© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/9805074 · European Journal of Physics

Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?

A Tartaglia

Published May 1, 1998• 6 citations

Abstract

The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that if the quantum objects are considered as carrying `instruction leaflets' with them, telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus, then any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/19/3/015

Related papers

Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?

Tartaglia, Angelo

The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that if the quantum objects are considered as carrying `instruction leaflets' with them, telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus, then any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.

•Jan 1, 1998•11 citations

Closer Look at EPR Paradox and Bell’s Inequality

Vladimir K. Ignatovich

The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.

American Journal of Modern Physics•Apr 17, 2015•1 citation

From EPR Paradox,Bell's Inequality to Quantum Information Theory

Huang Zhi-xun

The paper discusses the concepts of EPR paradox first in the science tradition developmants espcially in N.Bohr,D.Bohm,J.Bell and A.Aspect;Secondly in modern experiments of quantum entagled state.

Journal of Beijing Broadcasting Institute•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

On the Measurement Problem and the EPR Paradox

Eugen Muchowski

After a polarization measurement with photons in singlet state we know for certain the photons were in the measured state prior to measurement. Photons in singlet state do therefore not exhibit action at a distance. The EPR paradox with entangled photons has been challenged. It was also shown why quantum mechanics infringes Bells inequality.

•Apr 26, 2016•0 citations

Über das Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxon / On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

Peter Mittelstaedt

The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A•Apr 1, 1974•1 citation

The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality

Guy Blaylock

Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.

arXiv:0902.3827•American Journal of Physics•Dec 14, 2009•59 citations

The EPR paradox and the meaning of the Bell inequality are discussed. It is shown that if the quantum objects are considered as carrying `instruction leaflets' with them, telling them what to do when meeting a measurement apparatus, then any paradox disappears. In this view the quantum state is characterized by the prescribed behaviour rather than by the specific value a parameter assumes as a result of an interaction.

The EPR paradox is shown to be a result of the wrong definitions in quantum mechanics of such physical quantities as momentum and position. The corrected definitions show that momentum and position of particles can be precisely defined simultaneously and uncertainty relations do not prevent it. Therefore, with correct definition of physical quantities in quantum mechanics, the paradox disappears. The Bohm Aharonov version of the EPR paradox is illustrated by the example of measuring the polarization of photon pairs. The common view of the two photon state radiated by a source is presented. The common Bell’s inequality is discussed and the simplest version of it for a specific hidden variable is derived. A possibility of an experimental study of whether a photon and its polarization are preexistent before measurements is considered.

The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.

Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.