© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

The EPR paper and Bell's theorem

James T. Cushing

Published Jan 29, 1998• 0 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139171106.031

Related papers

Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered incomplete?

Gilles Brassard A, André Allan Méthot

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.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701001•Dec 30, 2006•3 citations

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

Mysteries in Quantum Mechanics

S. Rajasekar, R. Velusamy

Quantum theory is considered as the most successful scientific theory of all time. The realization of a controversy between quantum mechanics and reasonable assumptions was pointed out by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) in 1935. It was John Stewart Bell, an Irish physicist, established what the quantum theory can tell us about the nature of the world. Bell formulated certain inequalities based on the arguments of EPR. They should be valid for any theory satisfying the notions of reality and locality. The striking news is that the Bell's inequality is violated by quantum mechanics but the experimental results agree with the predictions of quantum theory. This chapter presents the Schrodinger cat paradox and Bohm's version of EPR paradox. It gives a brief sketch of Bell's inequality and the quantum mechanical examples violating it. Most of the experiments were based on correlations between the polarizations of pairs of photons. Correlated photons can be produced in many ways.

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 29, 2022•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

Bell’s theorem and quantum mechanics

N. Rosen

Bell showed that assuming locality leads to a disagreement with quantum mechanics. Here the nature of the nonlocality that follows from quantum mechanics is investigated. Note by the Editor—Readers will recognize Professor Rosen, author of this paper, as one of the co-authors of the famous EPR paper, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, ‘‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered Complete?’’, Phys. Rev. 47, 770–780 (1935). Robert H. Romer, Editor

American Journal of Physics•Feb 1, 1994•21 citations

The ‘EPR Paradox’

F. J. Duarte

The ‘EPR paradox’ is directly related to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, even though Einstein did not include the word ‘paradox’ in it. All Einstein and his co authors did was to construct an argument that concluded that quantum mechanics was ‘not complete.’ This EPR conclusion is examined in detail here and found to be based on the erroneous assumption of an ‘all values’ spread in x that leads to an unphysical exact measurement of the momentum p . The word paradox, in relation the second part of the EPR paper, was introduced by Schrödinger in 1936 and popularized by Bohm in the 1950s. Hence, we should not attach responsibility to EPR for the ‘paradox’ situation. It was Schrödinger and Bohm who attached and propagated the term paradox in relation to the EPR paper. And the literature made it famous. This is particularly lamentable since the physics of quantum entanglement is utterly free of paradoxes .

CRC Press eBooks•Apr 10, 2026•0 citations

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.

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 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.

Quantum theory is considered as the most successful scientific theory of all time. The realization of a controversy between quantum mechanics and reasonable assumptions was pointed out by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) in 1935. It was John Stewart Bell, an Irish physicist, established what the quantum theory can tell us about the nature of the world. Bell formulated certain inequalities based on the arguments of EPR. They should be valid for any theory satisfying the notions of reality and locality. The striking news is that the Bell's inequality is violated by quantum mechanics but the experimental results agree with the predictions of quantum theory. This chapter presents the Schrodinger cat paradox and Bohm's version of EPR paradox. It gives a brief sketch of Bell's inequality and the quantum mechanical examples violating it. Most of the experiments were based on correlations between the polarizations of pairs of photons. Correlated photons can be produced in many ways.

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.

Bell showed that assuming locality leads to a disagreement with quantum mechanics. Here the nature of the nonlocality that follows from quantum mechanics is investigated. Note by the Editor—Readers will recognize Professor Rosen, author of this paper, as one of the co-authors of the famous EPR paper, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, ‘‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered Complete?’’, Phys. Rev. 47, 770–780 (1935). Robert H. Romer, Editor

The ‘EPR paradox’ is directly related to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, even though Einstein did not include the word ‘paradox’ in it. All Einstein and his co authors did was to construct an argument that concluded that quantum mechanics was ‘not complete.’ This EPR conclusion is examined in detail here and found to be based on the erroneous assumption of an ‘all values’ spread in x that leads to an unphysical exact measurement of the momentum p . The word paradox, in relation the second part of the EPR paper, was introduced by Schrödinger in 1936 and popularized by Bohm in the 1950s. Hence, we should not attach responsibility to EPR for the ‘paradox’ situation. It was Schrödinger and Bohm who attached and propagated the term paradox in relation to the EPR paper. And the literature made it famous. This is particularly lamentable since the physics of quantum entanglement is utterly free of paradoxes .