Linked bibliography for the SEP article "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory" by Arthur Fine

This is an automatically generated and experimental page

If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.

This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.

  • Bacciagaluppi, G., 2015, “Did Bohr understand EPR?” in F. Aaserud and H. Kragh (eds.), One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom (Scientia Danica, Series M, Mathematica et physica, Volume 1), Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, pp. 377–396. (Scholar)
  • Bacciagaluppi, G. and A. Valentini, 2009, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • Bednorz, A., 2017, “Analysis of assumptions of recent tests of local realism”, Physical Review A, 95: 042118. (Scholar)
  • Bell, J. S., 1964, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox”, Physics, 1: 195–200, reprinted in Bell 1987. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1987, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, New York: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • Beller, M., 1999, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
  • Belousek, D. W., 1996, “Einstein’s 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory: its background, context and significance”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 437–461. (Scholar)
  • Bohm, D., 1951, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall. (Scholar)
  • Bohm, D., and Y. Aharonov, 1957, “Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen and Podolski”, Physical Review, 108: 1070–1076. (Scholar)
  • Bohr, N., 1935a, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Physical Review, 48: 696–702. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1935b, “Space and time in nuclear physics”, Ms. 14, March 21, Manuscript Collection, Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1939, “The causality problem in atomic physics” in Bohr, 1996, pp. 303–322. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1949, “Discussions with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics” in Schilpp, 1949, pp. 199–241. Reprinted in Bohr, 1996, pp. 339–381. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, Collected Works, Vol. 7, Amsterdam: North Holland. (Scholar)
  • Born, M., (ed.), 1971, The Born-Einstein Letters, New York: Walker. (Scholar)
  • Brunner, N. et al., 2014, “Bell nonlocality”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86: 419–478. (Scholar)
  • Dickson, M., 2004, “Quantum reference frames in the context of EPR”, Philosophy of Science, 71: 655–668. (Scholar)
  • Einstein, A. 1936, “Physik und Realität”, Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221: 313–347, reprinted in translation in Einstein 1954. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1948, “ Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit ”, Dialectica, 2: 320–324. Translated in Born 1971, pp. 168–173. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1953a, “Einleitende Bemerkungen über Grundbegriffe ”, in A. George, ed., Louis de Broglie: Physicien et penseur, Paris: Editions Albin Michel, pp. 5–15. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1953b, “Elementare Überlegungen zur Interpretation der Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik ”, in Scientific Papers Presented to Max Born, New York: Hafner, pp. 33–40. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1954, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Crown. (Scholar)
  • Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, 1935, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780 [Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen 1935 available online]. (Scholar)
  • Elkouss, D and S. Wehner, 2016, “ (Nearly) optimal P values for all Bell inequalities ”, NPJ Quantum Information, 2: 16026. (Scholar)
  • Faye, J. and H. Folse, 2017, Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics, London: Bloomsbury Academic. (Scholar)
  • Fine, A., 1996, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1982a, “Hidden variables, joint probability and the Bell inequalities”, Physical Review Letters, 48: 291–295. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1982b, “Some local models for correlation experiments”, Synthese 50: 279–94. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2007, “Bohr’s response to EPR: Criticism and defense”, Iyyun, The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 56: 31–56. (Scholar)
  • Gilton, M. J. R., 2016, “Whence the eigenstate-eigenvalue link?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 55: 92–100. (Scholar)
  • Graft, D. A., 2016, “ Clauser-Horne/Eberhard inequality violation by a local model”, Advanced Science, Engineering and Medicine, 8: 496–502. (Scholar)
  • Halvorson, H., 2000, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state maximally violates Bell’s inequality”, Letters in Mathematical Physics, 53: 321–329. (Scholar)
  • Halvorson, H. and R. Clifton, 2004, “Reconsidering Bohr’s reply to EPR.” In J. Butterfield and H. Halvorson, eds., Quantum Entanglements: Selected Papers of Rob Clifton, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 369–393. (Scholar)
  • Handsteiner, J. et al , 2017, “ Cosmic Bell test: Measurement settings from Milky Way stars”, Physical Review Letters, 118: 060401. (Scholar)
  • Harrigan, N. and R. W., Spekkens, 2010, “Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states”, Foundations of Physics, 40: 125–157. (Scholar)
  • Held, C., 1998, Die Bohr-Einstein-Debatte: Quantenmechanik und Physikalische Wirklichkeit, Paderborn: Schöningh. (Scholar)
  • Holland, P., 2005, “What’s wrong with Einstein’s 1927 hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics?”, Foundations of Physics, 35: 177–196. (Scholar)
  • Hooker, C. A., 1972, “The nature of quantum mechanical reality: Einstein versus Bohr”, in R. G. Colodny, ed., Paradigms and Paradoxes, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–302. (Scholar)
  • Howard, D., 1985, “Einstein on locality and separability.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 171–201. (Scholar)
  • Howard, D., 1990, “‘Nicht Sein Kann Was Nicht Sein Darf’, or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935”, in A. I. Miller (ed.), Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 61–111. (Scholar)
  • Jammer, M., 1974, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, New York: Wiley. (Scholar)
  • Larsson, J.-A., 2014, “Loopholes in Bell inequality tests of local realism”, Journal of Physics A, 47: 424003. (Scholar)
  • Malley, J., 2004, “All Quantum observables in a hidden-variable model must commute simultaneously”, Physical Review A, 69 (022118): 1–3. (Scholar)
  • Putz, G. and N. Gisin, 2016, “Measurement dependent locality”, New Journal of Physics, 18: 05506. (Scholar)
  • Ryckman, T., 2017, Einstein, New York and London: Routledge. (Scholar)
  • Sauer, T., 2007, “An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin observables”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 879–887. (Scholar)
  • Schilpp, P.A., (ed.), 1949, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Scholar)
  • Schlosshauer, M., 2007, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer. (Scholar)
  • Schrödinger, E., 1935a, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, Naturwissenschaften, 23: 807–812, 823–828, 844–849; English translation in Trimmer, 1980. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1935b, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31: 555–562. (Scholar)
  • Trimmer, J. D., 1980, “The present situation in quantum mechanics: A translation of Schrödinger’s ‘cat paradox’ paper”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124: 323–338 (Scholar)
  • Weinstein, S. 2009, “Nonlocality without nonlocality”, Foundations of Physics, 39: 921–936. (Scholar)
  • Whitaker, M. A. B., 2004, “The EPR Paper and Bohr’s response: A re-assessment”, Foundations of Physics, 34: 1305–1340. (Scholar)
  • Winsberg, E., and A. Fine, 2003, “Quantum life: Interaction, entanglement and separation”, Journal of Philosophy, C: 80–97. (Scholar)

Generated Tue Sep 29 01:24:53 2020