Abstract

The EPR paradox has evolved a good deal during the 35 years between the original paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen and Wigner’s probabilistic version of Bell’s inequality in 1970. It began as an experimentally impossible gedankenexperiment—with such physical idealizations as monochromatic plane waves and Dirac 8-functions—in which the fundamental reality criterion was formulated. Interference was not explicitly involved. Phase relations in configuration or tensor product spaces were given a central role by Furry and Schrödinger. Bohm simplified the paradox by reformulating it in terms of dichotomic observables regarding spin-½ particles, and addressed the experimental issue with Aharonov. Then in 1965 Bell deduced his celebrated inequality from the principles of local realism, and showed that it was grossly violated by quantum mechanical interference. Stronger inequalities and experiments to test them soon followed.

Keywords

Wave Function State Vector Physical Reality Local Realism Reality Criterion 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 48, 696–702 (1936).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Schrödinger, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 31, 555–563 (1935).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev. 49, 393–399 (1936).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. H. Furry, Phys. Rev. 49, 476 (1936).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Schrödinger, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 32, 446–452 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Fortunato, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 15, 289–290 (1976).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Bohm, Quantum Theory Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1951).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070–1076 (1957).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov, Phys. Rev. 77, 136 (1950).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Kasday, in: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (B. d’Espagnat, ed.), Italian Physical Society, Course IL, Academic Press, New York (1971), pp. 195–210.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. M. Jauch, in: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (B. d’Espagnat, ed.), Italian Physical Society, Course IL, Academic Press, New York (1971), pp. 20–55.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev 176, 1715–1718 (1968).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. P. Stapr Nuovo Cim. B 29, 270–276 (1975).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. S. Bell, in: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (B. d’Espagnat, ed.), Italian Physical Society, Course IL, Academic Press, New York (1971), pp. 171–181.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195–200 (1965).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. P. Wigner, Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005–1009 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Afriat
    • 1
  • Franco Selleri
    • 2
  1. 1.London School of EconomicsLondonEngland
  2. 2.University of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations