7
votes
What was the fallacy in EPRs chain of arguments?
As @TobiasFunke and @WillO already said above, they made an unwarranted assumption. I will show you the exact wording of that assumption. First, they seemingly successfully demonstrated that the ...
- 461
4
votes
What was the fallacy in EPRs chain of arguments?
One invents a mathematical model of physical systems, and then tests them against experiment. This is the long history of physics.
In the EPR case, they made 2 assumptions in their analysis:
Physics ...
- 1,585
4
votes
Accepted
Why is Quantum entanglement spooky? And is it really exclusive to quantum physics?
As far as I understand, you are assuming that the values $A=X$ and $B=Y$ are already fixed before you check them. This idea is called "realism": the measurements simply record outcomes ...
- 70k
2
votes
Accepted
Preserving the entanglement of a 2 qubit bellstate when including a third qubit: a general case?
A maximally entangled state between AB and BC is impossible to start with. This is due to monogamy of entanglement. The more entanglement B has with A, the less it can have with C.
See https://www....
- 461
2
votes
What was the fallacy in EPRs chain of arguments?
You write, “Today we know, that EPR were wrong”, but this statement is certainly not correct. There is no conceivable way to prove that the mathematical quantum wavefunction is a complete description ...
- 1,400
2
votes
What was the fallacy in EPRs chain of arguments?
The mistake is to assume there is a classical joint probability distribution for the outcomes of the various possible measurements.
- 14.8k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible