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

arXiv:quant-ph/0005131

Common misrepresentation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument

Vladimir Hnizdo

Published May 31, 2000• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A frequently given version of the argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen against the completeness of the quantum mechanical description is criticized as a misrepresentation that lacks the cogency of the original EPR argument.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0005131

Related papers

The Nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Mechanics

Michele Caponigro

From conceptual point of view, we argue about the nature of reality inferred from EPR argument in quantum mechanics.

Prespacetime journal•Feb 1, 2019•0 citations

The theorem of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen

Franck Laloë

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•0 citations

On the formal connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument to quantum mechanics and reality

Daniel Schoch

Erkenntnis•Sep 1, 1988•0 citations

EPR and the Copenhagen interpretation

Vladimir Hnizdo

The `Copenhagen-interpretation' analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in a recent paper by Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira and dos Aidos is criticized as a misrepresentation of both the EPR argument and the Copenhagen interpretation. Zusammenfassung. In einem kürzlichen Artikel haben Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira und dos Aidos das Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) Paradoxon mit Hilfe der `Kopenhagener Interpretation' analysiert. Wir kritisieren hier diesen Ansatz als Fehlinterpretation sowohl des EPR-Arguments als auch der Kopenhagener Interpretation.

European Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 1997•4 citations

Did bohr succeed in defending the completeness of quantum mechanics?

K Morita

This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.

Principia an international journal of epistemology•Apr 28, 2020•2 citations

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox: 'can Quantum - Mechanical Description of Physical Reality BE Considered COMPLETE?'.

Donald L. Reisler

•Jan 1, 1967•0 citations
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 `Copenhagen-interpretation' analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in a recent paper by Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira and dos Aidos is criticized as a misrepresentation of both the EPR argument and the Copenhagen interpretation. Zusammenfassung. In einem kürzlichen Artikel haben Domingos, Nogueira, Caldeira und dos Aidos das Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) Paradoxon mit Hilfe der `Kopenhagener Interpretation' analysiert. Wir kritisieren hier diesen Ansatz als Fehlinterpretation sowohl des EPR-Arguments als auch der Kopenhagener Interpretation.
This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.