This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There did not seem to be a simple description of what the EPR paper actually said, so I have added it. I used Kumar's book. Myrvin ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the style of this article to be irritating. It is chatty and unencyclopedic. There shouldn't be headings like "Here is the crux of the matter", or " Here is the paradox summed up." It reads like a kiddy's book. Also, most of it is completely uncited. Where does it all come from? It reads like an undergraduate paper by someone who hasn't quite learned how to write one. Myrvin ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Intriguingly, the whole of the article seems to appear in this book: Quantum Computers by Jon Schiller PhD. It says "This is a report of the latest research found by searching the internet." It has an ISBN, and is available on Amazon. It also says "No part of this book can be reproduced in any form." Myrvin ( talk) 10:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says:
However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known.
That conclusion was not stated in the EPR paper. It says that by knowing something about A one can know something about B, so B must have always had this characteristic. (The characteristic was "real.") In one experiment with A one could learn, e.g., the momentum of B, so the momentum of B is real. In another experiment with A one could learn, e.g., the position of B, so the position of B is real. So both the position and the momentum of B have to be real.
Where is the evidence for the interpretation presented in the article? The footnote quotes a book. Does the book explain why the experiment it describes is different from the experiment given in the EPR paper? P0M ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following paragraph in the section with the above title must be either removed or entirely rephrased:
"The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle."
Two simple facts are being neglected here:
(1) According to standard (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics, a measurement does consist in "a physical disturbance inflicted upon the measured system"; it's always the result of an interaction between system and apparatus, as Bohr himself stated uncountable times, and continued to do so until the end of his life.
(2) Even if by measuring the first particle's momentum we can indirectly ascertain the momentum of the second particle, this information is completely destroyed as soon as we perform a position measurement on the second particle - precisely because it is an uncontrolable "physical disturbance inflicted upon the measured system". In no way can the subsequent trajectory of the second particle (or the first, for that matter) be predicted. Old Palimpsest ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking back at the lead paragraphs, I think that it is wrong and probably the article got off on the wrong foot from there.
Then the position or momentum of one of the systems is measured, and due to the known relationship between the (measured) value of the first particle and the value of the second particle, the observer is aware of that value in the second particle. A measurement of the other value is then made on the second particle, and, once again, due to the relationship between the two particles, that value is then known in the first particle.
If my memory serves me well, that argument is not present in the EPR paper itself. P0M ( talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on PhysRev.47.777.pdf
MAY 15, 1935 PHYSICAL REVIEW VOLUME 47 Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete'Â ? A. EINSTEIN, B. PODOLSKY AND N. ROSEN, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey (Received March 25, 1935)
Here is my summary:
Experimenters start with two systems whose states they know, bring them together, and at that point what used to be two systems becomes one system and it has a single state. Experimenters then separate the two systems. However, at that point the two systems share the original single state. To determine anything that is specific to one or the other of the now physically isolated systems, new measurements must be made. The question EPR pose is whether the experimenters can do experiments that will not lead to indeterminate or probabilistic values for at least one of the two systems. If they can do so, then there will exist a situation in which one system has, e.g., both a determinate position and also a determinate momentum. Since quantum mechanics cannot predict the values of both pairs such as P and Q, quantum mechanics cannot account for a system that has both a determinate momentum and also a determinate position. EPR maintain that since this determinately known pair of values actually must exist, then quantum mechanics must be incomplete. There must be something else left to be learned that would tell experimenters ahead of time what the determinate position and determinate momentum would be found by experiment to be.
When, after the pairing is broken up, experimenters measure the position of the first system they will disturb its momentum. However, they will by that operation be able to calculate the position of the second system, and a mere calculation will not disturb the momentum of the second system.* It will then be clear that the position of the second system is a feature of reality, and therefore something that ought to be subject to calculation by a complete theory. If, however, the experimenters measure the momentum of the first system and disturb its position, they will by that operation be able to calculate the momentum of the second system, and nothing they have done will exert any force on the second system.* It will then be clear that the momentum of the second system must also be a feature of reality, and therefore it ought to be possible to predict it using a complete theory.
Thus, by measuring either A or B we are in a position to predict with certainty, and without in any way disturbing the second system, either the value of the quantity P (that is pk) or the value of the quantity Q (that is qr. In accordance with our criterion of reality, in the first case we must consider the quantity P as being an element of reality, in the second case the quantity Q is an element of reality. But, as we have seen, both wave functions Κk and Ïr belong to the same reality.
-- from the EPR paper
*These two places are where EPR make assumptions about what reality must be like. Quantum theoreticians would argue that despite their not being local to each other, measurement of the position of one system will affect the momentums of both systems, and measuring the momentum of one system will affect the positions of both systems. Bell discovered a way of experimentally determining which opinion on the matter is correct.
I think that what it boils down to is the conviction on the part of EPR that a real thing cannot fail to have a real position or fail to have a real momentum. P0M ( talk) 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I started reading the discussion prior to the questions raised by Myrven above, and discovered that some time ago another editor also outlined the content and conclusions of the EPR paper. Search for "Preface to thought experiment" above. I think that we have said essentially the same thing.
I think that an article on the EPR paper should explain what it actually said, and go beyond that only to describe challenges to it, the Bell results being included in that. (A link should be sufficient.) The idea that one measures system I to learn the momentum of system II, and measures system II to learn the position of system I, and therefor escapes the indeterminacy that would result in measuring both position and momentum on the same system, is something that goes beyond EPR. Why would we need to include it? If we need to do it, it has to be separated from what EPR said because, at least as I see it (see above), it makes the logical flaw of using one's desired conclusion to prove one's case. P0M ( talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't started to plan changes to the article, but there seem to me to be clear indications that it is misleading in some respects. If there are no corrections needed for what I have said above (and as long as I stick to what EPR said and leave any of my side thoughts out), will it not be o.k. to fix the things recently pointed out as wrong? If I don't see any objections I will start changing things. P0M ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just written the following from memory. I think it is too long for a lead. I want to look at it as an indication of what, in general, the article needs to say. (Details can follow.) I present it here in draft form. Please indicate any inaccuracies or places that are likely to mislead the general reader:
The EPR paradox was the answer of Albert Einstein and his associates Podolsky and Rosen to the probabilistic equations developed in quantum mechanics. To expose what they thought were fundamental shortcomings in quantum mechanics, they examined the logical consequences of a situation in which two particles are coupled together to form a single system, and then are physically decoupled. Imagine two atom-sized railway cars coasting together, linking, rolling together for some time, and then being unhooked and pushed apart by some force exerted between them. On this quantum mechanical scale of things, the consequences of the separation for the characteristics of the newly individuated particles are not what one would experience from everyday experience.
According to the equations of quantum mechanics, if two systems (the "railroad cars") each have a known description and the systems become united, then the new single system has a quantum theoretical description that can be calculated from the values of the original components. Since classical physics describes things like the addition of momenta in the case of life size railway cars, the analogous feature of quantum mechanics is not unexpected. However, according to quantum mechanics, when the atomic scale system described above is decoupled, the two resulting parts do not have individual quantum theoretical descriptions. They do not have separate states. Instead, they share a single state. At that point, to discover anything about their individual characteristics (e.g., position, momentum, etc.) it is necessary to perform new measurements.
When the position of one particle, EPR called it "System I," is measured, it becomes impossible to make a deterministic prediction of its momentum, and experimenters get only a range of probable momenta. However, since each particle shared the same wave function, once the position of one particle has been measured the position of the other particle is also known. EPR argued that if the second particle indeed had that position but not at the cost of making a physical intervention with it, a measurement, then the momentum of the second particle would not be changed. Furthermore, if the second particle did indeed have a position, then its momentum would not have been influenced by the determination of that position. On the other hand, if the momentum of the first particle had been measured instead, then the position of the second would be known without its momentum having been influenced by the act of measurement.
EPR went on to argue that since the arguments they had taken from quantum mechanics showed that the second particle had a real position, and because it showed that the second particle had a real momentum, there were two features of reality to be accounted for, and yet quantum mechanics provided one of them but not the other. If quantum mechanics, working from the single wave function of the combined unit and later shared by the two newly detached particles, could provide, after a measurement, only the position and a range of probabilities for the momentum, or else only the momentum and a range of probabilities for the position, and yet there had to be real values for both of them, then quantum mechanics was incomplete.
The key difference between EPR and those in the school of Niels Bohr was that Einstein and his colleagues argued that since the second particle was physically remote from the particle upon which measurements were performed, any measurement that was performed on the first particle and that would make indeterminate the measurement that could be expected of a second characteristic of the first particle would not influence the second particle. The Copenhagen group eventually held that when the first particle was measured and its wave function collapsed, when position became determinate and momentum became indeterminate, the same things could be said of the second particle, i.e., that not only did its position become determinate but its momentum simultaneously became indeterminate.
Any comments? This way is quite distinct from the present text in terms of real content. P0M ( talk) 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Draft new lead:
The EPR paradox is an early and influential critique leveled against quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (known collectively as EPR) designed a thought experiment intended to reveal what they believed to be inadequacies of quantum mechanics. To that end they pointed to a consequence of quantum mechanics that its supporters had not noticed. According to quantum mechanics, a single system has its own wave function, its own unitary quantum-theoretical description. If such a single system can be transformed into two individual systems, doing so does not create two wave functions. Instead, theory indicates that each system shares the single wave function. The question then becomes, "What happens to this wave function when one and/or the other of the pair of individual systems is measured?" Working through the equations, the EPR paper shows that measuring one feature of a system, e.g., the momentum of one of the pair of particles, will reveal the same feature of the other particle. Measuring one characteristic of the first system will, according to quantum mechanics, make any related characteristic, in this case position, indeterminate. The EPR experiment suggested the possibility that not only would the momentum of the second be made known without the need of further experimental measurement, but also that the position of the second particle would be predicted in an indeterminate form according to the rules of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. EPR insisted, however, that since the two systems were physically separated action on one particle could not affect the other particle, and it was therefore impossible that any indeterminacy could be induced in the system that was not directly measured. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since it depicted a pair of systems with one determinate characteristic and one indeterminate characteristic. In reality, they concluded, one could measure the first system to get a real value for position of the second, and one could also have measured the first system to get a real value for the momentum of the second, so the second system must have both a real position and a real momentum. They would both be determinate values, not just one of them as indicated by quantum mechanics.
If quantum mechanics is not incomplete, if quantum mechanics gives all of the information that is really available in nature, then, researchers conclude, changing some characteristic of one member of such a pair (now usually called an entangled pair) will not only make determinate the same characteristic of the other member of the pair, but it will also make indeterminate the second characteristic of the other member of the pair. The switch from a condition wherein both particles share the same wave function to a condition wherein one feature of one particle is made specific and its complex conjugate is made quantum mechanically indeterminate, and the same feature of the other particle is made correspondingly determinate while its complex conjugate is made quantum mechanically indeterminate, is something that occurs as the result of measuring the first feature in one of the paired particles, and that is reflected instantaneously in the other member of the pair.
<<The next part should probably be below the lead, a section on the history of the EPR paper and its consequences>>
The article that first brought forth these matters, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" was published in 1935. [1] 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 [2] at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism theory is false. [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This is my draft lead. If this lead is accepted it will probably push some changes in the rest of the text of the article. P0M ( talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is lack of comment an indication of general agreement? It would be less disruptive to the article to fix any problems beforehand rather than after the old lead has been taken down. P0M ( talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The text currently says:
In 1948 Einstein presented a less formal account of his local realist ideas.
It has a footnote, but it is only a wikilink to "local realism," and does not identify the 1948 paper. Does anyone know which paper is involved? I'm working my way through the body of the paper to try to clear up any inconsistencies with the new lead. Thanks. P0M ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If everything looks o.k. so far, I will rewrite the short section on the "EPR paper." See the notes on what is actually in the paper above. P0M ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that attempts to "explain" EPR (e.g. the Alice & Bob story) have always been inferior to what the paper itself said, and are often not equivalent to the argument in the paper. Looking at it from a different perspective, evidently the core issue (indeed the core puzzle about quantum theory) lies in there supposedly being a qualitative difference in behavior between so-called "pure" and "mixed" states (identified back in Bohr's time as "collapse of the wavefunction"). The modern quantum theory of measurement is advertised as solving this problem, i.e. it shows how processes of observation are subject to the same quantum laws as the systems being observed; in particular the information state of an observer becomes "entangled" with the state of the thing that has been observed, and EPR really ought to be recast in those terms. Unfortunately I don't have specific wording for such an edit. Meanwhile, the attempts to paraphrase the argument should be replaced by quotations from the paper itself. â DAGwyn ( talk) 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Material in "Greene version" is unsourced. I have checked through The Fabric of the Cosmos and Elegant Universe and have failed to find the experiment described. This section should be removed or replaced with something that can be traced down. P0M ( talk) 05:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
See The Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 113, for what Greene actually says about Aspect's experiment. P0M ( talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking back over the history, it is clear that there was never a clear statement that Greene said anything about pion decay. On top of that, the "Greene version" does not report what Greene says. I think that the experimental challenge to EPR needs to be covered. I'm looking at The Quantum Chanllenge by Greenstein and Zajonc, which seems clearer than Greene's work. Greene appears to have oversimplified things and came out with some math that doesn't match what others use. I think it may look at a simplified situation and makes numerical conclusions based only on that scheme. P0M ( talk) 07:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I just got reminded that the "EPR paper" section still contains misinformation. The idea that you could learn about A by looking at B, and then turn around and learn about B by measuring A is not in the EPR paper. P0M ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section that incorporates the speculation reported by Kumar. If his source could be tracked down it would be better to rewrite the section to explain how the ideas of EPR, which did not have the bi-directional measurements being made, were later expanded by someone else.
I have deleted the section on Greene. Greene's discussion does not involve pion decay, but instead is based on experiments using elemental calcium excited by laser radiation, and the sequential emission of two entangled photons as an electron falls to its equilibrium state by way of a stop at an orbital in the middle. Study of the history of this article shows how the pion idea was probably written down first, then studies of this general type were attributed to "Greene and others," and still later the "others" fell along the wayside. The discussion is wrong in any event. Reconstituting the Greene discussion would probably be a mistake as it appears that he created an analogy, a sort of imaginary set of physical phenomena that are simpler than what the real world is like, and as a result the numbers that he comes up with to illustrate the Bell Inequalities are very much different from those used in formal studies. It's a good method, but he takes pages to set his analogy up, and there is no way it can all be jammed into one paragraph. I need to trace through the materials in Quantum Challenge to see whether a summary can be given than goes light on all the details that were given in that book for university physics students. P0M ( talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've started to go over the lead again as Myrvin suggested.
I have deleted a comment about entanglement in lead. It's confusing enough to begin with so why bring in another mind boggling element? Entanglement was not part of the original discussion. P0M ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formulation for finding solutions to the diffusion equation like Schrodinger equation using complex exponential functions. Fourier analysis exploits the completeness and orthogonality possessed by complex exponential function sets with a single variable exponent. Because the Schrodinger equation is a linear partial differential equation distinct solutions added, superposed, are also solutions.
1 Normalization and Quantum entanglement
When interpreted as a probability, the solution squared magnitude is normalized to unity. For solutions in which the component terms are orthogonal, normalization entangles the component squared sum. A two state system with equally likely states would require the state squared magnitudes be equal when conventional event probability is used. If, however, Bayesian probability is used, the normalized sets are event outcomes when other outcomes are known. This normalization choice is a problem statement element that does not depend on state spatial separation and does not, therefore, require faster than light information transfer.
2 Wave function completion
When the exponential variable depends linearly on two independent variables, the complex exponentials no longer form a complete, orthogonal set with respect to the independent variables. To recover completeness, functions depending on a linearly independent exponent must be added. For the true wave equation these variables are Ï1=b(r+at) and Ï2=b(r-at) where âbâ and âaâ are constants. In quantum mechanics only one is employed. This makes trying to find solutions analogous to trying to fasten a shoe using only one hand with its fingers crossed: slipons and Velcro fasteners may be manageable, but buckles and laces are not.( HCPotter ( talk) 09:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
There appears to be a disagreement between this page and the Hidden variable theory page. Here, I find the statement "it turns out that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by experiment, cannot be explained by any hidden variable theory", citing Bell's Theorem. The other page states that experimental evidence "rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones" and that "Assuming the validity of Bell's theorem, any classical hidden-variable theory which is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local". (And it seems to say that Bohm's theory fits that category.) Am I misinterpreting something, or is one of these pages incorrect (or misleading)? YancarloRamsey ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Moreover, if the two particles have their spins measured about different axes, once the electron's spin has been measured about the x-axis (and the positron's spin about the x-axis deduced), the positron's spin about the y-axis will no longer be certain, "
This sentence refers to the "y-axis" but the "y-axis" has never been introduced. It says the spin along the "y-axis" will no longer be certain but never states at what point it was ever certain. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.103.13 ( talk) 19:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What has happened to the lead in the past couple of months? It has been increased and has gone through several edits that were often ungrammatical and confusing. It is now much too big and still confusing, ungrammatical and unencyclopedic in places. Myrvin ( talk) 07:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is shorter, but I think it is too long and repeats too much in the rest of the article. It uses words like: "According to quantum mechanics, a single system has its own wave function, its own unitary quantum-theoretical description.", "when we keep decreasing the intensity ", "Today, we call", "Even if we 'prepare' ", "Example of such a conjugate pair are ", "The EPR paper written in 1936 has shown that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, let's call them A and B, and pointed out measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance", "quantum effect we call non-locality". Maybe this has been going on longer than I thought. It is now reading like a kiddies' primer written by someone not an English speaker. There is too much use of us and we. Myrvin ( talk) 09:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
P0M ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I also find the lead to be confusing and too wordy. I wrote a possible new lead and "Description of the paradox" section, trying to be concise and clear. Here it is. You're welcome to directly correct it, revise it, or use it to edit the article (something I'll do in a month if I see no discussion here):
Yakamashi (
talk) 02:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It quotes some 'Manjit Kumar' who directly contradicts basis of quantum mechanics.
<quote>"According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, 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. Also, the exact momentum of particle A can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle B can be worked out."</quote>
It is completely outragious to insert ref of unknown author. It should be removed and whole section should be rewritten. In fact, whole article needs to be rewritten. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikshvaaku ( talk âą contribs) 15:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Manjit Kumar was inserted by User:Myrvin on 9 March 2011. As far as I understand, these Kumar's words do not add anything to the EPR paper, and probably are not intended to add, but only to popularize. Thus, on one hand, Kumar "directly contradicts basis of quantum mechanics" no less no more than EPR do; and on the other hand, there is no need to quote him in the article. For a reader that needs such a popular presentation, Kumar's book may be cited in Sect. 8.2 "Books". Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
EPR paradox. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
We now know that the speed of gravity, usually is close to the speed of light in the void (classical void) but in the real world occur disturbances because complex arrangements of matter, interlink particles in ways that cause "cohesion distortions". Gravity is not a fundamental force, the "graviton" is simply the superluminal "briefion" that connects briefly any particle, not necessarily only parts of the same compound particle. The graviton/briefion is nothing other than any virtual boson (can also be individual particle) of the other three fundamental forcesâą the gravitational field is a compound statistical mechanism of the electroweak gauge field and the strong/chromodynamic gauge field while the two interact indirectly (not as a first step of a feynogram [Feynman diagram] but as a further step, thus intermediate steps are required, and that constitutes gravity so weak, for it's only a secondary statistical effect of the interaction of the electroweak gauge field with the strong/chromodynamic gauge field inside the Higgs connection field) through the Higgs connection field. In huge accumulations of matter, statistically few entanglements occur, the actual entanglements are not enough to justify gravity, but we have to calculate the infinite virtual particles created using as a measure of time the ultimate Planck sequence. That infinity becomes renormalized due to the curvature of spacetime that doesn't allow infinite perfect alignments when relativistically observed at Planck sized microholograms (ultimate quantization of spacetime). Thus a non infinite amount of entanglements occurs. These entanglements transfer instantaneously quantum information, but the electroweak gauge field and the strong/chromodynamic gauge field continue to transfer information at luminal (thus not instantaneous) speed. All particle arrangements should constantly lose energy toward nothingness, because almost all virtual particles dissapear without being materialized (objectified). Gravity is the mechanism that maintans the overall energy (although no gravitational system is closed, and all lose energy towards the Universe; even the Universe isn't a closed system inside the Megaverse, and becomes so diffused with the passage of time so it reaches the upper limit of quantum decohesion, thus then the virtual particles are compelled to become actual [materialized/objectified] to fill the gap, this event is a Big Bang without singularity, and it occurs when entanglements are no longer possible) through the Higgs connection field, and brings matter closer to the center of gravity, in order energy is maintained.
â Preceding Steven Weinberg comment added by Steven Weinberg ( talk) 23:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The diagram of Bob and Alice shows their axes rotated by 45 degrees. The text does explain why this is necessary. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.70.12 ( talk) 08:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The section under "the crux of the matter" is wrong. By only measuring the x or z axis you cannot distinguish between a classical system with hidden variables and a quantum system. One has to measure at 45 degrees also. The diagram is right, the description is wrong. --Jules â Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.131.247 ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"You might imagine that, when Bob measures the x-spin of his positron, he would get an answer with absolute certainty, since prior to this he hasn't disturbed his particle at all. Bob's positron has a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of âxâso the outcome is not certain. Bob's positron "knows" that Alice's electron has been measured, and its z-spin detected, and hence B's z-spin has been calculated, but the x-spin of Bob's positron remains uncertain."
The claim written in that section: "The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. "
is basically nonsense as many college level texbooks still teach that and I would say that the measurement problem has not really been solved. Moreover it contraddicts Heisenberg uncertainty principle. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.199.255 ( talk) 10:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
For those with phd in theoretical physics - perhaps, for those who peruse wikipedia this is garbage, not explained at all for layperson Juror1 ( talk) 14:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Landau's contributions do matter (and are cited more than once in my articles). However, "any model whether local or non-local will obey Bell's inequality"?? Landau did not (and could not) write anything like that. Probably, the anonymous editor means Landau's Proposition 2: "In a classical theory with joint distributions |R|<=2." However, in the absence of locality the observable R is irrelevant; conditional probabilities are relevant. Moreover, Bell's work on this matter started with the observation that a nonlocal classical theory can reproduce quantum predictions; namely, the De BroglieâBohm theory does. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The information transported through scalar waves separate from the energy flows faster than light? â Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorado ( talk âą contribs) 13:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
How come there's a portrait of Einstein here, but no portrait of the other two, Podolsky and Rosen? Just asking. Vlad Patryshev ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  A colleague who may well be a better physicist than I has just reverted my extensive edit -- IIRC, some 600 new characters, beyond anything I simply replaced or reworded. What I clearly recall is that my improvement of the clarity of the scope of the first 'graph is objectionable, bcz the colleague apparently thinks the function of the lead 'graph should be to address matters that users who already have an overall grasp of the topic would rather not be slowed down by!
  (I'm constrained by a lousy interface for wiki-editing, and haven't yet seen a diff for either the net changes of my several edits over the last several hours, nor for any of my individual saves; it may be a few days before I get to where I can assess the value of my changes to various passages. --- It'd be great if the colleague would critique them in terms of individual sentences instead of claiming e.g. that my whole complex of probably a dozen or two independent minor changes can rightly be reverted without being individually addressed.)
  So for now, I'm playing my persona as wise old pre-9-11 veteran who appreciates that discussion, and lack of urgency to race twd a perfect, simple solution is what has built this edifice.
--
Jerzyâą
t 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
IP editor 129.11.174.xxx and I have some disagreement on proposed revisions to the lede which, in my opinion, do not represent an improvement. I reverted his/her revisions and have copied the disputed edits below. I don't have time now to detail my concerns, but maybe later on today, I will be able to delineate the points that I do not consider satisfactory. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 17:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Specific critiques highlighted in color:
The EinsteinâPodolskyâRosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment in Physics which yields a dichotomy that explanation of physical reality according to Quantum Mechanics is Incomplete. [7] In the article Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?, Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain a complete information about physical reality; hence the Copenhagen interpretation was deemed unsatisfactory. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum as well as classical physics, as for the latter case, one could question if it was at all possible, contrary to intuition and common sense, to have a quantum picture without having a classical one at first.
The work was done at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton University in 1934, which Einstein had joined the prior year after he had left Nazi Germany.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Up to now, I had given 129.11.xxx.xxx the benefit of the doubt and tried to treat him as a misguided good faith editor.
With the edit summary to his latest edit, with his intentional misspelling of Einstein's name, it is clear that we are dealing with a vandal. I had not put warnings on the talk pages of the previous versions of his IP address, because of my previous misapprehension of him as being simply misguided. What is the procedure here? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 16:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I retroactively applied vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 templates to a couple of this user's IP talk pages, with the explanation that I did not previously understand that these edits were vandalism rather than good faith, and have applied a third level warning to his current talk page. I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy pages regarding this particular situation, and am just doing the best that I can figure. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 22:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reported this IP user on WP:AIV as shown here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 03:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It was recommended that I report this user to WP:AN/I instead. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This Article is unsatisfactory from a history of science perspective.
(1) Whatever its contents, its title should not monopolize E-P-R, but should be changed to "Further Study/Discussion/Investigation of E-P-R" [or "Elaboration on E-P-R"]. A different Article should limit itself to the original E-P-R and exclude the John Bell presentation from it altogether. Otherwise this Article sounds like an Informercial for John Bell. Would you substitute the words of Aristotle in the stead of those of Plato ? When Plato quoted Socrates, he was careful to preserve the distinction between who said what and who now says what.
(2) Scientific experiment validates, but cannot sew the fabric of theory. Where distinct theories are validated by experiment, their respective "sewing patterns" can be of interest in themselves, even if they can later be shown to be equivalent to one another. Sometimes more than one are needed, such as the wave(propagation)-particle(emission-absorption) duality.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. COMMENT FOR THE EDITORS ONLY.
98.164.228.122 ( talk) 11:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The modern resolutionâthat quantum theory describes the system and not individual particlesâshould be sourced. I remember sourcing it on another article but if anyone else has a source it would be good to prevent the appearance of an "isolated study", when this description is actually widely adopted by physicists. Brightâ 10:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
From the little I have learnt about the subject I find this "modern" resolution to sound very much like Bohr's original explanation to Einstein in their letters. I also don't find it fully clear how "measurable properties have well-defined meaning only for the ensemble system" differs from "hidden local variables" of the ensemble system. I have more objections to this paragraph, but for now it is sufficient to say that I would really like to find the source of this information, so that I could verify that the editor has understood it correctly. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.232.233 ( talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"Violations of the conclusions of Bell's theorem are generally understood to have demonstrated that the hypotheses of Bell's theorem, also assumed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, do not apply in our world.[5] 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]"
utterly incomprehensible. it starts with the violations that never actually get explained. also 'hypotheses of Bells theorem' needs thorough decoding: how many of those hypotheses are there? what they are? could not they simply be referred as 'Bells theorem'??'also assumed by E,P and R': does this mean that they agreed to bells theorem?? then how comes that bells theorem is described as a statement that the EPR paradox is a mistaken idea? needs clarification. a LOT of clarification. 'do not apply in our world': is this an overcomplicated way of restating bells theorem, like quantum models do not apply to objects several times the magnitude of elementary particles? if that was not meant to say then i am the living proof that the wordig is overcomplicated and instead of explaining the subject to a relatively educated laicist just obscures the thing it was supposed to clarify. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
The change made to the introduction back in December and reverted back and forth since is unclear (and ungrammatical). The current version is much more satisfactory, although it does commit the common error of presuming that "the Copenhagen interpretation" was/is a well-defined thing, rather than a label applied well after the fact to the views of physicists who differed among themselves on important points. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
they attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain complete information about physical realityâ it's just unclear what that is trying to say. The third paragraph (
The essence of the paradox...) is not very clear either. On face value, it's not even right: it sounds like the conclusion was that one can measure both the position and the momentum of both of two correlated particles more accurately than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows. At least, I think that's what it is saying. But that's not at all what EPR actually argued. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall I think I'd be happier with a paraphrase (and maybe a shorter quote than what I included, from one source or another), but for the sake of getting a section in place, I figured a briefish blockquote would be serviceable. Actually, I had typed it up with all the math tags to leave in a comment here, and then, after all that, I had the idea that it could go into the article itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of outright blanking of information sourced from peer-reviewed publications outlining the evolution of understanding from Bohr, Bohm, Bell, "CHSH", Stapp, Eberhard, Fine, Pitowsky and more recently Griffiths, Philipp, Hess, Streater. Without this info the reader is back in 1935 and is left unaware of the progress that has been made in both theory and research. But presumeably the blankers decided they don't like the findings of these not insignificant researchers. 197.234.164.85 ( talk) âPreceding undated comment added 17:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
back in 1935, since it summarizes the Bohm version of EPR (1951), Bell's theorem (1964), and Sakurai's hidden-variable toy model (here credited to the 2010 edition, but IIRC it's in the 1994 one). XOR'easter ( talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
We should add a section about steering in this article. It is a formalisation of the EPR paradox, introduced in the seminal paper of Wiseman et al. arXiv:quant-ph/0612147 (arguably also by Schrödinger back in the day), and it his how EPR is often understood nowadays. Tercer ( talk) 15:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It is rather discomforting that the theory should allow a system to be steered or piloted into one or the other type of state at the experimenter's mercy in spite of his having no access to it.) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the "History" section say that Einstein left Nazi Germany
or fled Nazi Germany
? The rationale for the former was read the sources; check what WP itself says; and don't be so dramatic - take a look at
weasel
[3]. But "flee" and "flight" are used in reliable sources (e.g.,
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]), Wikipedia is
not a reliable source for itself, and
WP:WEASEL is a warning against text that is vague or evasive, which doesn't seem to apply here.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The consequences of Bell's inequalities are presented incorrectly. Bell's inequalities require the assumption of statistical independence -- that is, the libertarian free will of the experimenter to choose the settings of the experiment. This is a fundamentally unscientific assumption (as it violates methodological naturalism, an absolute requirement of any scientific approach). Even John Bell himself in a BBC interview in 1985, pointed out that a complete and total absence of free will (by which he specifically meant libertarian free will as compatibilist models don't provide the sort of freedom needed) would allow local realism to still hold in the form of superdeterminism. Despites claims of loophole-free Bell experiments, it is literally and proofably impossible to rule out superdeterminism (and in fact, it's effectively necessary to maintain the methodological naturalism on which science depends). Lrwerewolf ( talk) 15:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the short description. It's tough to fit this one in a few words, but "leveled" is not one of them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There did not seem to be a simple description of what the EPR paper actually said, so I have added it. I used Kumar's book. Myrvin ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the style of this article to be irritating. It is chatty and unencyclopedic. There shouldn't be headings like "Here is the crux of the matter", or " Here is the paradox summed up." It reads like a kiddy's book. Also, most of it is completely uncited. Where does it all come from? It reads like an undergraduate paper by someone who hasn't quite learned how to write one. Myrvin ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Intriguingly, the whole of the article seems to appear in this book: Quantum Computers by Jon Schiller PhD. It says "This is a report of the latest research found by searching the internet." It has an ISBN, and is available on Amazon. It also says "No part of this book can be reproduced in any form." Myrvin ( talk) 10:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says:
However, it is possible to measure the exact position of particle A and the exact momentum of particle B. By calculation, therefore, with the exact position of particle A known, the exact position of particle B can be known.
That conclusion was not stated in the EPR paper. It says that by knowing something about A one can know something about B, so B must have always had this characteristic. (The characteristic was "real.") In one experiment with A one could learn, e.g., the momentum of B, so the momentum of B is real. In another experiment with A one could learn, e.g., the position of B, so the position of B is real. So both the position and the momentum of B have to be real.
Where is the evidence for the interpretation presented in the article? The footnote quotes a book. Does the book explain why the experiment it describes is different from the experiment given in the EPR paper? P0M ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following paragraph in the section with the above title must be either removed or entirely rephrased:
"The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle."
Two simple facts are being neglected here:
(1) According to standard (Copenhagen) quantum mechanics, a measurement does consist in "a physical disturbance inflicted upon the measured system"; it's always the result of an interaction between system and apparatus, as Bohr himself stated uncountable times, and continued to do so until the end of his life.
(2) Even if by measuring the first particle's momentum we can indirectly ascertain the momentum of the second particle, this information is completely destroyed as soon as we perform a position measurement on the second particle - precisely because it is an uncontrolable "physical disturbance inflicted upon the measured system". In no way can the subsequent trajectory of the second particle (or the first, for that matter) be predicted. Old Palimpsest ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking back at the lead paragraphs, I think that it is wrong and probably the article got off on the wrong foot from there.
Then the position or momentum of one of the systems is measured, and due to the known relationship between the (measured) value of the first particle and the value of the second particle, the observer is aware of that value in the second particle. A measurement of the other value is then made on the second particle, and, once again, due to the relationship between the two particles, that value is then known in the first particle.
If my memory serves me well, that argument is not present in the EPR paper itself. P0M ( talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on PhysRev.47.777.pdf
MAY 15, 1935 PHYSICAL REVIEW VOLUME 47 Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete'Â ? A. EINSTEIN, B. PODOLSKY AND N. ROSEN, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey (Received March 25, 1935)
Here is my summary:
Experimenters start with two systems whose states they know, bring them together, and at that point what used to be two systems becomes one system and it has a single state. Experimenters then separate the two systems. However, at that point the two systems share the original single state. To determine anything that is specific to one or the other of the now physically isolated systems, new measurements must be made. The question EPR pose is whether the experimenters can do experiments that will not lead to indeterminate or probabilistic values for at least one of the two systems. If they can do so, then there will exist a situation in which one system has, e.g., both a determinate position and also a determinate momentum. Since quantum mechanics cannot predict the values of both pairs such as P and Q, quantum mechanics cannot account for a system that has both a determinate momentum and also a determinate position. EPR maintain that since this determinately known pair of values actually must exist, then quantum mechanics must be incomplete. There must be something else left to be learned that would tell experimenters ahead of time what the determinate position and determinate momentum would be found by experiment to be.
When, after the pairing is broken up, experimenters measure the position of the first system they will disturb its momentum. However, they will by that operation be able to calculate the position of the second system, and a mere calculation will not disturb the momentum of the second system.* It will then be clear that the position of the second system is a feature of reality, and therefore something that ought to be subject to calculation by a complete theory. If, however, the experimenters measure the momentum of the first system and disturb its position, they will by that operation be able to calculate the momentum of the second system, and nothing they have done will exert any force on the second system.* It will then be clear that the momentum of the second system must also be a feature of reality, and therefore it ought to be possible to predict it using a complete theory.
Thus, by measuring either A or B we are in a position to predict with certainty, and without in any way disturbing the second system, either the value of the quantity P (that is pk) or the value of the quantity Q (that is qr. In accordance with our criterion of reality, in the first case we must consider the quantity P as being an element of reality, in the second case the quantity Q is an element of reality. But, as we have seen, both wave functions Κk and Ïr belong to the same reality.
-- from the EPR paper
*These two places are where EPR make assumptions about what reality must be like. Quantum theoreticians would argue that despite their not being local to each other, measurement of the position of one system will affect the momentums of both systems, and measuring the momentum of one system will affect the positions of both systems. Bell discovered a way of experimentally determining which opinion on the matter is correct.
I think that what it boils down to is the conviction on the part of EPR that a real thing cannot fail to have a real position or fail to have a real momentum. P0M ( talk) 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I started reading the discussion prior to the questions raised by Myrven above, and discovered that some time ago another editor also outlined the content and conclusions of the EPR paper. Search for "Preface to thought experiment" above. I think that we have said essentially the same thing.
I think that an article on the EPR paper should explain what it actually said, and go beyond that only to describe challenges to it, the Bell results being included in that. (A link should be sufficient.) The idea that one measures system I to learn the momentum of system II, and measures system II to learn the position of system I, and therefor escapes the indeterminacy that would result in measuring both position and momentum on the same system, is something that goes beyond EPR. Why would we need to include it? If we need to do it, it has to be separated from what EPR said because, at least as I see it (see above), it makes the logical flaw of using one's desired conclusion to prove one's case. P0M ( talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't started to plan changes to the article, but there seem to me to be clear indications that it is misleading in some respects. If there are no corrections needed for what I have said above (and as long as I stick to what EPR said and leave any of my side thoughts out), will it not be o.k. to fix the things recently pointed out as wrong? If I don't see any objections I will start changing things. P0M ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have just written the following from memory. I think it is too long for a lead. I want to look at it as an indication of what, in general, the article needs to say. (Details can follow.) I present it here in draft form. Please indicate any inaccuracies or places that are likely to mislead the general reader:
The EPR paradox was the answer of Albert Einstein and his associates Podolsky and Rosen to the probabilistic equations developed in quantum mechanics. To expose what they thought were fundamental shortcomings in quantum mechanics, they examined the logical consequences of a situation in which two particles are coupled together to form a single system, and then are physically decoupled. Imagine two atom-sized railway cars coasting together, linking, rolling together for some time, and then being unhooked and pushed apart by some force exerted between them. On this quantum mechanical scale of things, the consequences of the separation for the characteristics of the newly individuated particles are not what one would experience from everyday experience.
According to the equations of quantum mechanics, if two systems (the "railroad cars") each have a known description and the systems become united, then the new single system has a quantum theoretical description that can be calculated from the values of the original components. Since classical physics describes things like the addition of momenta in the case of life size railway cars, the analogous feature of quantum mechanics is not unexpected. However, according to quantum mechanics, when the atomic scale system described above is decoupled, the two resulting parts do not have individual quantum theoretical descriptions. They do not have separate states. Instead, they share a single state. At that point, to discover anything about their individual characteristics (e.g., position, momentum, etc.) it is necessary to perform new measurements.
When the position of one particle, EPR called it "System I," is measured, it becomes impossible to make a deterministic prediction of its momentum, and experimenters get only a range of probable momenta. However, since each particle shared the same wave function, once the position of one particle has been measured the position of the other particle is also known. EPR argued that if the second particle indeed had that position but not at the cost of making a physical intervention with it, a measurement, then the momentum of the second particle would not be changed. Furthermore, if the second particle did indeed have a position, then its momentum would not have been influenced by the determination of that position. On the other hand, if the momentum of the first particle had been measured instead, then the position of the second would be known without its momentum having been influenced by the act of measurement.
EPR went on to argue that since the arguments they had taken from quantum mechanics showed that the second particle had a real position, and because it showed that the second particle had a real momentum, there were two features of reality to be accounted for, and yet quantum mechanics provided one of them but not the other. If quantum mechanics, working from the single wave function of the combined unit and later shared by the two newly detached particles, could provide, after a measurement, only the position and a range of probabilities for the momentum, or else only the momentum and a range of probabilities for the position, and yet there had to be real values for both of them, then quantum mechanics was incomplete.
The key difference between EPR and those in the school of Niels Bohr was that Einstein and his colleagues argued that since the second particle was physically remote from the particle upon which measurements were performed, any measurement that was performed on the first particle and that would make indeterminate the measurement that could be expected of a second characteristic of the first particle would not influence the second particle. The Copenhagen group eventually held that when the first particle was measured and its wave function collapsed, when position became determinate and momentum became indeterminate, the same things could be said of the second particle, i.e., that not only did its position become determinate but its momentum simultaneously became indeterminate.
Any comments? This way is quite distinct from the present text in terms of real content. P0M ( talk) 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Draft new lead:
The EPR paradox is an early and influential critique leveled against quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (known collectively as EPR) designed a thought experiment intended to reveal what they believed to be inadequacies of quantum mechanics. To that end they pointed to a consequence of quantum mechanics that its supporters had not noticed. According to quantum mechanics, a single system has its own wave function, its own unitary quantum-theoretical description. If such a single system can be transformed into two individual systems, doing so does not create two wave functions. Instead, theory indicates that each system shares the single wave function. The question then becomes, "What happens to this wave function when one and/or the other of the pair of individual systems is measured?" Working through the equations, the EPR paper shows that measuring one feature of a system, e.g., the momentum of one of the pair of particles, will reveal the same feature of the other particle. Measuring one characteristic of the first system will, according to quantum mechanics, make any related characteristic, in this case position, indeterminate. The EPR experiment suggested the possibility that not only would the momentum of the second be made known without the need of further experimental measurement, but also that the position of the second particle would be predicted in an indeterminate form according to the rules of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. EPR insisted, however, that since the two systems were physically separated action on one particle could not affect the other particle, and it was therefore impossible that any indeterminacy could be induced in the system that was not directly measured. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since it depicted a pair of systems with one determinate characteristic and one indeterminate characteristic. In reality, they concluded, one could measure the first system to get a real value for position of the second, and one could also have measured the first system to get a real value for the momentum of the second, so the second system must have both a real position and a real momentum. They would both be determinate values, not just one of them as indicated by quantum mechanics.
If quantum mechanics is not incomplete, if quantum mechanics gives all of the information that is really available in nature, then, researchers conclude, changing some characteristic of one member of such a pair (now usually called an entangled pair) will not only make determinate the same characteristic of the other member of the pair, but it will also make indeterminate the second characteristic of the other member of the pair. The switch from a condition wherein both particles share the same wave function to a condition wherein one feature of one particle is made specific and its complex conjugate is made quantum mechanically indeterminate, and the same feature of the other particle is made correspondingly determinate while its complex conjugate is made quantum mechanically indeterminate, is something that occurs as the result of measuring the first feature in one of the paired particles, and that is reflected instantaneously in the other member of the pair.
<<The next part should probably be below the lead, a section on the history of the EPR paper and its consequences>>
The article that first brought forth these matters, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" was published in 1935. [1] 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 [2] at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism theory is false. [3]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This is my draft lead. If this lead is accepted it will probably push some changes in the rest of the text of the article. P0M ( talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is lack of comment an indication of general agreement? It would be less disruptive to the article to fix any problems beforehand rather than after the old lead has been taken down. P0M ( talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The text currently says:
In 1948 Einstein presented a less formal account of his local realist ideas.
It has a footnote, but it is only a wikilink to "local realism," and does not identify the 1948 paper. Does anyone know which paper is involved? I'm working my way through the body of the paper to try to clear up any inconsistencies with the new lead. Thanks. P0M ( talk) 19:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If everything looks o.k. so far, I will rewrite the short section on the "EPR paper." See the notes on what is actually in the paper above. P0M ( talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that attempts to "explain" EPR (e.g. the Alice & Bob story) have always been inferior to what the paper itself said, and are often not equivalent to the argument in the paper. Looking at it from a different perspective, evidently the core issue (indeed the core puzzle about quantum theory) lies in there supposedly being a qualitative difference in behavior between so-called "pure" and "mixed" states (identified back in Bohr's time as "collapse of the wavefunction"). The modern quantum theory of measurement is advertised as solving this problem, i.e. it shows how processes of observation are subject to the same quantum laws as the systems being observed; in particular the information state of an observer becomes "entangled" with the state of the thing that has been observed, and EPR really ought to be recast in those terms. Unfortunately I don't have specific wording for such an edit. Meanwhile, the attempts to paraphrase the argument should be replaced by quotations from the paper itself. â DAGwyn ( talk) 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Material in "Greene version" is unsourced. I have checked through The Fabric of the Cosmos and Elegant Universe and have failed to find the experiment described. This section should be removed or replaced with something that can be traced down. P0M ( talk) 05:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
See The Fabric of the Cosmos, p. 113, for what Greene actually says about Aspect's experiment. P0M ( talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking back over the history, it is clear that there was never a clear statement that Greene said anything about pion decay. On top of that, the "Greene version" does not report what Greene says. I think that the experimental challenge to EPR needs to be covered. I'm looking at The Quantum Chanllenge by Greenstein and Zajonc, which seems clearer than Greene's work. Greene appears to have oversimplified things and came out with some math that doesn't match what others use. I think it may look at a simplified situation and makes numerical conclusions based only on that scheme. P0M ( talk) 07:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I just got reminded that the "EPR paper" section still contains misinformation. The idea that you could learn about A by looking at B, and then turn around and learn about B by measuring A is not in the EPR paper. P0M ( talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten the section that incorporates the speculation reported by Kumar. If his source could be tracked down it would be better to rewrite the section to explain how the ideas of EPR, which did not have the bi-directional measurements being made, were later expanded by someone else.
I have deleted the section on Greene. Greene's discussion does not involve pion decay, but instead is based on experiments using elemental calcium excited by laser radiation, and the sequential emission of two entangled photons as an electron falls to its equilibrium state by way of a stop at an orbital in the middle. Study of the history of this article shows how the pion idea was probably written down first, then studies of this general type were attributed to "Greene and others," and still later the "others" fell along the wayside. The discussion is wrong in any event. Reconstituting the Greene discussion would probably be a mistake as it appears that he created an analogy, a sort of imaginary set of physical phenomena that are simpler than what the real world is like, and as a result the numbers that he comes up with to illustrate the Bell Inequalities are very much different from those used in formal studies. It's a good method, but he takes pages to set his analogy up, and there is no way it can all be jammed into one paragraph. I need to trace through the materials in Quantum Challenge to see whether a summary can be given than goes light on all the details that were given in that book for university physics students. P0M ( talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've started to go over the lead again as Myrvin suggested.
I have deleted a comment about entanglement in lead. It's confusing enough to begin with so why bring in another mind boggling element? Entanglement was not part of the original discussion. P0M ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formulation for finding solutions to the diffusion equation like Schrodinger equation using complex exponential functions. Fourier analysis exploits the completeness and orthogonality possessed by complex exponential function sets with a single variable exponent. Because the Schrodinger equation is a linear partial differential equation distinct solutions added, superposed, are also solutions.
1 Normalization and Quantum entanglement
When interpreted as a probability, the solution squared magnitude is normalized to unity. For solutions in which the component terms are orthogonal, normalization entangles the component squared sum. A two state system with equally likely states would require the state squared magnitudes be equal when conventional event probability is used. If, however, Bayesian probability is used, the normalized sets are event outcomes when other outcomes are known. This normalization choice is a problem statement element that does not depend on state spatial separation and does not, therefore, require faster than light information transfer.
2 Wave function completion
When the exponential variable depends linearly on two independent variables, the complex exponentials no longer form a complete, orthogonal set with respect to the independent variables. To recover completeness, functions depending on a linearly independent exponent must be added. For the true wave equation these variables are Ï1=b(r+at) and Ï2=b(r-at) where âbâ and âaâ are constants. In quantum mechanics only one is employed. This makes trying to find solutions analogous to trying to fasten a shoe using only one hand with its fingers crossed: slipons and Velcro fasteners may be manageable, but buckles and laces are not.( HCPotter ( talk) 09:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
There appears to be a disagreement between this page and the Hidden variable theory page. Here, I find the statement "it turns out that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by experiment, cannot be explained by any hidden variable theory", citing Bell's Theorem. The other page states that experimental evidence "rules out local hidden variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones" and that "Assuming the validity of Bell's theorem, any classical hidden-variable theory which is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local". (And it seems to say that Bohm's theory fits that category.) Am I misinterpreting something, or is one of these pages incorrect (or misleading)? YancarloRamsey ( talk) 17:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Moreover, if the two particles have their spins measured about different axes, once the electron's spin has been measured about the x-axis (and the positron's spin about the x-axis deduced), the positron's spin about the y-axis will no longer be certain, "
This sentence refers to the "y-axis" but the "y-axis" has never been introduced. It says the spin along the "y-axis" will no longer be certain but never states at what point it was ever certain. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.103.13 ( talk) 19:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What has happened to the lead in the past couple of months? It has been increased and has gone through several edits that were often ungrammatical and confusing. It is now much too big and still confusing, ungrammatical and unencyclopedic in places. Myrvin ( talk) 07:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is shorter, but I think it is too long and repeats too much in the rest of the article. It uses words like: "According to quantum mechanics, a single system has its own wave function, its own unitary quantum-theoretical description.", "when we keep decreasing the intensity ", "Today, we call", "Even if we 'prepare' ", "Example of such a conjugate pair are ", "The EPR paper written in 1936 has shown that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, let's call them A and B, and pointed out measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance", "quantum effect we call non-locality". Maybe this has been going on longer than I thought. It is now reading like a kiddies' primer written by someone not an English speaker. There is too much use of us and we. Myrvin ( talk) 09:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
P0M ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I also find the lead to be confusing and too wordy. I wrote a possible new lead and "Description of the paradox" section, trying to be concise and clear. Here it is. You're welcome to directly correct it, revise it, or use it to edit the article (something I'll do in a month if I see no discussion here):
Yakamashi (
talk) 02:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It quotes some 'Manjit Kumar' who directly contradicts basis of quantum mechanics.
<quote>"According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it is impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of particle B exactly. However, according to Kumar, 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. Also, the exact momentum of particle A can be measured, so the exact momentum of particle B can be worked out."</quote>
It is completely outragious to insert ref of unknown author. It should be removed and whole section should be rewritten. In fact, whole article needs to be rewritten. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikshvaaku ( talk âą contribs) 15:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Manjit Kumar was inserted by User:Myrvin on 9 March 2011. As far as I understand, these Kumar's words do not add anything to the EPR paper, and probably are not intended to add, but only to popularize. Thus, on one hand, Kumar "directly contradicts basis of quantum mechanics" no less no more than EPR do; and on the other hand, there is no need to quote him in the article. For a reader that needs such a popular presentation, Kumar's book may be cited in Sect. 8.2 "Books". Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
EPR paradox. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
We now know that the speed of gravity, usually is close to the speed of light in the void (classical void) but in the real world occur disturbances because complex arrangements of matter, interlink particles in ways that cause "cohesion distortions". Gravity is not a fundamental force, the "graviton" is simply the superluminal "briefion" that connects briefly any particle, not necessarily only parts of the same compound particle. The graviton/briefion is nothing other than any virtual boson (can also be individual particle) of the other three fundamental forcesâą the gravitational field is a compound statistical mechanism of the electroweak gauge field and the strong/chromodynamic gauge field while the two interact indirectly (not as a first step of a feynogram [Feynman diagram] but as a further step, thus intermediate steps are required, and that constitutes gravity so weak, for it's only a secondary statistical effect of the interaction of the electroweak gauge field with the strong/chromodynamic gauge field inside the Higgs connection field) through the Higgs connection field. In huge accumulations of matter, statistically few entanglements occur, the actual entanglements are not enough to justify gravity, but we have to calculate the infinite virtual particles created using as a measure of time the ultimate Planck sequence. That infinity becomes renormalized due to the curvature of spacetime that doesn't allow infinite perfect alignments when relativistically observed at Planck sized microholograms (ultimate quantization of spacetime). Thus a non infinite amount of entanglements occurs. These entanglements transfer instantaneously quantum information, but the electroweak gauge field and the strong/chromodynamic gauge field continue to transfer information at luminal (thus not instantaneous) speed. All particle arrangements should constantly lose energy toward nothingness, because almost all virtual particles dissapear without being materialized (objectified). Gravity is the mechanism that maintans the overall energy (although no gravitational system is closed, and all lose energy towards the Universe; even the Universe isn't a closed system inside the Megaverse, and becomes so diffused with the passage of time so it reaches the upper limit of quantum decohesion, thus then the virtual particles are compelled to become actual [materialized/objectified] to fill the gap, this event is a Big Bang without singularity, and it occurs when entanglements are no longer possible) through the Higgs connection field, and brings matter closer to the center of gravity, in order energy is maintained.
â Preceding Steven Weinberg comment added by Steven Weinberg ( talk) 23:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The diagram of Bob and Alice shows their axes rotated by 45 degrees. The text does explain why this is necessary. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.70.12 ( talk) 08:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The section under "the crux of the matter" is wrong. By only measuring the x or z axis you cannot distinguish between a classical system with hidden variables and a quantum system. One has to measure at 45 degrees also. The diagram is right, the description is wrong. --Jules â Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.131.247 ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"You might imagine that, when Bob measures the x-spin of his positron, he would get an answer with absolute certainty, since prior to this he hasn't disturbed his particle at all. Bob's positron has a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of âxâso the outcome is not certain. Bob's positron "knows" that Alice's electron has been measured, and its z-spin detected, and hence B's z-spin has been calculated, but the x-spin of Bob's positron remains uncertain."
The claim written in that section: "The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. "
is basically nonsense as many college level texbooks still teach that and I would say that the measurement problem has not really been solved. Moreover it contraddicts Heisenberg uncertainty principle. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.199.255 ( talk) 10:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
For those with phd in theoretical physics - perhaps, for those who peruse wikipedia this is garbage, not explained at all for layperson Juror1 ( talk) 14:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Landau's contributions do matter (and are cited more than once in my articles). However, "any model whether local or non-local will obey Bell's inequality"?? Landau did not (and could not) write anything like that. Probably, the anonymous editor means Landau's Proposition 2: "In a classical theory with joint distributions |R|<=2." However, in the absence of locality the observable R is irrelevant; conditional probabilities are relevant. Moreover, Bell's work on this matter started with the observation that a nonlocal classical theory can reproduce quantum predictions; namely, the De BroglieâBohm theory does. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The information transported through scalar waves separate from the energy flows faster than light? â Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorado ( talk âą contribs) 13:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
How come there's a portrait of Einstein here, but no portrait of the other two, Podolsky and Rosen? Just asking. Vlad Patryshev ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  A colleague who may well be a better physicist than I has just reverted my extensive edit -- IIRC, some 600 new characters, beyond anything I simply replaced or reworded. What I clearly recall is that my improvement of the clarity of the scope of the first 'graph is objectionable, bcz the colleague apparently thinks the function of the lead 'graph should be to address matters that users who already have an overall grasp of the topic would rather not be slowed down by!
  (I'm constrained by a lousy interface for wiki-editing, and haven't yet seen a diff for either the net changes of my several edits over the last several hours, nor for any of my individual saves; it may be a few days before I get to where I can assess the value of my changes to various passages. --- It'd be great if the colleague would critique them in terms of individual sentences instead of claiming e.g. that my whole complex of probably a dozen or two independent minor changes can rightly be reverted without being individually addressed.)
  So for now, I'm playing my persona as wise old pre-9-11 veteran who appreciates that discussion, and lack of urgency to race twd a perfect, simple solution is what has built this edifice.
--
Jerzyâą
t 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
IP editor 129.11.174.xxx and I have some disagreement on proposed revisions to the lede which, in my opinion, do not represent an improvement. I reverted his/her revisions and have copied the disputed edits below. I don't have time now to detail my concerns, but maybe later on today, I will be able to delineate the points that I do not consider satisfactory. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 17:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Specific critiques highlighted in color:
The EinsteinâPodolskyâRosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment in Physics which yields a dichotomy that explanation of physical reality according to Quantum Mechanics is Incomplete. [7] In the article Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?, Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain a complete information about physical reality; hence the Copenhagen interpretation was deemed unsatisfactory. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum as well as classical physics, as for the latter case, one could question if it was at all possible, contrary to intuition and common sense, to have a quantum picture without having a classical one at first.
The work was done at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton University in 1934, which Einstein had joined the prior year after he had left Nazi Germany.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)
Up to now, I had given 129.11.xxx.xxx the benefit of the doubt and tried to treat him as a misguided good faith editor.
With the edit summary to his latest edit, with his intentional misspelling of Einstein's name, it is clear that we are dealing with a vandal. I had not put warnings on the talk pages of the previous versions of his IP address, because of my previous misapprehension of him as being simply misguided. What is the procedure here? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 16:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I retroactively applied vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 templates to a couple of this user's IP talk pages, with the explanation that I did not previously understand that these edits were vandalism rather than good faith, and have applied a third level warning to his current talk page. I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy pages regarding this particular situation, and am just doing the best that I can figure. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 22:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reported this IP user on WP:AIV as shown here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 03:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It was recommended that I report this user to WP:AN/I instead. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This Article is unsatisfactory from a history of science perspective.
(1) Whatever its contents, its title should not monopolize E-P-R, but should be changed to "Further Study/Discussion/Investigation of E-P-R" [or "Elaboration on E-P-R"]. A different Article should limit itself to the original E-P-R and exclude the John Bell presentation from it altogether. Otherwise this Article sounds like an Informercial for John Bell. Would you substitute the words of Aristotle in the stead of those of Plato ? When Plato quoted Socrates, he was careful to preserve the distinction between who said what and who now says what.
(2) Scientific experiment validates, but cannot sew the fabric of theory. Where distinct theories are validated by experiment, their respective "sewing patterns" can be of interest in themselves, even if they can later be shown to be equivalent to one another. Sometimes more than one are needed, such as the wave(propagation)-particle(emission-absorption) duality.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. COMMENT FOR THE EDITORS ONLY.
98.164.228.122 ( talk) 11:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The modern resolutionâthat quantum theory describes the system and not individual particlesâshould be sourced. I remember sourcing it on another article but if anyone else has a source it would be good to prevent the appearance of an "isolated study", when this description is actually widely adopted by physicists. Brightâ 10:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
From the little I have learnt about the subject I find this "modern" resolution to sound very much like Bohr's original explanation to Einstein in their letters. I also don't find it fully clear how "measurable properties have well-defined meaning only for the ensemble system" differs from "hidden local variables" of the ensemble system. I have more objections to this paragraph, but for now it is sufficient to say that I would really like to find the source of this information, so that I could verify that the editor has understood it correctly. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.232.233 ( talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"Violations of the conclusions of Bell's theorem are generally understood to have demonstrated that the hypotheses of Bell's theorem, also assumed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, do not apply in our world.[5] 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]"
utterly incomprehensible. it starts with the violations that never actually get explained. also 'hypotheses of Bells theorem' needs thorough decoding: how many of those hypotheses are there? what they are? could not they simply be referred as 'Bells theorem'??'also assumed by E,P and R': does this mean that they agreed to bells theorem?? then how comes that bells theorem is described as a statement that the EPR paradox is a mistaken idea? needs clarification. a LOT of clarification. 'do not apply in our world': is this an overcomplicated way of restating bells theorem, like quantum models do not apply to objects several times the magnitude of elementary particles? if that was not meant to say then i am the living proof that the wordig is overcomplicated and instead of explaining the subject to a relatively educated laicist just obscures the thing it was supposed to clarify. 89.134.199.32 ( talk) 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
The change made to the introduction back in December and reverted back and forth since is unclear (and ungrammatical). The current version is much more satisfactory, although it does commit the common error of presuming that "the Copenhagen interpretation" was/is a well-defined thing, rather than a label applied well after the fact to the views of physicists who differed among themselves on important points. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
they attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain complete information about physical realityâ it's just unclear what that is trying to say. The third paragraph (
The essence of the paradox...) is not very clear either. On face value, it's not even right: it sounds like the conclusion was that one can measure both the position and the momentum of both of two correlated particles more accurately than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows. At least, I think that's what it is saying. But that's not at all what EPR actually argued. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall I think I'd be happier with a paraphrase (and maybe a shorter quote than what I included, from one source or another), but for the sake of getting a section in place, I figured a briefish blockquote would be serviceable. Actually, I had typed it up with all the math tags to leave in a comment here, and then, after all that, I had the idea that it could go into the article itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of outright blanking of information sourced from peer-reviewed publications outlining the evolution of understanding from Bohr, Bohm, Bell, "CHSH", Stapp, Eberhard, Fine, Pitowsky and more recently Griffiths, Philipp, Hess, Streater. Without this info the reader is back in 1935 and is left unaware of the progress that has been made in both theory and research. But presumeably the blankers decided they don't like the findings of these not insignificant researchers. 197.234.164.85 ( talk) âPreceding undated comment added 17:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
back in 1935, since it summarizes the Bohm version of EPR (1951), Bell's theorem (1964), and Sakurai's hidden-variable toy model (here credited to the 2010 edition, but IIRC it's in the 1994 one). XOR'easter ( talk) 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
We should add a section about steering in this article. It is a formalisation of the EPR paradox, introduced in the seminal paper of Wiseman et al. arXiv:quant-ph/0612147 (arguably also by Schrödinger back in the day), and it his how EPR is often understood nowadays. Tercer ( talk) 15:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It is rather discomforting that the theory should allow a system to be steered or piloted into one or the other type of state at the experimenter's mercy in spite of his having no access to it.) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Should the "History" section say that Einstein left Nazi Germany
or fled Nazi Germany
? The rationale for the former was read the sources; check what WP itself says; and don't be so dramatic - take a look at
weasel
[3]. But "flee" and "flight" are used in reliable sources (e.g.,
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]), Wikipedia is
not a reliable source for itself, and
WP:WEASEL is a warning against text that is vague or evasive, which doesn't seem to apply here.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The consequences of Bell's inequalities are presented incorrectly. Bell's inequalities require the assumption of statistical independence -- that is, the libertarian free will of the experimenter to choose the settings of the experiment. This is a fundamentally unscientific assumption (as it violates methodological naturalism, an absolute requirement of any scientific approach). Even John Bell himself in a BBC interview in 1985, pointed out that a complete and total absence of free will (by which he specifically meant libertarian free will as compatibilist models don't provide the sort of freedom needed) would allow local realism to still hold in the form of superdeterminism. Despites claims of loophole-free Bell experiments, it is literally and proofably impossible to rule out superdeterminism (and in fact, it's effectively necessary to maintain the methodological naturalism on which science depends). Lrwerewolf ( talk) 15:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the short description. It's tough to fit this one in a few words, but "leveled" is not one of them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)