The 1927 Einstein and 1935 E.P.R. Paradox

  • O. Costa de Beauregard
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 261)


Eberhard1 concludes a recent paper by stating that the 1927 Einstein2 and 1935 E.P.R.3 paradox, now very well substantiated experimentally, admits only four possible answers:
  1. -I.-

    Just compute, do not think, and thus avoid headaches. This is playing the ostrich, and the majority’s choice.

  2. -II.-

    It may be that quantum mechanics turns out wrong, and that the distant correlation dies out with increasing distance4 or under sophisticated conditions5.

  3. -III.-

    It may be that relativity theory is wrong in that the wave collapse is an instantaneous, non covariant process6.

  4. -IV.-

    The accepted causality concept must be replaced by a new one.



Scientific Revolution Partial Amplitude Relativistic Quantum Mechanic Causality Concept Intrinsic Symmetry 
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.
    Eberhard, P., Nuovo Cim., 46B, 392, 1978.ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Einstein, A., in Rapports du 5e Conseil Solvay, 1928, 253–256.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N., Phys. Rev., 47, 777, 1935.ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schrödinger, E., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 31, 555, 1935;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Furry, W., Phys. Rev., 49, 393, 1936.ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    Selleri, F., Found. Phys., 8, 103, 1978.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    D’Espagnat, B., Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,2nd,ed. Benjamin, New York, 1976, p.90, 238, 265 and 281.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Costa de Beauregard, O., Phys. Lett., 67A, 171, 1978;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa de Beauregard, O., Nuovo Cim. 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Freedman, S.J. and Clauser, J.F., Phys. Rev. Lett., 28, 938, 1972;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clauser, J.F., Phys. Rev. Lett., 36, 1223, 1976;ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry, E.S. and Thompson, R.C., Phys. Rev. Lett., 37, 465, 1976.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    Pflegor, R.L. and Mandel, L., Phys. Rev., 159, 1084, 1967.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pflegor, R.L. and Mandel, L., J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 58, 946, 1968.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 10.
    O.Wilson, A.R., Lowe, J. and Butt, D.K., J. Phys. G2,2613, 1976;Google Scholar
  16. D’Agostino, M. and Maroni, C., Nuovo Cim., 40B, 143, 1977.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11.
    Costa de Beauregard, O., Nuovo Cim., 42B, 41, 1977.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 12.
    Costa de Beauregard, O., Précis de mécanique quantique relativiste, Dunod, Paris, 1967.Google Scholar
  19. 13.
    Stapp, H.P.,,Nuovo Cim., 29B, 270, 1975.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidon, W.C., Nuovo Cim., 36B, 34, 1976.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    Kuhn, T.S., The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed., University Press, Chicago, 197O.Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    Paradox and Paradigm, Colodny R.G. ed., University Press, Pittsburgh, 1973.Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    Duhem, P., The aim and structure of physical theory, University Press, Princeton, 1954 Part. II, Chap. 1V and VI.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    Mehlberg, H., Physical laws and time’s arrow, in Current issues in the philosophy of science, Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., eds. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,1961.Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    Costa de Beauregard, O., Found. Phys.,6, 539, 1976;Google Scholar
  26. Costa de Beauregard, O., Synthese, 35, 129, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Costa de Beauregard
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut Henri PoincaréParis Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations