CRC Press eBooks

The EPR Problem and Nonseparability

Bernard d’Espagnat

Published May 4, 2018• 0 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1201/9780429503283-9

Related papers

On quantum mechanics self-consistency: EPR incompleteness claims require no extraneous concepts beyond the theory's plain formalism for refutation

D. F. Orsini, L. R. N. Oliveira, M. G. E. da Luz

From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.

quant-pharXiv:2608.10006Aug 11, 20260 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities

László E. Szabó

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics. There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality. Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades. The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.

arXiv:0712.1318Dec 9, 200712 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 eBooksApr 10, 20260 citations

On the problem of completeness of QM: von Neumann against Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We performed a comparative analysis of the arguments of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen -- EPR, 1935 (against the completeness of QM) and the theoretical formalism of QM (due to von Neumann, 1932). We found that the EPR considerations do not match at all with the von Neumann's theory. Thus EPR did not criticize the real theoretical model of QM. The root of EPR's paradoxical conclusion on incompleteness of QM is the misuse of von Neumann's projection postulate. EPR applied this postulate to observables with degenerate spectra (which is totally forbidden by the axiomatics of QM).

arXiv:0804.2006Apr 12, 20080 citations

On the problem of completeness of QM: von Neumann against Einstein, Podolsky, and

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We performed a comparative analysis of the arguments of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen – EPR, 1935: [1] (against the completeness of QM) and the theoretical formalism of QM (due to von Neumann, 1932: [2]). We found that the EPR considerations do not match at all with the von Neumann’s theory. Thus EPR did not criticize the real theoretical model of QM. The root of EPR’s paradoxical conclusion on incompleteness of QM is the misuse of von Neumann’s projection postulate. EPR applied this postulate to observables with degenerate spectra (which is totally forbidden by the axiomatics of QM).

Apr 12, 20083 citations

On some EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) issues

Giuseppe Giuliani

A critical reconsideration of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paper shows that the EPR argument can be developed without using the concept of `element of physical reality', thus eliminating any philosophical element in the logical chains of the paper. Deprived of its philosophical ornament, the EPR argument plainly reduces to require what quantum mechanics can not do: to assign definite values to two incompatible physical quantities. Hidden variables theories built up according to Bell - type theorems are formulated on the basis of the assumption that the locality condition implies the statistical independence between two measurements space - like separated. This assumption is valid only with the additional one that statistical dependence between two measurements requires a causal connection between them. This additional assumption rules out the possibility that statistical dependence may due to an intrinsic property of the physical system under study. Therefore, hidden variables theories are built up with a restriction which leads them to be disproved by experiment. Quantum mechanical non - locality, invoked for describing EPR - type experiments, is strictly connected to the hypothesis (NDV hypothesis) according to which the twin photons of entangled pairs do not have a definite polarization before measurements. Both hypotheses are used only for describing EPR experiments and not for making predictions. Therefore, they can be dropped without reducing the predictive power of quantum mechanics concerning entangled photons pairs. Furthermore, both hypotheses can be experimentally tested by a modification of a standard experimental apparatus designed for studying entangled photons pairs.

arXiv:2001.00553Jan 2, 20200 citations