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

Physics World

The EPR paradox

Peter John Bussey, G J Parker, Stuart Arnold, Thomas D. Angelidis, H. N. V. Temperley

Published May 1, 1995• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Colin Jack is to be complimented on his entertaining exposition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in “Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox” (April pp39–42), but the more serious explanation he gives is misleading in an important respect. There is, and need be, no “influence” travelling from one detector to the other. Although the results of the measurements are correlated, it is a logical fallacy to suppose that a correlation has to imply a causal connection.

DOI
10.1088/2058-7058/8/5/16

Related papers

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (Epr) as not a Paradox But a Weakened Theorem © Copyright 2018 by Colin James III All Rights Reserved.

Colin James

•Apr 1, 2018•0 citations

The dilemma of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - 60 years later : an International Symposium in Honour of Nathan Rosen - Haifa, March 1995

A. Mann, M. Revzen, Nathan Rosen

Some reflections on the EPR work, N. Rosen Philosophical reflections on EPR, A. Shimony Can EPR non-locality be geometrical? Y. Ne'Eman EPR in the 1990's: from paradox to crucial ingredient in frontier experiments, H.J. Lipkin Eistein-Podolsky-Rosen interferometry, A. Zeilinger Quantum phase, photon counting and EPR variables, M.T. Fontenelle, M. Freyberger, M. Heni, W.P. Schleich, M.S. Zubairy Fine structure of EPR state and universal quantum correlation, B.S. Tsirelson Locality, reality, EPR, and Bell's inequality, M. Lokajicek On the Pauli wave function and the EPR paradox, F. Piazzese Quantum nonreproducibility at the individual level as a resolution of quantum paradoxes, W. de Baere Quantum nonlocality and Bell's inequality, W.M. de Muynpk, W. De Baere On the conjecture that Bell's theorem is not true, E. Santos temporal Bell inequalities in quantum networks Quantum-optical Bell correlations in phase space, U. Leonhardt, J.A. Vaccaro More powerful tests of nonlocality by sequences of measurements, S. Popescu Nonlocality as an axiom for quantum theory, D. Rohrlich, S. Popescu Uncertainty principle for nonhermitian operators and its applications, L.P. Piyaevskii Measures of entanglement, A. Shimony Generalized two-mode squeezing and quantum entanglement Wave-particle duality for a single photon, A. Aspect Causality and nonlocality in faster- than- light photon travel Geometry of quantum inference, S.L. Braunstein Quantum information: how much information in a state vector? C.M. Caves, C.A. Fuchs Quantum and classical information transmission acts and reducibilities, C.H. Bennett Consequences and inconsequences of cryptic constrains, L.S. Schulman The meaning of protective measurements, Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, L. Vaidman From E.P.R. to G.H.Z.: conference highlights, A. Peres.

•Jan 1, 1996•3 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem

A. J. Leggett

Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.

Science•Feb 10, 2005•102 citations

On the solution of the EPR paradox and the explanation of the violation of Bell's inequality

Gyula Bene

A new interpretation offers a consistent conceptual basis for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox is solved and the violation of Bell's inequality is explained by maintaining realism, inductive inference and Einstein separability.

arXiv:quant-ph/9708045•Aug 27, 1997•1 citation

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

A comment on `EPR and the Copenhagen interpretation'

J. M. Domingos, Fernando Nogueira, Maria Helena Caldeira +1 more

We comment on a recently published criticism of our analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

European Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 1998•0 citations
Colin Jack is to be complimented on his entertaining exposition of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in “Sherlock Holmes investigates the EPR paradox” (April pp39–42), but the more serious explanation he gives is misleading in an important respect. There is, and need be, no “influence” travelling from one detector to the other. Although the results of the measurements are correlated, it is a logical fallacy to suppose that a correlation has to imply a causal connection.
Some reflections on the EPR work, N. Rosen Philosophical reflections on EPR, A. Shimony Can EPR non-locality be geometrical? Y. Ne'Eman EPR in the 1990's: from paradox to crucial ingredient in frontier experiments, H.J. Lipkin Eistein-Podolsky-Rosen interferometry, A. Zeilinger Quantum phase, photon counting and EPR variables, M.T. Fontenelle, M. Freyberger, M. Heni, W.P. Schleich, M.S. Zubairy Fine structure of EPR state and universal quantum correlation, B.S. Tsirelson Locality, reality, EPR, and Bell's inequality, M. Lokajicek On the Pauli wave function and the EPR paradox, F. Piazzese Quantum nonreproducibility at the individual level as a resolution of quantum paradoxes, W. de Baere Quantum nonlocality and Bell's inequality, W.M. de Muynpk, W. De Baere On the conjecture that Bell's theorem is not true, E. Santos temporal Bell inequalities in quantum networks Quantum-optical Bell correlations in phase space, U. Leonhardt, J.A. Vaccaro More powerful tests of nonlocality by sequences of measurements, S. Popescu Nonlocality as an axiom for quantum theory, D. Rohrlich, S. Popescu Uncertainty principle for nonhermitian operators and its applications, L.P. Piyaevskii Measures of entanglement, A. Shimony Generalized two-mode squeezing and quantum entanglement Wave-particle duality for a single photon, A. Aspect Causality and nonlocality in faster- than- light photon travel Geometry of quantum inference, S.L. Braunstein Quantum information: how much information in a state vector? C.M. Caves, C.A. Fuchs Quantum and classical information transmission acts and reducibilities, C.H. Bennett Consequences and inconsequences of cryptic constrains, L.S. Schulman The meaning of protective measurements, Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, L. Vaidman From E.P.R. to G.H.Z.: conference highlights, A. Peres.
Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.
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).