Abstract
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 grounds. (i) The gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is physically unrealizable, and consequently their argument is invalid as it stands. (ii) The basic assumptions of their argument are equivalent to the assumption that quantum mechanical systems are in fact describable by unique eigenfunctions of the operators corresponding to physical observables, independent of any observation or measurement. Following an argument due to Furry, it is shown that this interpretation of quantum mechanics must lead to some physical predictions at variance with those of conventional quantum mechanics. A decisive experiment has been performed by Freedman and Clauser, which rules out this interpretation, and imposes severe restrictions on any alternative theory which incorporates the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen concept of physical reality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
C. A. Hooker, inParadigms and Paradoxes, R. G. Colodny, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972);Am. J. Phys. 38, 851 (1970).
W. H. Furry,Phys. Rev. 49, 393 (1936).
J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne,Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).
B. d'Espagnat,Phys. Rev. D 11, 1424 (1975).
N. Bohr,Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
D. Bohm,Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1951), Chapter 22.
D. Bohm and Y. Aharanov,Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).
A. Einstein, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientists, P. A. Schilpp, ed. (Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949), pp. 665–676.
J. S. Bell,Physics 1, 195 (1964).
E. P. Wigner,Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005 (1970).
A. Peres and P. Singer,Nuovo Cimento 15, 907 (1960).
D. R. Inglis,Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 1 (1961).
E. Breitenberger,Nuovo Cimento 38, 356 (1965).
L. E. Ballentine,Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).
M. Barden, P. Franzini, and J. Lee,Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 33 (1961).
G. Bachenstoff, B. D. Hyams, G. Knop, P. C. Martin, and U. Stierlin,Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 415 (1961).
H. S. Snyder, S. Pasternack, and J. Hornbostel,Phys. Rev. 73, 440 (1948).
E. Bleuler and H. L. Bradt,Phys. Rev. 73, 1398 (1948).
C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov,Phys. Rev. 77, 136 (1950).
C. A. Kocher and E. D. Commins,Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 575 (1967).
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser,Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972).
J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich,The Theory of Photons and Electrons (Addison-Wesley, 1955).
M. Fierz,Helv. Phys. Acta 13, 95 (1940).
R. A. Holt, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard (unpublished, 1972).
J. F. Clauser,Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1223 (1976).
D. Bohm,Phys. Rev. 85, 166, 180 (1952).
D. Bohm and J. Bub,Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 453, 470 (1966);40, 235 (1968).
J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955).
J. M. Jauch and C. Piron,Helv. Phys. Acta 36, 827 (1963); J. M. Jauch,Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 228 (1968).
A. M. Gleason,J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957).
J. S. Bell,Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966);Lecture Notes, International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course IL (Academic Press, 1970).
M. Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1974).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kellett, B.H. The physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Found Phys 7, 735–757 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708592
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708592