I show that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) predicts a sort of uncertainty principle on the number of the "soft photons" that can be produced in coincidence with the particles that are observed in any EPR experiment. This result is argued to be sufficient to remove the original EPR paradox. A signature of this soft-photons solution of the EPR paradox would be the observation of apparent symmetry violation in single events. On the other hand, in the case of the EPR experiments that have actually been realized, the QED correlations are argued to be very close to those calculated by the previous, incomplete treatment, which showed a good agreement with the data. Finally, the usual interpretation of the correlations themselves as a real sign of nonlocality is also criticized.
I show that Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) predicts a sort of uncertainty principle on the number of the "soft photons" that can be produced in coincidence with the particles that are observed in any EPR experiment. This result is argued to be sufficient to remove the original EPR paradox. A signature of this soft-photons solution of the EPR paradox would be the observation of apparent symmetry violation in single events. On the other hand, in the case of the EPR experiments that have actually been realized, the QED correlations are argued to be very close to those calculated by the previous, incomplete treatment, which showed a good agreement with the data. Finally, the usual interpretation of the correlations themselves as a real sign of nonlocality is also criticized.
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This paradox is supposed to be related to the probabilistic nature of the theory, but since deterministic alternatives involving "Hidden Variables" hardly agree with the experiments, the scientific community is now accepting this ``quantum nonlocality" as if it were a reality. However, I have argued recently that Quantum Electrodynamics is free from the EPR paradox, due to an indetermination on the number of the unobserved "soft photons" that can be present in any step of any experiment. Here, I will provide a more general proof, based on an approach to the "problem of measurement" that implies the full reconciliation of Quantum Field Theory with Special Relativity. I will then conclude with some considerations on the interpretation of the Quantum Theory itself.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen pointed out that the quantum-mechanical description of “physical reality” implies an unphysical, instantaneous action between distant measurements. To avoid such an action at a distance, these three concluded that quantum mechanics had to be incomplete. However, its extensions involving additional “hidden variables,” allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, have been disproved experimentally (Bell’s theorem). In this paper, an opposite solution of the paradox is presented, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum field theory (QFT) description of particle physics, which prevents the preparation of any state having a definite number of particles. The resulting uncertainty in photon radiation has interesting consequences in quantum information theory (e.g., cryptography and teleportation). Moreover, since it allows for fewer elements of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) physical reality than the old non-relativistic quantum mechanics, QFT satisfies the EPR condition of completeness without the need for hidden variables. The residual physical reality never violates locality; thus, the unique objective proof of “quantum nonlocality” is removed in an interpretation-independent way. At the same time, the supposed nonlocality of the EPR correlations turns out to be a problem in interpretation of the measurement process. If we do not rely on hidden variables or new physics beyond QFT, the viable interpretation is a minimal statistical one, which preserves locality and Lorentz symmetry.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) argued that the quantum-mechanical probabilistic description of physical reality had to be incomplete, in order to avoid an instantaneous action between distant measurements. This suggested the need for additional "hidden variables", allowing for the recovery of determinism and locality, but such a solution has been disproved experimentally. Here, I present an opposite solution, based on the greater indeterminism of the modern quantum theory of Particle Physics, predicting that the number of photons is always uncertain. No violation of locality is allowed for the physical reality, and the theory can fulfill the EPR criterion of completeness.
In this work, we examine the paradox proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). They argued that since one may know the exact momentum of a particle without measurement and subsequently measure its position, a contradiction with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle arises. We demonstrate that there is no paradox by two equivalent approaches: first, by computing the quantum conditional expectation to make predictions after a measurement; and second, using the von Neumann post-measurement state. We establish the equivalence between these two methods. In both cases the predictor is an operator valued function of the observables being measured. This ensures that no violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle occurs.
Roman Schnabel's article argues that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox can be resolved by identifying a flaw in what the author calls the "EPR implication" and by using radioactive alpha decay as an example showing that predictability does not exclude genuine randomness. The paper is clearly written and addresses an important foundational question. In our view, however, its main conclusion does not follow. The article narrows the original EPR argument, attributes too much to Bell-inequality violations, and replaces the central EPR structure - which involves incompatible observables and locality-based reasoning - with a simpler case of correlated random events. The result is an interesting interpretive remark, but not, we think, a satisfactory scientific resolution of the EPR problem.
In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen ('EPR') reported on a thought experiment that they believed showed that quantum theory provided an incomplete description of reality. Today we know that quantum theory is a complete and correct description of Nature (in flat space-time). The EPR thought experiment is predicted by quantum theory and has since been experimentally confirmed. However, EPR experiments have no physical pictorial explanation, and are considered part of a "paradox". Here I resolve the "paradox". I show independently of any interpretation of quantum theory that EPR (thought) experiments are a direct and compelling consequence of the existence of true randomness and the conservation of energy. It becomes obvious why EPR (thought) experiments allow for the precise prediction of truly random measurement values. Local hidden variables are not motivated.