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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Einstein on EPR

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

Published Nov 14, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This chapter details not only the prehistory of EPR but also examines the structure and logic of the EPR paper – including Einstein’s own preferred version of the argument for incompleteness. We here attempt a seamless interweaving of the excellent extant literature with additional details that have emerged from our work and the recent work of others. Some examples of new aspects in this prehistory of EPR include evidence of a ‘proto’ photon-box thought experiment Einstein had developed in connection with his ill-starred collaboration with Emil Rupp in 1926. We also describe the potential importance to this prehistory of Einstein’s paper with Tolman and Podolsky and of Einstein’s seminar and discussions with Schrödinger in Berlin in the early 1930s.

DOI
10.1017/9781139028493.003

Related papers

Others on EPR

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This chapter provides a complete list and brief analyses of published and unpublished responses to EPR in 1935 (virtually all of which are reprinted as later chapters in this book). We invite a renewed consideration of certain contributors not much discussed elsewhere in the literature. These include going beyond Kemble’s short criticism of EPR to his ensuing disagreement with Margenau about the viability of an ensemble interpretation of the wavefunction, and also a response to Kemble’s note on EPR by Podolsky himself. We also examine the correspondence between Margenau and Einstein in the wake of EPR, discussing the role of the collapse postulate, and finally we discuss two papers by Furry, which although not entirely satisfactory qua a response to EPR’s arguments, are nevertheless of great potential interest for the foundations literature more generally.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations

Krótka (pre)historia argumentu EPR

Tadeusz Pabjan

The 1935 thought experiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen is one of the most important episodes in the history of the dispute about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. The present paper deals with the origin of the EPR paper and discusses some other thought experiments that preceded the formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Special attention is paid to the evolution of a simply photon-box experiment, which was devised by Einstein in 1930 and then modified by him several times before 1935. It is argued that the scheme of the original EPR argument is in fact contained in these few seminal experiments.

Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce)•Dec 20, 2010•0 citations

EPR before EPR: a 1930 Einstein–Bohr thought experiment revisited

Hrvoje Nikolić

In 1930, Einstein argued against the consistency of the time–energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of the mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly prevailed over Einstein by arguing that Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view at a level suitable for an undergraduate readership and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonlocal 'EPR' quantum correlations, five years before the famous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paper.

arXiv:1203.1139•European Journal of Physics•Jun 15, 2012•13 citations

Einstein’s boxes

Travis Norsen

At the 1927 Solvay conference, Albert Einstein presented a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the incompleteness of the quantum mechanical description of reality. In the following years, the experiment was modified by Einstein, de Broglie, and several other commentators into a simple scenario involving the splitting in half of the wave function of a single particle in a box. This paper collects together several formulations of this thought experiment from the literature, analyzes and assesses it from the point of view of the Einstein–Bohr debates, the EPR dilemma, and Bell’s theorem, and argues for “Einstein’s Boxes” taking its rightful place alongside similar but historically better known quantum mechanical thought experiments such as EPR and Schrödinger’s Cat.

arXiv:quant-ph/0404016•American Journal of Physics•Jan 13, 2005•72 citations

Einstein and EPR

Robert J. Deltete, Reed A. Guy

Recent studies have shown that Einstein did not write the EPR paper and that he was disappointed with the outcome. He thought, rightly, that his own argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory was badly presented in the paper. We reconstruct the argument of EPR, indicate the reasons Einstein was dissatisfied with it, and discuss Einstein's own argument. We show that many commentators have been misled by the obscurity of EPR into proposing interpretations of its argument that do not accurately represent Einstein's own views. Finally, we evaluate Einstein's own incompleteness argument, concluding that recent experimental findings have likely shown it to be unsound.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1991•6 citations

On the Indeterminacy Relation

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a translation of an anonymous report published about Einstein’s seminar in Berlin in November of 1931 dicussed in detail in Chapter 1. The report describes Einstein discussing the meaning of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations and describing his famous photon-box thought experiment.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations
This chapter details not only the prehistory of EPR but also examines the structure and logic of the EPR paper – including Einstein’s own preferred version of the argument for incompleteness. We here attempt a seamless interweaving of the excellent extant literature with additional details that have emerged from our work and the recent work of others. Some examples of new aspects in this prehistory of EPR include evidence of a ‘proto’ photon-box thought experiment Einstein had developed in connection with his ill-starred collaboration with Emil Rupp in 1926. We also describe the potential importance to this prehistory of Einstein’s paper with Tolman and Podolsky and of Einstein’s seminar and discussions with Schrödinger in Berlin in the early 1930s.
This chapter provides a complete list and brief analyses of published and unpublished responses to EPR in 1935 (virtually all of which are reprinted as later chapters in this book). We invite a renewed consideration of certain contributors not much discussed elsewhere in the literature. These include going beyond Kemble’s short criticism of EPR to his ensuing disagreement with Margenau about the viability of an ensemble interpretation of the wavefunction, and also a response to Kemble’s note on EPR by Podolsky himself. We also examine the correspondence between Margenau and Einstein in the wake of EPR, discussing the role of the collapse postulate, and finally we discuss two papers by Furry, which although not entirely satisfactory qua a response to EPR’s arguments, are nevertheless of great potential interest for the foundations literature more generally.
The 1935 thought experiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen is one of the most important episodes in the history of the dispute about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. The present paper deals with the origin of the EPR paper and discusses some other thought experiments that preceded the formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Special attention is paid to the evolution of a simply photon-box experiment, which was devised by Einstein in 1930 and then modified by him several times before 1935. It is argued that the scheme of the original EPR argument is in fact contained in these few seminal experiments.
In 1930, Einstein argued against the consistency of the time–energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of the mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly prevailed over Einstein by arguing that Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view at a level suitable for an undergraduate readership and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was correct. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonlocal 'EPR' quantum correlations, five years before the famous Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paper.
At the 1927 Solvay conference, Albert Einstein presented a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the incompleteness of the quantum mechanical description of reality. In the following years, the experiment was modified by Einstein, de Broglie, and several other commentators into a simple scenario involving the splitting in half of the wave function of a single particle in a box. This paper collects together several formulations of this thought experiment from the literature, analyzes and assesses it from the point of view of the Einstein–Bohr debates, the EPR dilemma, and Bell’s theorem, and argues for “Einstein’s Boxes” taking its rightful place alongside similar but historically better known quantum mechanical thought experiments such as EPR and Schrödinger’s Cat.
Recent studies have shown that Einstein did not write the EPR paper and that he was disappointed with the outcome. He thought, rightly, that his own argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory was badly presented in the paper. We reconstruct the argument of EPR, indicate the reasons Einstein was dissatisfied with it, and discuss Einstein's own argument. We show that many commentators have been misled by the obscurity of EPR into proposing interpretations of its argument that do not accurately represent Einstein's own views. Finally, we evaluate Einstein's own incompleteness argument, concluding that recent experimental findings have likely shown it to be unsound.