Abstract
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (1935) is reexamined in the light of Shannon’s information theory (1984). The EPR argument did not take into account that the observer’s information was localized, like any other physical object.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. M. Greenberger, ed., “New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory,” Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 480 (1986).
J. T. Cushing E. McMullin (Eds) (1989) Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory University. of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana 13
A. Peres (1989) Found Phys. 18 57
C.A. Fuchs A. Peres (2000) Phys Today 53 IssueID3 70
A. Einstein N. Rosen (1935) Phys Rev. 48 73
A. Einstein B. Podolsky N. Rosen (1935) Phys Rev. 47 777
N. Rosen (1931) Phys Rev. 38 2099
N. Bohr (1935) Phys Rev. 48 696
J.S. Bell (1966) Rev. Mod Phys. 38 447
J.S. Bell (1964) Physics. 1 195
D Bohm (1951) Quantum Theory Prentice-Hall New York 614
C.E. Shannon (1948) Bell Syst Tech. J. 27 379–623
C.H. Bennett (1982) Int J. Theor. Phys. 21 905
R. Landauer (1991) Phys Today 44 IssueID5 23
A. Peres (2000) Phys Rev. A 61 022177
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dedicated to the memory of James T. Cushing
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peres, A. Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon. Found Phys 35, 511–514 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1986-6
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1986-6