On 25 March 1935 John Tate, the then editor of Physical Review , received a paper that Einstein had co-authored with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, his younger colleagues at Princeton. The logbooks of Physical Review show that the EPR paper, as it has since become known, bypassed the refereeing process and went straight to press. Four printed pages of beautifully constructed argument appeared in the 15 May issue. They were heralded by a brief article in the New York Times titled "Einstein attacks quantum theory". And so he did.
On 25 March 1935 John Tate, the then editor of Physical Review , received a paper that Einstein had co-authored with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, his younger colleagues at Princeton. The logbooks of Physical Review show that the EPR paper, as it has since become known, bypassed the refereeing process and went straight to press. Four printed pages of beautifully constructed argument appeared in the 15 May issue. They were heralded by a brief article in the New York Times titled "Einstein attacks quantum theory". And so he did.
On 25 March 1935, the Physical Review received a paper from Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, with the title “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” A few days later, on 30 March 1935, I was born. My life with Einstein was off to a promising start. Some would call it an inauspicious start. Abraham Pais, for example, says in his otherwise admirable biography of Einstein [1] that “the only part of this article that will ultimately survive, I believe, is this last phrase [ No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this ], which so poignantly summarizes Einstein's views on quantum mechanics in his later years.” But today, in this centenary of the Einstein annus mirabilis, as the EPR paper and I both turn 70, it is, in fact, the most cited of all Einstein's papers [2]. The debate over its conceptual implications rages hotter than ever, and for the first time, practical (well, for the moment still gedanken practical) applications of the EPR effect have emerged in cryptography and in other areas of quantum information processing. Being only five weeks old, I was unprepared to pay attention to the article that appeared in the New York Times on 4 May 1935 under an elaborate set of headlines and subheads: And I was completely oblivious to the stern rebuke from Einstein himself, published three days later in the Times , which declared that “any information upon which the article … is based was given to you without my authority. It is my invariable practice to discuss scientific matters only in the appropriate forum and I deprecate advance publication of any announcement in regard to such matters in the secular press.” Apparently Podolsky had tipped off the Times to the article, which did not appear in the sacred press until the 15 May issue of Physical Review. It is not clear that Einstein ever forgave him, and I wish I had been old enough to send Podolsky a cross letter myself. Anyone growing up in America in the 1940s knew that the preeminent genius of our age, and perhaps of any other, lived in Princeton, New Jersey, had a predilection for baggy sweaters, and was always badly in need of a haircut—as far ahead of his time in dress and grooming as he was ahead in science during his 1905 annus mirabilis.
Einstein’s Trojan horse, built for the fortress of quantum theory, is contained in a publication that he authored together with two young physicists, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and is generally called the EPR paper (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935). Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) presented a proof that the use of probability or chance in quantum theory has very unsettling consequences, because quantum theory teaches possible correlations of two distant events. How can single events that are random be correlated to other random single events? EPR suggests that there are only two possible explanations: • Quantum theory necessitates instantaneous influences, influences that propagate faster than the speed of light in vacuum. These influences of distant events on each other explain, then, the correlations of the two distant events. Einstein was convinced that his relativity theory had excluded the possibility of such influences, and if that was the explanation, then quantum mechanics was simply wrong.
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.
Abstract “EINSTEIN ATTACKS QUANTUM MECHANICS” stated the headline in the New York Times, much to the chagrin of Einstein. He deplored Podolsky’s release of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox paper to the general public prior to its scientific review. We see how Einstein’s ideas developed both before and after the EPR paper, in which the formulation did not exactly please him. We follow the reactions of the physics community to EPR. EPR eventually led to Bell’s inequalities, meant to challenge the current form of quantum theory. Instead, it led to the experimental confirmation of its most enigmatic effect—the entanglement of two spatially separated particles.
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.