The Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox: might nature be more imaginative than us?

  • Oreste Piccioni
  • Werner Mehlhop
  • Brian Wright
Part of the The Subnuclear Series book series (SUS, volume 25)


We present arguments against the existence of the EPR state using only elementary fundamental properties of quantum mechanics. The popular arguments in favor of the EPR, such as the example given by Einstein et al, the superposition principle, and the conservation of angular momentum are discussed and found not compelling. With particular emphasis we argue that an action at a distance which would justify the EPR must be a message violating special relativity.


Monte Carlo Wave Packet Singlet State Superposition Principle Hide Variable 
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.
    J. Clauser and A. Shimony, Rep. Progr. Phys. 41, 1881, 1978;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. F. Selleri and G. Tarozzi, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 4 (2), 1, 1981;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. F. Pipkin, Adv. in Atomic and Molec. Phys. 14, 281, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777, 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    Cited by M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics; Wiley, N.Y., 232, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    D. Bohm, Quantum Theory; Prentice Hall, N.J.,614, 1951.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Y. Ne’eman, Symp. Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt; World Scientific, Singapore, 481, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    J. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1223, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 8.
    E. Fry and R. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 465, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 9.
    J. Bell, Physics 1, 195, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    D. Bohm and Y. Aharanov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    A. Wilson, J. Lowe and D. Butt, J. Phys. G. 2, 613, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    M. Jammer, Symp. Foundations of Modern Physics, loc. cit., p. 129.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    N. Rosen, Symp. Foundations of Modern Physics, loc. cit., p. 17.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    O. Piccioni, P. Bowles, C. Enscoe, R. Garland and W. Mehlhop, Open Questions in Quantum Physics, eds. G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merve; D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht, Holland, 103, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 48, 696, 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 16.
    G. Wick, A. Wightman and E. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 88, 101, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17.
    W. Furry, Phys. Rev. 49, 393, 1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 18.
    C. Wu and I. Shaknov, Phys. Rev. 77, 136, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 19.
    A. Wheeler, Ann. New York Academy of Sciences 48, 219, 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    C. Yang, Phys. Rev 77, 242, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 21.
    L. Kasday, J. Ullman and C. Wu, Rendiconti Scuola Internazionale di Fisica. Course 49, ed. B. d’Espagnat; Academic Press, N.Y., 195, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    J. Clauser and M. Horne, Phys. Rev. D10, 526, 1974.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    T. Marshall, E. Santos and F. Selleri, Phys. Lett. 98A, 5, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    A. Wightman, Phys. Rev. 74, 1813, 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 25.
    J. Clauser, Nuovo Cimento 33B, 740, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 26.
    A. Duncan, W. Perrie, H. Beyer and H. Kleinpoppen, Second European Conference on Atomic and Molecular Phys., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985;Google Scholar
  29. H. Kleinpoppen, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Foundations of QM, eds. M. Namiki et al; The Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 59, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    W. Mehlhop and O. Piccioni, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Foundations of QM. Tokyo, loc. cit., p. 72;Google Scholar
  31. O. Piccioni and W. Mehlhop, Symp. at Joensuu. Finland, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore) 197, 1985;Google Scholar
  32. O. Piccioni and W. Mehlhop, Conference on New Techniques and Ideas in Q. Measurement Theory, Ann. N.Y. Acad. of Sciences, 480, 458. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 28.
    L. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics, 3rd edition; McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 63, 1968.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    Reference added in proofs.) A beautiful new model of EPR apparatus was built by C.O. Alley and Y. H. Shih using laser technology without atomic beams. The authors successfully demonstrated the same full EPR correlation of linear polarizations as that present in the atomic beam experiments. C.O. Alley and Y.H. Shih, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Foundations of QM, Tokyo, loc. cit., p. 36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oreste Piccioni
    • 1
  • Werner Mehlhop
    • 1
  • Brian Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations