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/0406164

Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Are They Related to Quantum Paradoxology?

Elias P. Gyftopoulos, Michael R. von Spakovsky

Published Jun 22, 2004• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We review both the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paper about the completeness of quantum theory, and Schrodinger's responses to the EPR paper. We find that both the EPR paper and Schrodinger's responses, including the cat paradox, are not consistent with the current understanding of quantum theory and thermodynamics. Because both the EPR paper and Schrodinger's responses play a leading role in discussions of the fascinating and promising fields of quantum computation and quantum information, we hope our review will be helpful to researchers in these fields.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0406164

Related papers

L'argument Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) : Paradoxe, Alternative, Demonstration

Roussel, Pierre

The EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) argument and the Schrodinger cat paradox are revisited in relation with modern quantum optics and atomic physics and with the concept of decoherence. It is shown that the questions raised fifty years ago are still at the heart of our understanding of quantum physics today.

arXiv:quant-ph/0308170•Aug 29, 2003•0 citations

The Quantum Measurement Problem

A. J. Leggett

Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.

Science•Feb 10, 2005•102 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 eBooks•Apr 10, 2026•0 citations

Macroscopic quantum Schrödinger and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradoxes

M. D. Reid, Eric G. Cavalcanti

We propose macroscopic generalizations of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox in which the completeness of quantum mechanics is contrasted with forms of macroscopic reality and macroscopic local reality defined in relation to Schrödinger's original ‘cat’ paradox.

Journal of Modern Optics•Nov 10, 2005•5 citations

THE PRESENT SITUATION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS: A TRANSLATION OF SCHR6DINGER'S "CAT PARADOX" PAPER

John Dezendorf Trimmer

This is a translation of Schr6dinger's three-part 1935 paper 1 in Die Naturzkissenschaften. Earlier that same year there had appeared the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper 2 (also famous in paradoxology) which, Schrodinger says, in a footnote, motivated his offering. Along with this article in German, Schrodinger had two closely related English-language publications.3 But the German, aside from its oneparagraph presentation of the famous cat, covers additional territory and gives many fascinating insights into Schrodinger's thought. The translator's goal has been to adhere to the logical and physical content of the original, while at the same time trying to convey something of its semi-conversational, at times slightly sardonic flavor.

•Jan 1, 2014•69 citations

The EPR paper and Bell's theorem

James T. Cushing

When it was first put forward, special relativity struck many people as counterintuitive and possibly inconsistent, as we saw when we considered the twin paradox in Chapter 17. Quantum mechanics had a similar effect, only to a much greater and longer lasting degree, from the time of its inception in the mid 1920s until the present. This reaction to quantum theory was not confined to an initial confusion that often accompanies a new subject, but remained a life-long puzzle for Einstein, to mention only the most prominent opponent of what he took to be the reigning orthodoxy. In this chapter we study a famous attempt by Einstein and two of his colleagues to show that quantum mechanics was, if not logically inconsistent, then at least an incomplete theory. This charge of incompleteness is just that raised by Schrödinger's cat paradox (Section 21.4). THE EPR PARADOX In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966) and Nathan Rosen (1909–1995) (hereafter referred to as EPR) published a paper titled ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’. They take as their criterion for the completeness of a theory that it contains terms corresponding to every relevant entity found in reality. For example, in the classical description of a system, such as a planet going around the sun, there are symbols representing the position r , the momentum p and so forth for the various parts of the system.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations
We review both the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paper about the completeness of quantum theory, and Schrodinger's responses to the EPR paper. We find that both the EPR paper and Schrodinger's responses, including the cat paradox, are not consistent with the current understanding of quantum theory and thermodynamics. Because both the EPR paper and Schrodinger's responses play a leading role in discussions of the fascinating and promising fields of quantum computation and quantum information, we hope our review will be helpful to researchers in these fields.
Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.
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 .
This is a translation of Schr6dinger's three-part 1935 paper 1 in Die Naturzkissenschaften. Earlier that same year there had appeared the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper 2 (also famous in paradoxology) which, Schrodinger says, in a footnote, motivated his offering. Along with this article in German, Schrodinger had two closely related English-language publications.3 But the German, aside from its oneparagraph presentation of the famous cat, covers additional territory and gives many fascinating insights into Schrodinger's thought. The translator's goal has been to adhere to the logical and physical content of the original, while at the same time trying to convey something of its semi-conversational, at times slightly sardonic flavor.
When it was first put forward, special relativity struck many people as counterintuitive and possibly inconsistent, as we saw when we considered the twin paradox in Chapter 17. Quantum mechanics had a similar effect, only to a much greater and longer lasting degree, from the time of its inception in the mid 1920s until the present. This reaction to quantum theory was not confined to an initial confusion that often accompanies a new subject, but remained a life-long puzzle for Einstein, to mention only the most prominent opponent of what he took to be the reigning orthodoxy. In this chapter we study a famous attempt by Einstein and two of his colleagues to show that quantum mechanics was, if not logically inconsistent, then at least an incomplete theory. This charge of incompleteness is just that raised by Schrödinger's cat paradox (Section 21.4). THE EPR PARADOX In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky (1896–1966) and Nathan Rosen (1909–1995) (hereafter referred to as EPR) published a paper titled ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’. They take as their criterion for the completeness of a theory that it contains terms corresponding to every relevant entity found in reality. For example, in the classical description of a system, such as a planet going around the sun, there are symbols representing the position r , the momentum p and so forth for the various parts of the system.