Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 511–514 | Cite as

Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon

  • A. PeresEmail author


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.


Information Theory Rosen Physical Object Rosen Paradox 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. M. Greenberger, ed., “New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory,” Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 480 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cushing, J. T.McMullin, E. eds. 1989Philosophical Consequences of Quantum TheoryUniversity. of Notre Dame PressNotre Dame, Indiana13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peres, A. 1989Found Phys.1857Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuchs, C.A., Peres, A. 2000Phys Today5370Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Einstein, A., Rosen, N. 1935Phys Rev.4873Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N. 1935Phys Rev.47777Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosen, N. 1931Phys Rev.382099Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohr, N. 1935Phys Rev.48696Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell, J.S. 1966Rev. Mod Phys.38447Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bell, J.S. 1964Physics.1195Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohm, D 1951Quantum TheoryPrentice-HallNew York614Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shannon, C.E. 1948Bell Syst Tech. J.27379623Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bennett, C.H. 1982Int J. Theor. Phys.21905Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landauer, R. 1991Phys Today4423Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peres, A. 2000Phys Rev. A61022177Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations