More than 70 years after its publication, the article by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) [88] is still cited hundreds of times every year in the literature; this is a very exceptional case of longevity for a scientific article! There is some irony in this situation since, for a long time, the majority of physicists did not pay much attention to the EPR reasoning. They considered it as historically interesting, but with no precise relevance to modern quantum mechanics; the argument was even sometimes completely misinterpreted. Astriking example is given in the Einstein-Born correspondence [89] where Born, even in comments that he wrote after Einstein's death, clearly shows that he never completely understood the nature of the objections raised by EPR. Born went on thinking that the point of Einstein was a stubborn rejection of indeterminism (“look, Albert, indeterminism is not so bad!”), while actually the major concern of EPR was locality and/or separability (we come back later to these terms, which are related to the notion of space-time). If giants like Born could be misled in this way, no surprise that, later on, many others made similar mistakes! This is why, in what follows, we will take an approach that may look elementary, but at least has the advantage of putting the emphasis on the logical structure of the arguments and their generality. Doing so, we will closely follow neither the historical development of the ideas nor the formulation of the original article, but rather will emphasize the generality of the EPR reasoning.
More than 70 years after its publication, the article by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) [88] is still cited hundreds of times every year in the literature; this is a very exceptional case of longevity for a scientific article! There is some irony in this situation since, for a long time, the majority of physicists did not pay much attention to the EPR reasoning. They considered it as historically interesting, but with no precise relevance to modern quantum mechanics; the argument was even sometimes completely misinterpreted. Astriking example is given in the Einstein-Born correspondence [89] where Born, even in comments that he wrote after Einstein's death, clearly shows that he never completely understood the nature of the objections raised by EPR. Born went on thinking that the point of Einstein was a stubborn rejection of indeterminism (“look, Albert, indeterminism is not so bad!”), while actually the major concern of EPR was locality and/or separability (we come back later to these terms, which are related to the notion of space-time). If giants like Born could be misled in this way, no surprise that, later on, many others made similar mistakes! This is why, in what follows, we will take an approach that may look elementary, but at least has the advantage of putting the emphasis on the logical structure of the arguments and their generality. Doing so, we will closely follow neither the historical development of the ideas nor the formulation of the original article, but rather will emphasize the generality of the EPR reasoning.
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.
The famously controversial 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) took aim at the heart of the flourishing field of quantum mechanics. The paper provoked responses from the leading theoretical physicists of the day, and brought entanglement and nonlocality to the forefront of discussion. This book looks back at the seminal year in which the EPR paper was published and explores the intense debate it unleashed. These conversations in print and in private correspondence offer significant insight into the minds of pioneering quantum physicists including Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein himself. Offering the most complete collection of sources to date – many published or translated here for the first time – this text brings a rich new context to this pivotal moment in physics history. Both researchers and students in the history and philosophy of science, and enthusiasts alike, will find this book illuminating.
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.
This chapter temporarily departs from conventional "orthodoxy" in that the authors set aside the completeness hypothesis and its generalizations. In 1935 A. Einstein and his two younger collaborators, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) issued a paper in which they showed that, assuming the validity of but very general and highly plausible assumptions, the incompleteness of quantum mechanics could be demonstrated. The opinion that quantum mechanics is a complete description of the atomic and subatomic phenomena was so much engrained in the mind of the physicists that this EPR result was soon referred to as a "paradox." The EPR argument was based on assumptions, or premises, that, prima facie look most plausible. On the theoretical side it has been shown that the D. Greenberger, M. Home, and A. Zeilinger argument can be developed without involving any spin, essentially by replacing the spin-component measurements by presence measurements performed by means of counters.
Ever since it first appeared in 1935, the famous paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, questioning the completeness of quantum mechanics as a theory, has courted controversy. The initial arguments with Bohr have never been forgotten or gone away; the ideas of Bell have remained; many experiments have been performed purporting to support the stance of Bohr. More recently, however, an experiment performed by a group in Basel has questioned this accepted position and, theoretically, this new perspective has received support from at least two sources. It is the work behind these two sources, especially the second, together with the experimental work at Basel, which form the basis for this examination of the present position as far as this extremely important position for physical science is concerned. Needless to say, considering the views expressed in these two approaches, it is also necessary and appropriate to consider some possible consequences if this new view becomes accepted. Due to the fact that the recent support for the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen argument makes use of results in iso-mathematics, iso-mechanics and iso-chemistry, these possible consequences include the exact representation of nuclear data, the achievement of an attractive force between identical valence electrons with the ensuing exact representation of molecular data, the prediction of new clean energies and the prediction of the possible recycling of nuclear waste via stimulated decay—none of which is allowable utilising traditional quantum mechanics. Hence here, as well as discussing the resolution of the long standing issue provoked by the well-known Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen article, some of these consequences will be discussed with a view to provoking more general, open-minded discussion within the scientific community.
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.