Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A formal statement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument

  • Published:
International Journal of Theoretical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assumptions of the original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument are formally stated as axioms and nonlogical rules of inference. Then the argument is formally stated, making explicit the assumptions, logical structure, and conclusions involved. In turn several interpretative disputes are resolved. One frequent objection to the argument and a prevalent response to that objection as well are shown to be misguided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ballentine, L. E. (1970).Rev. Mod. Phys.,42, 362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. (1964).Physics,1, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1961).Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1935).Phys. Rev.,48, 696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1948).Dialectica,2, 312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bub, J. (1974).The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. (1950).Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.,46, 620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa de Beauregard, O. (1965).Dialectica,19, 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa de Beauregard, O. (1976).Found. Phys.,6, 539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, R., and Wittke, J. (1960).Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., pp. 116–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugas, R. (1936).Comptes Rendus,202, 636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935).Phys. Rev.,47, 777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, P. (1945).Am. J. Phys.,13, 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, F. (1952).Symbolic Logic, Ronald Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato, D., Garuccio, A., and Selleri, F. (1977).Int. J. Theor. Phys.,16, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, O. (1971). InQuantum Theory and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furry, W. (1936).Phys. Rev.,49, 393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M. (1972).Br. J. Philos. Sci.,23, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, C. (1970).Am. J. Phys.,38, 851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, C. (1972). InThe Pittsburgh Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M. (1966).The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 381–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M. (1974).The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley, New York, pp. 159–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauch, J. (1968).Foundations of Quantum Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., pp. 183–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellett, B. (1977).Found. Phys.,7, 735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemble, E. (1935).Phys. Rev.,47, 973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krips, H. (1969).Philos. Sci.,36, 145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandl, F. (1960).Quantum Mechanics, Butterworths, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margenau, H. (1936).Phys. Rev.,49, 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. (1977). Ph.D. Dissertation, American University.

  • Moldauer, P. (1974).Found. Phys.,4, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959).The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, pp. 442–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1967). InQuantum Theory and Reality, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1968). InProblems in the Philosophy of Science, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1961).Philos. Sci.,28, 234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisler, D. (1967). Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University.

  • Reisler, D. (1971).Am. J. Phys.,39, 821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L. (1968).Nucl. Phys.,A108, 241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruark, A. (1935).Phys. Rev.,48, 466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheibe, E. (1973).The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics, Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 173–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel, R. (1970).Am. J. Phys.,39, 458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrodinger, E. (1935).Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.,31, 555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, D. (1961).Philos. Sci.,28, 225.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B. (1974).Synthese,29, 291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, H. (1935).Phys. Rev.,48, 274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweifel, P. (1974).Int. J. Theor. Phys.,10, 67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Arts and Sciences, Indiana University, 46615, South Bend, Indiana

    James H. McGrath

Authors
  1. James H. McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGrath, J.H. A formal statement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Int J Theor Phys 17, 557–571 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00682560

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00682560

Keywords

Search

Navigation