On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

@article{Bell1964OnTE,
  title={On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox},
  author={John Stewart Bell},
  journal={Physics},
  year={1964},
  volume={1},
  pages={195-200}
}
  • J. Bell
  • Published 1 November 1964
  • Physics
  • Physics
THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality [2]. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on… 
The physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox as formulated in their original paper is critically examined. Their argument that quantum mechanics is incomplete is shown to be unsatisfactory on two important
THE GEOMETRY OF QUANTUM PROBABILITIES
The EPR paradox of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935) was presented as an argument for the need for additional variables in quantum theory to restore causality and locality to that theory. Such a
Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Nonlocality Puzzle
1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR)[1] considered the question whether the quantum mechanical description of physical reality was complete, and argued that it wasn’t. A theory is incomplete if
Generalized inequalities following from Einstein locality
The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox (1) showed that there was an incompatibility between three hypotheses: that quantum mechanics is correct, that quantum mechanics is complete and that (~
On some EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) issues
A critical reconsideration of the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paper shows that the EPR argument can be developed without using the concept of `element of physical reality', thus eliminating any
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's inequality, and the projection postulate
Our aim is to understand the role of implicit assumptions which has been used by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in their famous article [Phys. Rev., 47, 777 (1935)] devoted to the so-called EPR
Solving the EPR paradox with pseudo-classical paths
We propose a novel interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which can resolve the outstanding conflict between the principles of locality and realism and offers new insight on the so-called weak values
The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox and Local Hidden—Variables Theories
Einstein's severe critique of quantum mechanics took its ultimate form in the so-called Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. The latter remained a subject of mere dispute, until a remarkable
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Reasoning in Nonlocality Theorems
Bell’s 1964 [1] argument that quantum theory is nonlocal consisted of three parts: (i) use of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) type reasoning to demonstrate that results of spin measurements on a
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-4 OF 4 REFERENCES
Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky
A brief review of the physical significance of the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky is given, and it is shown that it involves a kind of correlation of the properties of distant
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
TLDR
Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that one is led to conclude that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete.