EPR paradox

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by

physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the
description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.[1] In a 1935 paper titled
"Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?", they argued for
the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should
be possible to construct a theory containing them. Resolutions of the paradox have important
implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The thought experiment involves a pair of particles prepared in an

entangled state (note that this terminology was invented only later).
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen pointed out that, in this state, if the
position of the first particle were measured, the result of measuring
the position of the second particle could be predicted. If, instead, the
momentum of the first particle were measured, then the result of
measuring the momentum of the second particle could be predicted.
They argued that no action taken on the first particle could
instantaneously affect the other, since this would involve
information being transmitted faster than light, which is forbidden
by the theory of relativity. They invoked a principle, later known as
the "EPR criterion of reality", positing that, "If, without in any way
disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with
probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there Albert Einstein
exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity." From
this, they inferred that the second particle must have a definite value
of position and of momentum prior to either being measured. This contradicted the view associated with
Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, according to which a quantum particle does not have a definite value
of a property like momentum until the measurement takes place.

Contents
History of the paradox
EPR's paper
Bohr's reply
Einstein's own argument
Bohm's variant
Locality in the EPR experiment
Bell's theorem
Mathematical formulation
See also
Notes
References
Selected papers
 Books
External links

History of the paradox

The work was done at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1934, which Einstein had joined the prior year
after he had fled Nazi Germany. The resulting paper was written by Podolsky, and Einstein thought it did
not accurately reflect his own views.[2] The publication of the paper prompted a response by Niels Bohr,
which he published in the same journal, in the same year, using the same title.[3] This exchange was only
one chapter in a prolonged debate between Bohr and Einstein about the fundamental nature of reality.

Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with his idea of causality,
protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed
through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein's
death, experiments analogous to the one described in the EPR paper have been carried out, starting in
1976 by French scientists Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig[4] at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These
experiments appear to show that the local realism idea is false,[5] vindicating Bohr.

Most physicists who have examined the issue concur that experiments, such as those of Alain Aspect and
his group, have confirmed that physical probabilities, as predicted by quantum theory, do exhibit the
phenomena of Bell-inequality violations that are considered to invalidate EPR's preferred "local hidden-
variables" type of explanation for the correlations to which EPR first drew attention.[6][7]

EPR's paper
The original paper purports to describe what must happen to "two systems I and II, which we permit to
interact ...", and, after some time, "we suppose that there is no longer any interaction between the two
parts." As explained by Manjit Kumar (2009), the EPR description involves "two particles, A and B,
[which] interact briefly and then move off in opposite directions."[8] According to Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B
exactly. However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A. By calculation, therefore,
with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known. Alternatively,
the exact momentum of particle A can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle B can be worked
out. Kumar writes: "EPR argued that they had proved that ... [particle] B can have simultaneously exact
values of position and momentum. ... Particle B has a position that is real and a momentum that is real."

EPR appeared to have contrived a means to establish the exact values of either the
momentum or the position of B due to measurements made on particle A, without the
slightest possibility of particle B being physically disturbed.[8]

EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of quantum mechanics: Quantum
theory predicts that both values cannot be known for a particle, and yet the EPR thought experiment
purports to show that they must all have determinate values. The EPR paper says: "We are thus forced to
conclude that the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality given by wave functions is not
complete."[8]

The EPR paper ends by saying:

 While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description
of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists.
We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.

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, in modern
terminology, local, in the sense that each belongs to a certain point in spacetime. Each element may,
again in modern terminology, 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.

Though the EPR paper has often been taken as an exact expression of Einstein's views, it was primarily
authored by Podolsky, based on discussions at the Institute for Advanced Study with Einstein and Rosen.
Einstein later expressed to Erwin Schrödinger that, "it did not come out as well as I had originally
wanted; rather, the essential thing was, so to speak, smothered by the formalism."[9] (Einstein would later
go on to present an individual account of his local realist ideas.[10]) Shortly before the EPR paper
appeared in the Physical Review, the New York Times ran a news story about it, under the headline
"Einstein Attacks Quantum Theory". The story, which quoted Podolsky, irritated Einstein, who wrote to
the Times, "Any information upon which the article 'Einstein Attacks Quantum Theory' in your issue of
May 4 is based was given to you without authority. It is my invariable practice to discuss scientific
matters only in the appropriate forum and I deprecate advance publication of any announcement in regard
to such matters in the secular press."[11]:189

The Times story also sought out comment from physicist Edward Condon, who said, "Of course, a great
deal of the argument hinges on just what meaning is to be attached to the word 'reality' in
physics."[11]:189 The physicist and historian Max Jammer later noted, "[I]t remains a historical fact that
the earliest criticism of the EPR paper — moreover, a criticism which correctly saw in Einstein's
conception of physical reality the key problem of the whole issue — appeared in a daily newspaper prior
to the publication of the criticized paper itself."[11]:190

Bohr's reply
Bohr's response to the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review later in 1935.[3] He argued that
EPR had reasoned fallaciously. Because measurements of position and of momentum are complementary,
making the choice to measure one excludes the possibility of measuring the other. Consequently, a fact
deduced regarding one arrangement of laboratory apparatus could not be combined with a fact deduced
by means of the other, and so, the inference of predetermined position and momentum values for the
second particle was not valid. Bohr concluded that EPR's "arguments do not justify their conclusion that
the quantum description turns out to be essentially incomplete."

Einstein's own argument

In his own publications and correspondence, Einstein used a different argument to insist that quantum
mechanics is an incomplete theory.[2][12][13][14]:83ff He explicitly de-emphasized EPR's attribution of
"elements of reality" to the position and momentum of particle B, saying that "I couldn't care less"
whether the resulting states of particle B allowed one to predict the position and momentum with
certainty.[a]

For Einstein, the crucial part of the argument was the demonstration of nonlocality, that the choice of
measurement done in particle A, either position or momentum, would lead to two different quantum
states of particle B. He argued that, because of locality, the real state of particle B couldn't depend on
which kind of measurement was done in A, and therefore the quantum states cannot be in one-to-one
correspondence with the real states.

Bohm's variant
In 1951, David Bohm proposed a variant of the EPR thought experiment in which the measurements
have discrete ranges of possible outcomes, unlike the position and momentum measurements considered
by EPR.[15][16][17] The EPR–Bohm thought experiment can be explained using electron–positron pairs.
Suppose we have a source that emits electron–positron pairs, with the electron sent to destination A,
where there is an observer named Alice, and the positron sent to destination B, where there is an observer
named Bob. According to quantum mechanics, we can arrange our source so that each emitted pair
occupies a quantum state called a spin singlet. The particles are thus said to be entangled. This can be
viewed as a quantum superposition of two states, which we call state I and state II. In state I, the electron
has spin pointing upward along the z-axis (+z) and the positron has spin pointing downward along the z-
axis (−z). In state II, the electron has spin −z and the positron has spin +z. Because it is in a superposition
of states it is impossible without measuring to know the definite state of spin of either particle in the spin
singlet.[18]:421–422

The EPR thought experiment, performed with electron–positron pairs. A source

(center) sends particles toward two observers, electrons to Alice (left) and positrons to
Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.

Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes: +z or −z.
Suppose she gets +z. Informally speaking, the quantum state of the system collapses into state I. The
quantum state determines the probable outcomes of any measurement performed on the system. In this
case, if Bob subsequently measures spin along the z-axis, there is 100% probability that he will obtain −z.
Similarly, if Alice gets −z, Bob will get +z.

There is, of course, nothing special about choosing the z-axis: according to quantum mechanics the spin
singlet state may equally well be expressed as a superposition of spin states pointing in the x
direction.[19]:318 Suppose that Alice and Bob had decided to measure spin along the x-axis. We'll call
these states Ia and IIa. In state Ia, Alice's electron has spin +x and Bob's positron has spin −x. In state IIa,
Alice's electron has spin −x and Bob's positron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system
'collapses' into state Ia, and Bob will get −x. If Alice measures −x, the system collapses into state IIa, and
Bob will get +x.
Whatever axis their spins are measured along, they are always found to be opposite. In quantum
mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are "incompatible observables", meaning the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle applies to alternating measurements of them: a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for
both of these variables. Suppose Alice measures the z-spin and obtains +z, so that the quantum state
collapses into state I. Now, instead of measuring the z-spin as well, Bob measures the x-spin. According
to quantum mechanics, when the system is in state I, Bob's x-spin measurement will have a 50%
probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -x. It is impossible to predict which outcome will
appear until Bob actually performs the measurement.

Therefore Bob's positron will have a definite spin when measured along the same axis as Alice's electron,
but when measured in the perpendicular axis its spin will be uniformly random. It seems as if information
has propagated (faster than light) from Alice's apparatus to make Bob's positron assume a definite spin in
the appropriate axis.

Locality in the EPR experiment

The word locality has several different meanings in physics. EPR describe the principle of locality as
asserting that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements
of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it
seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that energy can never be transmitted faster
than the speed of light without violating causality.[18]:427–428[20]

However, it turns out that the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classical descriptions
violate EPR's principle of locality without violating special relativity or causality.[18]:427–428[20]
Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e., information) to Bob
by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining
"+" and 50% probability of obtaining "−", completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is
fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to
perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, the no cloning
theorem, which makes it impossible for him to make an arbitrary number of copies of the electron he
receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results.
Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting "+" and
50% of getting "−", regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice's.

In summary, the results of the EPR experiment do not contradict the predictions of special relativity.
Neither the EPR experiment nor any quantum experiment demonstrates that superluminal signaling is
possible.

However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as "spooky
action at a distance".[21] The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete
theory.[22]

Bell's theorem
In 1964, John Bell published a paper[23] investigating the puzzling situation at that time: on one hand, the
EPR paradox purportedly showed that quantum mechanics was nonlocal, and suggested that a hidden-
variable theory could heal this nonlocality. On the other hand, David Bohm had recently developed the
first successful hidden-variable theory, but it had a grossly nonlocal character.[24][25] Bell set out to
investigate whether it was indeed possible to solve the nonlocality problem with hidden variables, and
found out that first, the correlations shown in both EPR's and Bohm's versions of the paradox could
indeed be explained in a local way with hidden variables, and second, that the correlations shown in his
own variant of the paradox couldn't be explained by any local hidden-variable theory. This second result
became known as the Bell theorem.

To understand the first result, consider the following toy hidden-variable theory introduced later by J.J.
Sakurai:[26]:239–240 in it, quantum spin-singlet states emitted by the source are actually approximate
descriptions for "true" physical states possessing definite values for the z-spin and x-spin. In these "true"
states, the positron going to Bob always has spin values opposite to the electron going to Alice, but the
values are otherwise completely random. For example, the first pair emitted by the source might be "(+z,
−x) to Alice and (−z, +x) to Bob", the next pair "(−z, −x) to Alice and (+z, +x) to Bob", and so forth.
Therefore, if Bob's measurement axis is aligned with Alice's, he will necessarily get the opposite of
whatever Alice gets; otherwise, he will get "+" and "−" with equal probability.

Bell showed, however, that such models can only reproduce the singlet correlations when Alice and Bob
make measurements on the same axis or on perpendicular axes. As soon as other angles between their
axes are allowed, local hidden-variable theories become unable of reproducing the quantum mechanical
correlations. This difference, expressed using inequalities known as "Bell inequalities", is in principle
experimentally testable. After the publication of Bell's paper, a variety of experiments to test Bell's
inequalities were devised. All experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the
predictions of quantum mechanics.[7] The present view of the situation is that quantum mechanics flatly
contradicts Einstein's philosophical postulate that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill "local
realism". The fact that quantum mechanics violates Bell inequalities indicates that any hidden-variable
theory underlying quantum mechanics must be non-local; whether this should be taken to imply that
quantum mechanics itself is non-local is a matter of debate.[27][28]

Mathematical formulation
Bohm's variant of the EPR paradox 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:[26]:9

where is the reduced Planck constant (or the Planck constant divided by 2π).

The eigenstates of Sz are represented as

and the eigenstates of Sx are represented as

The vector space of the electron-positron pair is , the tensor product of the electron's and
positron's vector spaces. The spin singlet state is

where the two terms on the right hand side are what we have referred to as state I and state II above.

From the above equations, it can be shown that the spin singlet can also be written as

where the terms on the right hand side are what we have referred to as state Ia and state IIa.

To illustrate the paradox, we need to show that after Alice's measurement of Sz (or Sx), Bob's value of Sz
(or Sx) is uniquely determined and Bob's value of Sx (or Sz) is uniformly random. This follows from the
principles of measurement in quantum mechanics. When Sz is measured, the system state collapses
into an eigenvector of Sz. If the measurement result is +z, this means that immediately after measurement
the system state collapses to

Similarly, if Alice's measurement result is −z, the state collapses to

The left hand side of both equations show that the measurement of Sz on Bob's positron is now
determined, it will be −z in the first case or +z in the second case. The right hand side of the equations
show that the measurement of Sx on Bob's positron will return, in both cases, +x or -x with probability
1/2 each.

See also
CHSH Bell test
Coherence
Correlation does not imply causation
ER=EPR
GHZ experiment
Measurement problem
Philosophy of information
Philosophy of physics
Popper's experiment
 Quantum information
Quantum pseudo-telepathy
Quantum teleportation
Quantum Zeno effect
Sakurai's Bell inequality
Spin-spacetime EPR gedanken experiment
Synchronicity
Ward's probability amplitude

Notes
a. "Ob die und als Eigenfunktionen von Observabeln aufgefasst werden können
ist mir wurst." Emphasis from the original. "Ist mir wurst" is a German expression that
literally translates to "It is a sausage to me", but means "I couldn't care less". Letter from
Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 19th June 1935.[12]

References
1. Einstein, A; B Podolsky; N Rosen (1935-05-15). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" (http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)
(PDF). Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E (https://ui.adsab
s.harvard.edu/abs/1935PhRv...47..777E). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 (https://doi.org/10.1
103%2FPhysRev.47.777).
2. Harrigan, Nicholas; Spekkens, Robert W. (2010). "Einstein, incompleteness, and the
epistemic view of quantum states". Foundations of Physics. 40: 125. arXiv:0706.2661 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2661). doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9347-0 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs
10701-009-9347-0).
3. Bohr, N. (1935-10-13). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete?" (http://cds.cern.ch/record/1060284/files/PhysRev.48.696.pdf)
(PDF). Physical Review. 48 (8): 696–702. Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..696B (https://ui.adsabs.
harvard.edu/abs/1935PhRv...48..696B). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.696 (https://doi.org/10.110
3%2FPhysRev.48.696).
4. Advances in atomic and molecular physics, Volume 14 By David Robert Bates (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=dkaCKHKLo3gC&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330&dq=%22Saclay%22+%2
2Bell%27s+inequality%22&source=bl&hl=en&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)
5. Gribbin, J. (1984). In Search of Schrödinger's Cat. Black Swan. ISBN 978-0-7045-3071-3.
6. Bell, John. On the Einstein–Poldolsky–Rosen paradox (http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bel
l_Compact.pdf), Physics 1 3, 195–200, Nov. 1964
7. Aspect A (1999-03-18). "Bell's inequality test: more ideal than ever" (http://www.rpi.edu/dep
t/phys/Courses/PHYS4510/AspectNature.pdf) (PDF). Nature. 398 (6724): 189–90.
Bibcode:1999Natur.398..189A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.398..189A).
doi:10.1038/18296 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F18296).
8. Kumar, Manjit (2011). Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of
Reality (https://archive.org/details/quantumeinsteinb00manj/page/305) (Reprint ed.). W. W.
Norton & Company. pp. 305–306 (https://archive.org/details/quantumeinsteinb00manj/page/
305). ISBN 978-0393339888.
9. Kaiser, David (1994), "Bringing the human actors back on stage: the personal context of the
Einstein-Bohr debate", British Journal for the History of Science, 27 (2): 129–152,
doi:10.1017/S0007087400031861 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0007087400031861),
JSTOR 4027432 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4027432)
10. Einstein, Albert (1936). "Physik und Realität". Journal of the Franklin Institute. 221 (3): 313–
347. doi:10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91045-1 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0016-0032%2836%
2991045-1). English translation by Jean Piccard, pp 349–382 in the same issue,
doi:10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91047-5 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91047-5)).
11. Jammer, Max (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of QM in
Historical Perspective. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0-471-43958-4.
12. Howard, D. (1985). "Einstein on locality and separability". Studies in History and Philosophy
of Science Part A. 16 (3): 171–201. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9 (https://doi.org/10.1
016%2F0039-3681%2885%2990001-9).
13. Sauer, Tilman (2007-12-01). "An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin
observables" (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3222/). Studies in History and Philosophy of
Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 38 (4): 879–887.
doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2007.03.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.shpsb.2007.03.002).
ISSN 1355-2198 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1355-2198).
14. Einstein, Albert (1949). "Autobiographical Notes". In Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.). Albert
Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court Publishing Company.
15. Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory (https://books.google.com/books?id=9DWim3RhymsC&
printsec=frontcover&dq=david+bohm+quantum+theory&source=bl&ots=6G-2u1wtav&sig=Q
1GcoVDLFRmKOmDYFAJte6LzrZU&hl=en&ei=Pv45TNSnLYffcfnS6foO&sa=X&oi=book_re
sult&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false), Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, page 29, and Chapter 5 section 3, and Chapter 22 Section 19.
16. D. Bohm; Y. Aharonov (1957). "Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of
Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky". 108 (4): 1070. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1070 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1103%2FPhysRev.108.1070).
17. Reid, M. D.; Drummond, P. D.; Bowen, W. P.; Cavalcanti, E. G.; Lam, P. K.; Bachor, H. A.;
Andersen, U. L.; Leuchs, G. (2009-12-10). "Colloquium: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
paradox: From concepts to applications" (https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1
727). Reviews of Modern Physics. 81 (4): 1727–1751. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1727 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1103%2FRevModPhys.81.1727).
18. Griffiths, David J. (2004), Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall,
ISBN 978-0-13-111892-8
19. Laloe, Franck (2012), "Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics", American Journal
of Physics, Cambridge University Press, 69 (6): 655–701, arXiv:quant-ph/0209123 (https://a
rxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0209123), Bibcode:2002quant.ph..9123L (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2002quant.ph..9123L), doi:10.1119/1.1356698 (https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.135669
8), ISBN 978-1-107-02501-1
20. 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 (https://arxiv.org/a
bs/0902.3827). Bibcode:2010AmJPh..78..111B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Am
JPh..78..111B). doi:10.1119/1.3243279 (https://doi.org/10.1119%2F1.3243279).
21. Used in a letter to Max Born dated March 3rd, 1947 and printed in Albert Einstein Max Born,
Briefwechsel 1916-1955 (in German) (3 ed.). München: Langen Müller. 2005. p. 254.
22. Bell, John (1981). "Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality" (http://cds.cern.ch/record/14
2461?ln=en). J. Physique Colloques. C22: 41–62. Bibcode:1988nbpw.conf..245B (https://ui.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988nbpw.conf..245B).
23. Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" (https://cds.cern.ch/record/11
1654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf) (PDF). Physics. 1 (3): 195–200.
doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysicsPhysiqueFizik
a.1.195).
24. Bohm, D. (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden"
Variables. I". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166 (https://doi.org/10.
1103%2FPhysRev.85.166).
25. Bohm, D. (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden"
Variables. II". Physical Review. 85 (2): 180. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180 (https://doi.org/10.
1103%2FPhysRev.85.180).
26. Sakurai, J. J.; Napolitano, Jim (2010), Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.), Addison-
Wesley, ISBN 978-0805382914
27. Werner, R. F. (2014). "Comment on 'What Bell did' ". Journal of Physics A. 47: 424011.
doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424011 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8113%2F47%2F4
2%2F424011).
28. Żukowski, M.; Brukner, Č. (2014). "Quantum non-locality—it ain't necessarily so...". Journal
of Physics A. 47: 424009. arXiv:1501.04618 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.04618).
doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424009 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8113%2F47%2F4
2%2F424009).

Selected papers
Eberhard, P. H. (1977). "Bell's theorem without hidden variables". Il Nuovo Cimento B
Series 11. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 38 (1): 75–80.
doi:10.1007/bf02726212 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf02726212). ISSN 1826-9877 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/1826-9877).
Eberhard, P. H. (1978). "Bell's theorem and the different concepts of locality". Il Nuovo
Cimento B Series 11. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 46 (2): 392–419.
doi:10.1007/bf02728628 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf02728628). ISSN 1826-9877 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/1826-9877).
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. (1935-05-15). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description
of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" (http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf)
(PDF). Physical Review. American Physical Society (APS). 47 (10): 777–780.
doi:10.1103/physrev.47.777 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrev.47.777). ISSN 0031-899X
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0031-899X).
Fine, Arthur (1982-02-01). "Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities".
Physical Review Letters. American Physical Society (APS). 48 (5): 291–295.
doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.291 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.48.291). ISSN 0031-
9007 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0031-9007).
A. Fine, Do Correlations need to be explained?, in Philosophical Consequences of
Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem, edited by Cushing & McMullin (University
of Notre Dame Press, 1986).
Hardy, Lucien (1993-09-13). "Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all
entangled states". Physical Review Letters. American Physical Society (APS). 71 (11):
1665–1668. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.71.1665 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.71.166
5). ISSN 0031-9007 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0031-9007).
M. Mizuki, A classical interpretation of Bell's inequality. Annales de la Fondation Louis de
Broglie 26 683 (2001)
Peres, Asher (2005). "Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon". Foundations of Physics.
35 (3): 511–514. arXiv:quant-ph/0310010 (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310010).
Bibcode:2005FoPh...35..511P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005FoPh...35..511P).
doi:10.1007/s10701-004-1986-6 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10701-004-1986-6).
ISSN 0015-9018 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0015-9018).
P. Pluch, "Theory for Quantum Probability", PhD Thesis University of Klagenfurt (2006)
Rowe, M. A.; Kielpinski, D.; Meyer, V.; Sackett, C. A.; Itano, W. M.; Monroe, C.; Wineland,
D. J. (2001). "Experimental violation of a Bell's inequality with efficient detection". Nature.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 409 (6822): 791–794. doi:10.1038/35057215 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1038%2F35057215). ISSN 0028-0836 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-
0836).
 Smerlak, Matteo; Rovelli, Carlo (2007-02-03). "Relational EPR". Foundations of Physics.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 37 (3): 427–445. arXiv:quant-ph/0604064 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604064). doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9105-0 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs10701-007-9105-0). ISSN 0015-9018 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0015-9018).

Books
John S. Bell (1987) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-36869-3.
Arthur Fine (1996) The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, 2nd ed.
Univ. of Chicago Press.
Selleri, F. (1988) Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism: The Einstein–Podolsky–
Rosen Paradox. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-42739-7
Leon Lederman, L., Teresi, D. (1993). The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What
is the Question? Houghton Mifflin Company, pages 21, 187 to 189.
John Gribbin (1984) In Search of Schrödinger's Cat. Black Swan. ISBN 978-0-552-12555-0

External links
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory; 1.2 The argument in the text;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/#1.2
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell
Inequalities (http://www.iep.utm.edu/epr/)".
Abner Shimony (2004) "Bell’s Theorem. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/)"
EPR, Bell & Aspect: The Original References. (http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_
Aspect.htm)
Does Bell's Inequality Principle rule out local theories of quantum mechanics? (http://math.u
cr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html) From the Usenet Physics FAQ.
Theoretical use of EPR in teleportation. (https://web.archive.org/web/20061115193609/htt
p://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/481/brassard.html)
Effective use of EPR in cryptography. (http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/aq/qcrypt.ht
m)
EPR experiment with single photons interactive. (http://www.QuantumLab.de/)
Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture by Prof. Mermin. (https://www.youtub
e.com/watch?v=ta09WXiUqcQ)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EPR_paradox&oldid=939154599"

This page was last edited on 4 February 2020, at 18:28 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.