Page issues
Albert Einstein
Einstein's opposition
Einstein was the most prominent
opponent of the Copenhagen
interpretation. In his view, quantum
mechanics was incomplete. Commenting
on this, other writers (such as John von
Neumann[9] and David Bohm[10])
hypothesized that consequently there
would have to be 'hidden' variables
responsible for random measurement
results, something which was not
expressly claimed in the original paper.
The 1935 EPR paper[1] condensed the
philosophical discussion into a physical
argument. The authors claim that given a
specific experiment, in which the outcome
of a measurement is known before the
measurement takes place, there must
exist something in the real world, an
"element of reality", that determines the
measurement outcome. They postulate
that these elements of reality are local, in
the sense that each belongs to a certain
point in spacetime. Each element may only
be influenced by events which are located
in the backward light cone of its point in
spacetime (i.e., the past). These claims
are founded on assumptions about nature
that constitute what is now known as local
realism.
EPR paper
Measurements on an
entangled state
Bell's inequality
Mathematical formulation
The above discussion can be expressed
mathematically using the quantum
mechanical formulation of spin. The spin
degree of freedom for an electron is
associated with a two-dimensional
complex vector space V, with each
quantum state corresponding to a vector
in that space. The operators
corresponding to the spin along the x, y,
and z direction, denoted Sx, Sy, and Sz
respectively, can be represented using the
Pauli matrices:[20]:9
See also
Bell test experiments
Bell's theorem
Bra–ket notation
CHSH Bell test
Coherence (physics)
Correlation does not imply causation
Counter-factual definiteness
ER=EPR
Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory
GHZ experiment
Interpretations of quantum mechanics
Local hidden variable theory
Many-worlds interpretation
Measurement in quantum mechanics
Measurement problem
Penrose interpretation
Philosophy of information
Philosophy of physics
Popper's experiment
Quantum decoherence
Quantum entanglement
Quantum gravity
Quantum information
Quantum pseudo-telepathy
Quantum teleportation
Quantum Zeno effect
Sakurai's Bell inequality
Synchronicity
Wave function collapse
Ward's probability amplitude
Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory
Zero-point field
Notes
1. Einstein, A; B Podolsky; N Rosen (1935-
05-15). "Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete?" (PDF). Physical
Review. 47 (10): 777–780.
Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E .
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 .
2. Gaasbeek, Bram (Jul 22, 2010).
"Demystifying the Delayed Choice
Experiments". arXiv:1007.3977v1 [quant-
ph ].
3. Bell, John. On the Einstein–Poldolsky–
Rosen paradox , Physics 1 3, 195–200, Nov.
1964
4. Aspect A (1999-03-18). "Bell's inequality
test: more ideal than ever" (PDF). Nature.
398 (6724): 189–90.
Bibcode:1999Natur.398..189A .
doi:10.1038/18296 .
5. Bohr, N. (1935-10-13). "Can Quantum-
Mechanical Description of Physical Reality
be Considered Complete?". Physical
Review. 48 (8): 696–702.
Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..696B .
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.696 .
6. Advances in atomic and molecular
physics, Volume 14 By David Robert Bates
7. Gribbin, J. (1984). In Search of
Schrödinger's Cat. Black Swan. ISBN 0-
7045-3071-6.
8. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Argument
in Quantum Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy)
9. von Neumann, J. (1932/1955). In
Mathematische Grundlagen der
Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin,
translated into English by Beyer, R.T.,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, cited
by Baggott, J. (2004) Beyond Measure:
Modern physics, philosophy, and the
meaning of quantum theory, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-852927-
9, pages 144–145.
10. Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory ,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, page 29,
and Chapter 5 section 3, and Chapter 22
Section 19.
11. Quoted in Kaiser, David. "Bringing the
human actors back on stage: the personal
context of the Einstein–Bohr debate",
British Journal for the History of Science 27
(1994): 129–152, on page 147.
12. Einstein, Albert (1936). "Physik und
realität" . Journal of the Franklin Institute.
Elsevier. 221 (3): 313–347.
doi:10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91045-1 .
Retrieved 9 December 2012. English
translation by Jean Piccard, pp 349–382 in
the same issue, doi:10.1016/S0016-
0032(36)91047-5 ).
13. Kumar, Manjit (2011). Quantum:
Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about
the Nature of Reality (Reprint ed.). W. W.
Norton & Company. pp. 305–306. ISBN 978-
0393339888.
14. Griffiths, David J. (2004), Introduction to
Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.), Prentice
Hall, ISBN 0-13-111892-7
15. Laloe, Franck (2012), Do We Really
Understand Quantum Mechanics,
Cambridge University Press, arXiv:quant-
ph/0209123 ,
Bibcode:2002quant.ph..9123L , ISBN 978-1-
107-02501-1
16. George Greenstein and Arthur G. Zajonc,
The Quantum Challenge, p. "[Experiments in
the early 1980s] have conclusively shown
that quantum mechanics is indeed orrect,
and that the EPR argument had relied upon
incorrect assumptions."
17. Blaylock, Guy (January 2010). "The EPR
paradox, Bell's inequality, and the question
of locality". American Journal of Physics. 78
(1): 111–120. arXiv:0902.3827 .
Bibcode:2010AmJPh..78..111B .
doi:10.1119/1.3243279 .
18. Bell, John (1981). "Bertlmann's socks
and the nature of reality" . J. Physique
colloques. C22: 41–62.
Bibcode:1988nbpw.conf..245B .
19. John Archibald Wheeler; Wojciech
Hubert Zurek (14 July 2014). Quantum
Theory and Measurement. Princeton
University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-5455-4.
20. Sakurai, J. J.; Napolitano, Jim (2010),
Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.),
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0805382914
21. Pitowsky, Itamar (1989). "From George
Boole To John Bell — The Origins of Bell's
Inequality". Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory
and Conceptions of the Universe. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands. pp. 37–49.
doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4_6 .
ISBN 978-90-481-4058-9.
22. Landau, L. J. (1987). "On the violation of
Bell's inequality in quantum theory" .
Physics Letters. 120 (2): 4–6.
Bibcode:1987PhLA..120...54L .
doi:10.1016/0375-9601(87)90075-2 .
23. Streater, R.F. (2017). Lost Causes in and
beyond Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
ISBN 9783540365822.
24. Hess, Karl (2005). Bell’s theorem:
Critique of proofs with and without
inequalities. AIP. pp. 150–157. arXiv:quant-
ph/0410015 . doi:10.1063/1.1874568 .
ISSN 0094-243X .
25. Hess, Karl; Raedt, Hans De; Michielsen,
Kristel (2012-11-01). "Hidden assumptions
in the derivation of the theorem of Bell".
Physica Scripta. IOP Publishing. T151:
014002. arXiv:1108.3583 .
Bibcode:2012PhST..151a4002H .
doi:10.1088/0031-
8949/2012/t151/014002 . ISSN 0031-
8949 .
26. De Raedt, Hans; Michielsen, Kristel;
Hess, Karl (2016). "The digital computer as
a metaphor for the perfect laboratory
experiment: Loophole-free Bell
experiments". Computer Physics
Communications. Elsevier BV. 209: 42–47.
Bibcode:2016CoPhC.209...42D .
doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2016.08.010 . ISSN 0010-
4655 .
27. Griffiths, Robert B. (2010-10-21).
"Quantum Locality". Foundations of
Physics. Springer Nature. 41 (4): 705–733.
doi:10.1007/s10701-010-9512-5 .
ISSN 0015-9018 .
28. Scott, T. C.; Andrae, D. (2015). "Quantum
Nonlocality and Conservation of
momentum" . Phys. Essays. 28 (3): 374–
385. Bibcode:2015PhyEs..28..374S .
doi:10.4006/0836-1398-28.3.374 .
29. "Clearing up mysteries: the original
goal" (PDF).
30. Furuta, Aya. "One Thing Is Certain:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not
Dead" . Scientific American. Retrieved
16 January 2017. “Yet the uncertainty
principle comes in two superficially similar
formulations that even many practicing
physicists tend to confuse. Werner
Heisenberg's own version is that in
observing the world, we inevitably disturb it.
And that is wrong, as a research team at the
Vienna University of Technology has now
vividly demonstrated.”
31. Jha, Alok (10 November 2013). "What is
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?" . The
Guardian. Retrieved 16 January 2017. “One
way to think about the uncertainty principle
is as an extension of how we see and
measure things in the everyday world... the
act of observation affects the particle being
observed”
32. Haroche, Serge; Raimond, Jean-Michel
(2006). Exploring the Quantum: Atoms,
Cavities, and Photons (1st ed.). Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0198509141.
References
Selected papers
Books
External links
Wikiquote has quotations related to: EPR
paradox
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen
Argument in Quantum Theory; 1.2 The
argument in the text;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-
epr/#1.2
The original EPR paper.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen
Argument in Quantum Theory " by
Arthur Fine.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument
and the Bell Inequalities ".
Abner Shimony (2004) "Bell’s Theorem. "
EPR, Bell & Aspect: The Original
References.
Does Bell's Inequality Principle rule out
local theories of quantum mechanics?
From the Usenet Physics FAQ.
Theoretical use of EPR in teleportation.
Effective use of EPR in cryptography.
EPR experiment with single photons
interactive.
Spooky Actions At A Distance?:
Oppenheimer Lecture by Prof. Mermin.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=EPR_paradox&oldid=822496479"