the experiment indicating a violations of Bell-inequalities are cases of outcome-dependence and not parameter dependence. It is shown that we can interpret the outcome independence violating correlations as an indication that quantum entities do not always exist in space, and that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment involves a localization of one entity, that in the course of this localization is ‘broken’ into two entities.

Jun 1, 20026 citations