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

Journal of Hechi University

An Analysis of EPR Paradox——The Alliance of Analytical Reason and Dialectical Reason

Gui Qi-quan

Published Jan 1, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This paper presents the following viewpoints: First,the key point or the root of a paradox lies in that the background knowledge is defective,but accepted as correct.Secondly,EPR paradox is a famous theory in the domain of quantum mechanics.Einstein and others unearthed a unique non-local hypothesis in meta-theoretical level which is latent in quantum mechanics by means of ideal experiment and EPR argument.Apparently,it seems to violate the requirements of the Theory of Relativity.Thirdly,it is true that Einstein wants to defend realism and non-action-at-a-distance,but globalism in quantum mechanics or long-range correlation should not be ignored,which will indicate that they have profound implications to be further explored.Finally,the alliance of analytical reason and dialectical reason is a powerful thought instrument of resolving paradoxes in science.

Related papers

EPR Paradox,Quantum Long-range Correlation and Its Crucial Experiment——A Perspective of Logic

Xiaohui Jiang

1.The key or origin of EPR paradox lies in the fact that there is something with the background knowledge which is accepted as correct.Through ideal experiment and EPR argument,Einstein and others have found that the metatheoretical non-local hypothesis behind quantum mechanics seems to conflict with the theory of relativity.2.Experiment test of Bell's inequality is a kind of crucial experiment.3.The metaphors of Neurath's repairing the ship during voyage and Popper's swamp have given a vivid explanation that scientific theories may have a relatively reliable base of experience.Accordingly,the background knowledge that could be wrong is qualified to be the relatively reliable logic base of crucial experiment.4.Einstein is not in defending realism and non-act-a-distance.However,the holism of quantum mechanics and long-range correlation cannot be ignored,for they will have profound implication which calls for further study.

Kexue jishu zhexue yanjiu•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

On the Correlations between the Particles in the EPR‐Paradoxon

H.‐J. Treder

Abstract The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” does not imply non‐local interactions or an “action‐at‐a‐distance”. Contrary, the EPR proves the measurements at one particle does not have influences at canonical variables of the other particles if the quantum‐mechanical commutation relations are true. But, the EPR implices correlations between the particles which come in by “subjective knowledge”. These correlations are a priori informations about the relative motion or, complementarily, about the motion of the center of mass. The impression of an action‐at‐a‐distance is produced by the use of usual particle coordinates in the EPR‐arrangements. The discussion of the Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” (EPR) has been going on over fifty years. EINSTEIN, PODOLSKY, and ROSEN formulated their famous paradox in 1935, and in the discussion between N. BOHR (1935, 1949) and A. EINSTEIN (1936, 1948); A. EINSTEIN (1948) made his point that the EPR implied an “action‐at‐a‐distance” for quantum‐mechanical particles (without obvious classical interactions). His argument is the starting point for the recent discussion about EPR and causality (see A. Aspect, 1981).

Annalen der Physik•Jan 1, 1983•2 citations

Spooky Action at No Distance: On the individuation of quantum mechanical systems

David R. Weinbaum

Recent experiments have perfectly verified the fact that quantum correlations between two entangled particles are stronger than any classical, local pre-quantum worldview allows. This is famously called the EPR paradox first conceived as a thought experiment and decades later realized in the lab. We discuss in depth the nature of the paradox and show that the problematics it presents is first and foremost epistemological. After briefly exploring resolutions to the paradox that after many decades of discourse still remain controversial, we argue that the paradox is rooted in the failure of our current metaphysical scheme, being the foundation of our knowledge, to accommodate and cohere our knowledge of the phenomena of entanglement. We then develop and make the case for a novel and more fundamental resolution of the paradox by changing the underlying metaphysical foundation from one based on individuals to a one based on individuation. We discuss in detail how in the light of this new scheme concepts central to the paradox such as realism, causality and locality are adjusted to the effect that the paradox is resolved without giving up these concepts so fundamental to our thinking. We conclude with a brief note about the important role of metaphysics to the progress of knowledge and our understanding of reality.

arXiv:1604.06775•Mar 11, 2016•1 citation

Bell's Theorem and the Theory of Relativity

Yutaka TANAKA

This paper starts with the observation that the combination of the so-calld EPR argument and Bell's theorem reveals one of the most paradoxical features of quantum reality, i.e. the no-separability of two contingent events. If we accept the conclusion of the revised EPR argument together with Bell's theorem, we are necessarily led to the denial of local causality which was presupposed by the original version of Einstein's criticism against quantum physics.. As the concept of local causality is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of relativity, we next consider the problem of compatibility between the theory of relativity and quantum physics. Popper's proposal of going back to Lorentz's theory is examined and rejected because the quantum correlation of EPR is not to be interpreted as “an action at a distance” which we can control and use as the operational definition of absolute simultaneity. An inquiry into something like aether as hidden reality behind the theory of relativity is considered as retrogressive as the so-called hidden variable theory of quantum physics. Accepting the non-separability of local elements of reality as the undeniable fact, we discuss the possibility of a realistic interpretation of quantum physics which transcends scientific materialism and classical determinism. As an example of such projects, Stapp's theory is examined with respect to a Whiteheadean process philosophy which provides the meta-physical background for his realistic interpretation of quantum physics. Finally, we present another version of quantum meta-physics based on “the philosophy of organism” which is broad enough to include observer and observed, local causality and non-local correlation, space and time, and potentiality and actuality in the inseparable unity of physical reality.

Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 1992•0 citations

Ghost-like action-at-a-distance in quantum mechanics: an elementary introduction to the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox

R. D. Mattuck

The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1982•3 citations

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
This paper presents the following viewpoints: First,the key point or the root of a paradox lies in that the background knowledge is defective,but accepted as correct.Secondly,EPR paradox is a famous theory in the domain of quantum mechanics.Einstein and others unearthed a unique non-local hypothesis in meta-theoretical level which is latent in quantum mechanics by means of ideal experiment and EPR argument.Apparently,it seems to violate the requirements of the Theory of Relativity.Thirdly,it is true that Einstein wants to defend realism and non-action-at-a-distance,but globalism in quantum mechanics or long-range correlation should not be ignored,which will indicate that they have profound implications to be further explored.Finally,the alliance of analytical reason and dialectical reason is a powerful thought instrument of resolving paradoxes in science.
1.The key or origin of EPR paradox lies in the fact that there is something with the background knowledge which is accepted as correct.Through ideal experiment and EPR argument,Einstein and others have found that the metatheoretical non-local hypothesis behind quantum mechanics seems to conflict with the theory of relativity.2.Experiment test of Bell's inequality is a kind of crucial experiment.3.The metaphors of Neurath's repairing the ship during voyage and Popper's swamp have given a vivid explanation that scientific theories may have a relatively reliable base of experience.Accordingly,the background knowledge that could be wrong is qualified to be the relatively reliable logic base of crucial experiment.4.Einstein is not in defending realism and non-act-a-distance.However,the holism of quantum mechanics and long-range correlation cannot be ignored,for they will have profound implication which calls for further study.
Abstract The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” does not imply non‐local interactions or an “action‐at‐a‐distance”. Contrary, the EPR proves the measurements at one particle does not have influences at canonical variables of the other particles if the quantum‐mechanical commutation relations are true. But, the EPR implices correlations between the particles which come in by “subjective knowledge”. These correlations are a priori informations about the relative motion or, complementarily, about the motion of the center of mass. The impression of an action‐at‐a‐distance is produced by the use of usual particle coordinates in the EPR‐arrangements. The discussion of the Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen “gedanken‐experiment” (EPR) has been going on over fifty years. EINSTEIN, PODOLSKY, and ROSEN formulated their famous paradox in 1935, and in the discussion between N. BOHR (1935, 1949) and A. EINSTEIN (1936, 1948); A. EINSTEIN (1948) made his point that the EPR implied an “action‐at‐a‐distance” for quantum‐mechanical particles (without obvious classical interactions). His argument is the starting point for the recent discussion about EPR and causality (see A. Aspect, 1981).
Recent experiments have perfectly verified the fact that quantum correlations between two entangled particles are stronger than any classical, local pre-quantum worldview allows. This is famously called the EPR paradox first conceived as a thought experiment and decades later realized in the lab. We discuss in depth the nature of the paradox and show that the problematics it presents is first and foremost epistemological. After briefly exploring resolutions to the paradox that after many decades of discourse still remain controversial, we argue that the paradox is rooted in the failure of our current metaphysical scheme, being the foundation of our knowledge, to accommodate and cohere our knowledge of the phenomena of entanglement. We then develop and make the case for a novel and more fundamental resolution of the paradox by changing the underlying metaphysical foundation from one based on individuals to a one based on individuation. We discuss in detail how in the light of this new scheme concepts central to the paradox such as realism, causality and locality are adjusted to the effect that the paradox is resolved without giving up these concepts so fundamental to our thinking. We conclude with a brief note about the important role of metaphysics to the progress of knowledge and our understanding of reality.
This paper starts with the observation that the combination of the so-calld EPR argument and Bell's theorem reveals one of the most paradoxical features of quantum reality, i.e. the no-separability of two contingent events. If we accept the conclusion of the revised EPR argument together with Bell's theorem, we are necessarily led to the denial of local causality which was presupposed by the original version of Einstein's criticism against quantum physics.. As the concept of local causality is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of relativity, we next consider the problem of compatibility between the theory of relativity and quantum physics. Popper's proposal of going back to Lorentz's theory is examined and rejected because the quantum correlation of EPR is not to be interpreted as “an action at a distance” which we can control and use as the operational definition of absolute simultaneity. An inquiry into something like aether as hidden reality behind the theory of relativity is considered as retrogressive as the so-called hidden variable theory of quantum physics. Accepting the non-separability of local elements of reality as the undeniable fact, we discuss the possibility of a realistic interpretation of quantum physics which transcends scientific materialism and classical determinism. As an example of such projects, Stapp's theory is examined with respect to a Whiteheadean process philosophy which provides the meta-physical background for his realistic interpretation of quantum physics. Finally, we present another version of quantum meta-physics based on “the philosophy of organism” which is broad enough to include observer and observed, local causality and non-local correlation, space and time, and potentiality and actuality in the inseparable unity of physical reality.
The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.
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.