Abstract “EINSTEIN ATTACKS QUANTUM MECHANICS” stated the headline in the New York Times, much to the chagrin of Einstein. He deplored Podolsky’s release of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox paper to the general public prior to its scientific review. We see how Einstein’s ideas developed both before and after the EPR paper, in which the formulation did not exactly please him. We follow the reactions of the physics community to EPR. EPR eventually led to Bell’s inequalities, meant to challenge the current form of quantum theory. Instead, it led to the experimental confirmation of its most enigmatic effect—the entanglement of two spatially separated particles.
Abstract “EINSTEIN ATTACKS QUANTUM MECHANICS” stated the headline in the New York Times, much to the chagrin of Einstein. He deplored Podolsky’s release of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox paper to the general public prior to its scientific review. We see how Einstein’s ideas developed both before and after the EPR paper, in which the formulation did not exactly please him. We follow the reactions of the physics community to EPR. EPR eventually led to Bell’s inequalities, meant to challenge the current form of quantum theory. Instead, it led to the experimental confirmation of its most enigmatic effect—the entanglement of two spatially separated particles.
Expository paper providing a historical survey of the gradual transformation of the "philosophical discussions" between Bohr, Einstein and Schrödinger on foundational issues in quantum mechanics into a quantitative prediction of a new quantum effect, its experimental verification and its proposed (and loudly advertised) applications. The basic idea of the 1935 paper of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) was reformulated by David Bohm for a finite dimensional spin system. This allowed John Bell to derive his inequalities that separate the prediction of quantum entanglement from its possible classical interpretation. We reproduce here their later (1971) version, reviewing on the way the generalization (and mathematical derivation) of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations (due to Weyl and Schrödinger) needed for the passage from EPR to Bell. We also provide an improved derivation of the quantum theoretic violation of Bell's inequalities. Soon after the experimental confirmation of the quantum entanglement (culminating with the work of Alain Aspect) it was Feynman who made public the idea of a quantum computer based on the observed effect.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that (then new) quantum mechanics was incomplete. At the heart of EPR’s paradox was the strange non-local nature of an entangled state which allowed EPR to simultaneously assign local values for position and momentum of a particle. In 1964, John Bell proposed an inequality (Bell’s inequality) that must be satisfied by any local realistic theory. The experimental confirmation of quantum physics, i.e., the experimental test of Bell’s inequality, required a pair of particles in an entangled state. The experiments first performed in the early 1970s, followed by a series of experiments until now, have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequality, strongly implying that local realistic descriptions of nature are not consistent with experimental observations. The early simplistic view of entanglement has now been significantly expanded to include mixed states and multiple particles. Moreover, theoretical and experimental studies on the nature of entanglement have led to quantum information science where entanglement is an essential resource. In this article, we briefly review the early experiments on Bell’s inequality and experimental attempts to close “loopholes” as well as some key experiments on quantum information.
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.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox that argues for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a description of physical reality has been put to rest by John Bell’s famous theorem, which inspired numerous experimental tests and brought about further affirmations of quantum reality. Nevertheless, in his writings and public presentations, Richard Feynman never acknowledged the significance of Bell’s contribution to the resolution of the EPR paradox. In this paper, we discuss several variants of the Bell inequalities (including one that was specifically espoused by Feynman), and explore the ways in which they demolish the arguments in favor of local hidden-variable theories. We also examine the roots of Feynman’s attitude toward Bell’s theorem in the context of Feynman’s special perspective on quantum mechanics.
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.
Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.