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

A Promising Beginning?

Karl Hess

Published Oct 22, 2014• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1201/b16809-5

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

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:2604.09826•Apr 14, 2026•0 citations

EPR

David Wick

The third round of the Bohr-Einstein debate was conducted by way of the journals rather than in person. Five years after Bohr’s victory at the Sixth Solvay Conference, Einstein, working with two younger colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, finally achieved a sharp formulation of the argument that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. They published in the American journal The Physical Review , in 1935. As one expects in a paper bearing Einstein’s name, the argument is simple but very clever. An improvement by Schrödinger speeds up the exposition. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks•Jan 1, 1995•0 citations

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox and Local Hidden—Variables Theories

Henryk Paul

Abstract Einstein's severe critique of quantum mechanics took its ultimate form in the so‐called Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. The latter remained a subject of mere dispute, until a remarkable progress was initiated in 1964 by Bell who showed that quantum mechanical correlations specific for an EPR type experiment cannot be reproduced in any local hidden—variables theory. Afterwards, realistic versions of EPR experiments have been conceived and, in fact, carried out. The objective of the present paper is to give a review of this recent exciting development, both theoretical and experimental, which reveals one of the most striking features of quantum theory, the “quantum interconnectedness of distant systems”.

Fortschritte der Physik•Jan 1, 1980•12 citations

Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory

N. David Mermin

In May 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published an argument that quantum mechanics fails to provide a complete description of physical reality. Today, 50 years later, the EPR paper and the theoretical and experimental work it inspired remain remarkable for the vivid illustration they provide of one of the most bizarre aspects of the world revealed to us by the quantum theory.

Physics Today•Apr 1, 1985•584 citations

The EPR paper and Bell's theorem

James T. Cushing

When it was first put forward, special relativity struck many people as counterintuitive and possibly inconsistent, as we saw when we considered the twin paradox in Chapter 17. Quantum mechanics had a similar effect, only to a much greater and longer lasting degree, from the time of its inception in the mid 1920s until the present. This reaction to quantum theory was not confined to an initial confusion that often accompanies a new subject, but remained a life-long puzzle for Einstein, to mention only the most prominent opponent of what he took to be the reigning orthodoxy. In this chapter we study a famous attempt by Einstein and two of his colleagues to show that quantum mechanics was, if not logically inconsistent, then at least an incomplete theory. This charge of incompleteness is just that raised by Schrödinger's cat paradox (Section 21.4). THE EPR PARADOX In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966) and Nathan Rosen (1909–1995) (hereafter referred to as EPR) published a paper titled ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’. They take as their criterion for the completeness of a theory that it contains terms corresponding to every relevant entity found in reality. For example, in the classical description of a system, such as a planet going around the sun, there are symbols representing the position r , the momentum p and so forth for the various parts of the system.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations
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') 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.
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.
The third round of the Bohr-Einstein debate was conducted by way of the journals rather than in person. Five years after Bohr’s victory at the Sixth Solvay Conference, Einstein, working with two younger colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, finally achieved a sharp formulation of the argument that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. They published in the American journal The Physical Review , in 1935. As one expects in a paper bearing Einstein’s name, the argument is simple but very clever. An improvement by Schrödinger speeds up the exposition. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Abstract Einstein's severe critique of quantum mechanics took its ultimate form in the so‐called Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. The latter remained a subject of mere dispute, until a remarkable progress was initiated in 1964 by Bell who showed that quantum mechanical correlations specific for an EPR type experiment cannot be reproduced in any local hidden—variables theory. Afterwards, realistic versions of EPR experiments have been conceived and, in fact, carried out. The objective of the present paper is to give a review of this recent exciting development, both theoretical and experimental, which reveals one of the most striking features of quantum theory, the “quantum interconnectedness of distant systems”.
When it was first put forward, special relativity struck many people as counterintuitive and possibly inconsistent, as we saw when we considered the twin paradox in Chapter 17. Quantum mechanics had a similar effect, only to a much greater and longer lasting degree, from the time of its inception in the mid 1920s until the present. This reaction to quantum theory was not confined to an initial confusion that often accompanies a new subject, but remained a life-long puzzle for Einstein, to mention only the most prominent opponent of what he took to be the reigning orthodoxy. In this chapter we study a famous attempt by Einstein and two of his colleagues to show that quantum mechanics was, if not logically inconsistent, then at least an incomplete theory. This charge of incompleteness is just that raised by Schrödinger's cat paradox (Section 21.4). THE EPR PARADOX In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966) and Nathan Rosen (1909–1995) (hereafter referred to as EPR) published a paper titled ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’. They take as their criterion for the completeness of a theory that it contains terms corresponding to every relevant entity found in reality. For example, in the classical description of a system, such as a planet going around the sun, there are symbols representing the position r , the momentum p and so forth for the various parts of the system.