Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

On quantum mechanics self-consistency: EPR incompleteness claims require no extraneous concepts beyond the theory's plain formalism for refutation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read EPR incompleteness refuted without leaving standard quantum mechanics

desk verdict The paper's key move—from pairwise non-commutativity on system I to denying simultaneous reality on system II—doesn't follow from QM alone; it quietly assumes the same context-independence that EPR's S5 supplies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10006 v1 pith:C4PUDTT4 submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

D. F. Orsini , L. R. N. Oliveira , M. G. E. da Luz This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords EPRargumentquantumincompletenessnon-commutingobservablesSchmidtdecompositionelementsofphysicalrealityformalismentanglement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) incompleteness argument can be overturned using only the ordinary formalism of quantum mechanics, without invoking locality, hidden variables, or a revised criterion of physical reality. The pivotal observation is that in any EPR state written in two Schmidt forms, if the two observables on one subsystem do not commute, the corresponding observables on the other subsystem also do not commute: $[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\neq0$ forces $[\hat{C},\hat{D}]\neq0$. Since the reality of $A$ (or $B$) on system II can only be established by measuring $C$ (or $D$) on system I, and $C$ and $D$ cannot both be real, the two "joint realities" $P(C)$ and $P(D)$ cannot coexist. This blocks the EPR conclusion that $A$ and $B$ have simultaneous elements of reality, and it does so whether or not the EPR locality assumption is true. The stakes are whether standard quantum mechanics is self-consistent enough to resolve its own foundational challenges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a pairwise-commutation lemma, borrowed from the authors' prior work, stating that every EPR state expressed in two Schmidt decompositions must have non-commuting observables on both subsystems whenever either pair is non-commuting. The argument then connects this algebraic constraint to the EPR condition that probing $C$ or $D$ on system I determines $A$ or $B$ on system II with certainty, so that an element of reality for one subsystem cannot arise independently of the other. The lemma transfers single-system incompatibility to the composite state and makes the two joint probability distributions $P(C)$ and $P(D)$ mutually exclusive, which invalidates the EPR inference.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the central claim is to search for a legitimate EPR state, defined by the paper's conditions, in which the system-II observables $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$ do not commute while the corresponding system-I observables $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{D}$ do commute on the subspace spanned by the Schmidt vectors. Finding such a state would break the pairwise-commutation lemma and with it the refutation; a proof that no such state exists would strengthen it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the EPR incompleteness conclusion fails inside the standard quantum formalism. For an EPR state $|\Psi\rangle = \sum_n |c_n\rangle_I |a_n\rangle_{II} = \sum_n |d_n\rangle_I |b_n\rangle_{II}$, non-commutation of the system-II observables $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$ necessarily implies non-commutation of the corresponding system-I observables $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{D}$. Because a definite value of $A$ (or $B$) on system II is obtained only through a measurement of $C$ (or $D$) on system I, the paired realities $P(C)$ and $P(D)$ are mutually exclusive. The paper therefore concludes that EPR's step S6, assigning two different wave functions to the same reality, is impossible, and that the incompleteness conclusion dissolves without recourse to the locality assumption S5.

Load-bearing premise

The whole refutation rests on the lemma, cited from the authors' earlier paper and not proved in this text, that every EPR state with non-commuting observables on one subsystem must have non-commuting corresponding observables on the other subsystem; if that lemma fails in any legitimate EPR scenario, the argument collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the EPR incompleteness conclusion is blocked without deciding whether the locality assumption S5 is true; the assumed absence of interaction becomes irrelevant to the contradiction.
  • The refutation applies uniformly across the traditional EPR examples, position-momentum, photon polarization, and spin-1/2, because it rests on an algebraic property of every EPR state rather than on a particular measurement apparatus.
  • The paper's closing perspective is that the real conceptual question shifts from resolving EPR (for example, by rejecting locality) to explaining why quantum mechanics treats single and composite systems on the same footing with respect to non-commuting observables.
  • If the argument stands, the standard quantum formalism alone would be self-consistent in this paradigmatic instance, answering a long-standing completeness challenge without adding an extra reality criterion or a collapse postulate beyond the common core.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the argument's scope is limited by the lemma's proof: the paper cites the pairwise-commutation result from its own earlier work without deriving it, so a rigorous check of that lemma under degenerate Schmidt spectra would settle how general the refutation really is.
  • We infer that the same pairwise-incompatibility move could be pressed further: EPR-type scenarios with more than two alternative observables per subsystem will likely require a full set of commutation relations among all partners, and proving or disproving that would extend the method.
  • We infer that because the refutation avoids locality, it cannot be directly tested by Bell-type experiments; the decisive check is algebraic, namely finding or ruling out EPR states whose partner observables commute on the relevant subspace.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to refute the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) incompleteness argument using only the standard quantum-mechanical formalism, without invoking extraneous assumptions such as locality or the EPR reality criterion. It argues that any EPR state necessarily correlates non-commuting observables on both subsystems: if [A,B]≠0 for system II, then [C,D]≠0 for system I. Since C and D cannot be simultaneous elements of reality, the associated joint realities P(C) and P(D) cannot coexist, and therefore A and B cannot have simultaneous elements of reality. The paper concludes that EPR's inference of incompleteness fails from the bare formalism alone.

Significance. If the argument were valid, it would be a notable contribution: a formal, assumption-light dissolution of the EPR incompleteness claim, with a clean Schmidt-decomposition argument and explicit labeling of EPR's premises. The paper is clearly written and usefully emphasizes the pairwise non-commutativity of observables in both Schmidt representations. However, the central inference is not justified by the formalism, and the key lemma is imported from the authors' own prior work without proof. As it stands, the paper does not deliver the advertised result; the main value is the technical observation about pairwise incompatibility, which is interesting but insufficient for the stated conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (2) and following paragraph] The inference from [C,D]≠0 to the impossibility of simultaneous reality for A and B is not licensed by the stated quantum-mechanical rules. From S2 and S3 alone, [C,D]≠0 implies only that no single preparation of system I is an eigenstate of both C and D. The assignments of A-reality (in the C-measurement context) and B-reality (in the D-measurement context) are defined relative to mutually exclusive measurements on I. To conclude that A and B cannot both be elements of reality for system II, one must assume that these context-dependent assignments are constrained by a single context-independent reality of II, which is exactly the content of EPR's S5. The sentence "irrespective of S5's validity" therefore does not follow; without S5 or a surrogate, the two joint realities P(C) and P(D) are merely different measurement contexts, and the formalism alone does not declare them contradictory.
  2. [Section II and Ref. [42]] The lemma that [A,B]≠0 implies [C,D]≠0 for EPR states is load-bearing, yet it is neither proved nor reproduced in this manuscript; it is cited to the authors' own previous work (Ref. [42]). As stated, the lemma is also not qualified by nondegeneracy conditions on C and D. If C is degenerate on the support of |Ψ⟩, it can commute with D even when A and B do not commute; condition (c) may implicitly exclude such cases, but that exclusion is not stated. The paper should state the precise hypotheses and provide a proof or a verifiable derivation, since the entire refutation collapses if this lemma fails or is not established.
  3. [Section V, first paragraph; Abstract] The claim that the refutation uses no extraneous concepts is undercut by the explicit retention of S2, the EPR reality criterion. The text says "we retain the concept (along with S2)" and treats it as a label, but S2 is not part of the statistical formalism of quantum mechanics. A refutation that grants S2 for the sake of argument is a legitimate internal critique of EPR, but it is not a refutation "from the plain formalism alone" as advertised. The argument also relies on "combined elements of physical reality" (condition (e)), which is not a notion defined by the formalism.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: "normalizatoin" (Section II), "analys" (Introduction), "[ˆA, ˆB⌉ ≠ 0" (Section VI), "Naturel" (Ref. [46]), "Cambrdige" (Ref. [60]), and "has not being addressed" (Section V).
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption refers to |Φcol⟩ and |Φ′col⟩, but these collapsed states are not defined in the text; please define them or use the notation of Eq. (1).
  3. [Section V, Eq. (2)] The objects P(C) and P(D) are introduced as joint probability distributions but are then described as "joint realities"; please clarify their logical status, since the argument's key step depends on treating them as more than probabilities.
  4. [Section II, condition (c)] Condition (c) is central but is stated only informally; please specify whether C and D are required to be nondegenerate on the support of |Ψ⟩ so that outcomes c_n and d_n are in one-to-one correspondence with the Schmidt labels.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed formalism-only refutation of EPR reduces to a context-bound definition of 'elements of reality' plus a same-author lemma; the conclusion is built into the premise rather than derived from QM.

  1. self definitional [Section V, paragraph following Eq. (2)]
    "QM dictates that A and C (B and D) form combined elements of physical reality, represented by Eq. (2). This is explicitly admitted in [25] (p. 3, third and fourth paragraphs), forming what we designate as EPR condition (e). Since C and D cannot be simultaneous elements of physical reality, this incompatibility extends to their corresponding joint realities P (C) and P (D), and consequently to the associated observables A and B, thereby invalidating the main EPR assertion directly from standard quantum formalism."

    The decisive inference — that incompatibility of C and D 'consequently' rules out simultaneous reality of A and B — has no derivation from the QM rules stated in the paper. It works only if the reality of A is defined as the joint/paired reality P(C) with C on I, and the reality of B as P(D) with D on I, i.e., if elements of reality are context-bound to the measurement chosen on I. That context-independence is exactly what EPR's S5 asserts and what the paper claims to avoid needing. By labeling the coupling 'EPR condition (e)' and then reading the impossibility of P(C)&P(D) as impossibility of A&B, the conclusion is built into the definition of what counts as A's reality.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section II, paragraph on pairwise incompatibility; concluding remarks]
    "any expansion in the form of Eq. (1) with [ ˆA, ˆB] ⁄= 0 for system II strictly requires the corresponding observables of system I to be non-commuting as well, mandating that [ ˆC, ˆD] ⁄= 0 without exception. Curiously, while such a property was implicitly present in specific contexts, as Bohr’s historic reply [40] to EPR and Bohm’s spin-1/2 model [41], this essential and general necessity was pinpointed and rigorously demonstrated in full only recently [42]."

    This lemma is the load-bearing premise of Section V: it supplies the [C,D]≠0 from which the paper rules out simultaneous C,D reality and then, via the context-bound step above, A,B reality. The present text does not prove the lemma; the only support offered is a citation to the authors' own prior publication [42] (Orsini, Oliveira, da Luz, Entropy 26, 476 (2024)). No independent proof, formal verification, or reproduction is included in this preprint. Thus the advertised 'purely from QM formalism' refutation rests, at its mathematical core, on a same-author citation chain; if the cited theorem were wrong or inapplicable (for instance, in degenerate cases), the entire incompleteness refutation would collapse.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that EPR incompleteness is overturned directly from standard quantum mechanics — is not self-contained. The mathematical core is the lemma [C,D]≠0, which is imported by self-citation from the authors' earlier work [42] and not derived here. More importantly, the inference that this non-commutativity 'consequently' forbids simultaneous reality of A and B on system II is not a consequence of the quantum formalism; it is valid only if an element of reality for A is identified with the joint reality P(C) involving a measurement context on I, and similarly for B with P(D). That identification is the very context-dependence whose negation is EPR's S5, and the paper claims to be independent of S5. The conclusion is therefore achieved by a definitional stipulation about how 'elements of reality' attach to observables, not by the plain formalism. Together, the load-bearing same-author lemma and the definitional extension make the refutation effectively forced: once one accepts the context-bound definition, the result follows by construction; without it, the argument does not go through. The score reflects that the central derivation reduces to its own input (context-dependent reality) and to a same-author citation chain, rather than to independently established QM rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The central technical assumption is the pairwise incompatibility lemma [C,D]≠0, cited from the authors' own Ref. [42]. The remaining axioms are standard QM structure plus EPR's reality criterion, which the paper grants for the sake of argument. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption For any EPR state |Ψ⟩ = Σ_n |c_n⟩_I ⊗ |a_n⟩_II = Σ_n |d_n⟩_I ⊗ |b_n⟩_II, if [A,B]≠0 then [C,D]≠0.
    The paper relies on this universal necessity proven in the authors' previous work (Ref. [42]); it is not re-derived here and is load-bearing for the refutation.
  • ad hoc to paper S2 reality criterion (granted for the argument): if a quantity can be predicted with certainty without disturbing the system, it corresponds to an element of physical reality.
    The paper retains EPR's criterion as a 'label' (Sec. V) to show that even granting it, EPR's incompleteness conclusion fails.
  • domain assumption The existence of elements of reality for systems I and II are strictly correlated, so that A on II is real only through C on I (and B through D).
    This is the joint-reality structure P(C),P(D) defined in Sec. V, Eq. (2), based on the Schmidt decomposition of the EPR state.
  • domain assumption S3 complementarity applies to system I as well: non-commuting C,D cannot both have simultaneous elements of reality.
    The paper extends the standard single-system non-commutativity constraint to the C,D pair on system I (Sec. V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On quantum mechanics self-consistency: EPR incompleteness claims require no extraneous concepts beyond the theory's plain formalism for refutation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4PUDTT4

@misc{pith2026260810006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On quantum mechanics self-consistency: EPR incompleteness claims require no extraneous concepts beyond the theory's plain formalism for refutation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4PUDTT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10006}
}
read the original abstract

From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. For an EPR state, a measurement of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cav- alcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    Tisza, Phys

    L. Tisza, Phys. Rev. A 40, 6781 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [2]

    is universally accepted as a constraint on simulta- neous knowledge, extending it to spatially separated systems has historically sparked debates over locality and counterfactual definiteness. However, regardless of how entanglement is generated [14, 60], bipartite states structured as EPR states must always be expressed in bases with pairwise incompatible...

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Ferrero, J

    M. Ferrero, J. L. Sanchez-Gomez, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128:65 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2013- 13065-5

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/i2013- 2013

  5. [4]

    Benioff, Phys

    P. Benioff, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4223 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [5]

    R. E. Collins, Phys. Rev. D 1, 379 (1970)

    work page 1970

  7. [6]

    Horodecki, J

    R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, P. Hordecki, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032122 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Branford, O

    D. Branford, O. C. O. Dahlsten, A. J. P. Garner, Found. Phys. 48, 982 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Deutsch, Int

    D. Deutsch, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 1 (1985)

    1985

  2. [9]

    Colbeck, R

    R. Colbeck, R. Renner, Nat. Commun. 2, 411 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Fine, Synthese 29, 257 (1974)

    A. Fine, Synthese 29, 257 (1974)

    1974

  4. [11]

    Harper, R

    R. Harper, R. J. Chapman, C. Ferrie, C. Granade, R. Kueng, D. Naoumenko, S. T. Flammia, A. Peruzzo, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042120 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    J.-M. A. Allen, J. Barrett, D. C. Horsman, C. M. Lee, R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031021 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    A. J. Leggett, Found. Phys. 33, 1469 (2003)

    2003

  7. [14]

    Jia, Phys

    D. Jia, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032112 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Popescu, Nat

    S. Popescu, Nat. Phys. 10, 264 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    T. S. Cubitt, D. P.-Garcia, M. M. Wolf, Nature 528, 207 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Frauchiger, R

    D. Frauchiger, R. Renner, Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Pusey, J

    M. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, Nat. Phys. 8, 475 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Harrigan, R

    N. Harrigan, R. W. Spekkens, Found. Phys. 40, 125 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    W. C. Myrvold, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052109 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Mansfield, Phys

    S. Mansfield, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042124 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory

    W. Myrvold, “Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy (Fall 2018 Edition) E. N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/qt- issues/

    2018

  17. [24]

    N. D. Mermin, Physics Today 43 (6), 9 (1990)

    1990

  18. [25]

    Einstein, B

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

    1935

  19. [26]

    d’Espagnat, Sci

    B. d’Espagnat, Sci. Amer. 241, 158 (1979)

    1979

  20. [27]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  21. [28]

    element of physical reality

    and references therein) — these refutations often transcend operational QM, entering an interpretative de- bate [29]. Even the assumptions used to derive Bell’s in- equalities and demonstrate their violation by QM [30, 31] are based on conceptions foreign to the bare quantum f...

    1935

  22. [29]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982)

    1982

  23. [30]

    The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory

    A. Fine, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition) Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/qt- epr/

    2017

  24. [31]

    H. M. Wiseman, Contemp. Phys. 47, 79 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  26. [33]

    J. S. Bell, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 480, 263 (1986)

    1986

  27. [34]

    Blaylock, Am

    G. Blaylock, Am. J. Phys. 78, 111 (2010)

    2010

  28. [35]

    Von Neumann, Math

    J. Von Neumann, Math. Ann. 102, 49 (1929)

    1929

  29. [36]

    Von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quan- tenmechanik (Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932) [in German]; J

    J. Von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quan- tenmechanik (Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932) [in German]; J. Von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics , (Princeton University Press, Princeton,

    1932

  30. [37]

    The general idea of entanglement was introduced by Schr¨ odinger shortly after the publication of [25]: E

    The concept of entangled systems is not mentioned in EPR. The general idea of entanglement was introduced by Schr¨ odinger shortly after the publication of [25]: E. Schr¨ odinger, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555 (1935)

    1935

  31. [38]

    Jordan, E

    P. Jordan, E. Wigner, J. Von Neumann, Ann. Math. 35, 29 (1934)

    1934

  32. [39]

    von Neumann, Matem

    J. von Neumann, Matem. Sbor. 1, 415 (1936)

    1936

  33. [40]

    Bohr, Phys

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

    1935

  34. [41]

    Arens, V

    R. Arens, V. S. Varadarajan, J. Math. Phys. 41, 638 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    M. G. Alford, Am. J. Phys. 84, 448 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Bohm Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs-NJ, 1951)

    D. Bohm Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs-NJ, 1951)

    1951

  37. [45]

    D. F. Orsini, L. R. N. Oliveira, and M. G. E. da Luz, Entropy 26, 476 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Plotnitsky, Epistemology and Probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schr¨ odinger, and the Naturel of Quantum- Theoretical Thinking (Springer, New York-NY, 2009)

    A. Plotnitsky, Epistemology and Probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schr¨ odinger, and the Naturel of Quantum- Theoretical Thinking (Springer, New York-NY, 2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Brassard, A

    G. Brassard, A. A. M´ ethot, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 4, 45 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Brassard, A

    G. Brassard, A. A. M´ ethot, Found. Phys.40, 463 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Rosenfeld, D

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Fine, Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philos

    A. Fine, Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philos. Quart. 56, 31; www.jstor.org/stable/23354464

  43. [51]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, R. Hanson, Nature 526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Laudisa, Erkenntnis 84, 1103 (2019)

    F. Laudisa, Erkenntnis 84, 1103 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Halvorson, R

    H. Halvorson, R. Clifton, Reconsidering Bohr’s Reply to EPR, in Non-locality and Modality T. Placek, J. But- terfield (eds.) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002). 7

    2002

  46. [54]

    Bacciagaluppi, Did Bohr understand EPR? in One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom F

    G. Bacciagaluppi, Did Bohr understand EPR? in One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom F. Aaserud, K. Kragh (eds.) (Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, 2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    A. L. Bilobran, R. M. Angelo, EPL 112, 40005 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Zeilinger, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Uni- verse, M. Kafatos (ed.) (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989), p. 69

    1989

  49. [57]

    Paterek, R

    Gr¨ oblacher S., T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, 871 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Aspect, Nature 446, 866 (2007)

    A. Aspect, Nature 446, 866 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    V. S. Gomes, R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Me- chanics (Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    1987

  53. [61]

    G.-Smith, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Univ

    P. G.-Smith, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Lectures on General Quantum Correlations and their Ap- plications, F. F. Fanchini, D. O. S. Pinto, G. Adesso (eds.) (Springer, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Bengtsson, K

    I. Bengtsson, K. Zyczkowski. Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, 2006)

    2006

  56. [1955]

    [English translation by R. T. Beyer]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.