The famously controversial 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) took aim at the heart of quantum mechanics. The paper provoked responses from leading theoretical physicists of the day, and brought entanglement and nonlocality to the forefront of discussion. This book looks back at when the EPR paper was published and explores those intense. conversations in print and in private correspondence. These offer significant insight into the minds of pioneering quantum physicists, including Bohr, Schrödinger and Einstein himself. Offering the most complete collection of sources to date – many published or translated here for the first time – this text brings a rich new context to this pivotal moment in physics history.

This is a reprinting of Bohr’s response to the EPR paper, wherein Bohr relies on his principle of complementarity to demonstrate an ambiguity in the criterion of reality as described by EPR and to argue that quantum mechanics is in fact a complete description of reality given the bounds of complementarity.

This is a reprinting of Margenau’s response to EPR (and to some extent, his evaluation of previous responses to EPR by Bohr, Kemble and Ruark). Margenau’s contribution to the EPR debate is certainly one of the most original, no doubt at least in part due to the meaty correspondence he had with Einstein while producing it. Margenau’s main strategy in this paper is to argue against the standard collapse postulate of quantum mechanics, suggesting that the EPR argument only applies to quantum mechanics with this postulate added. He also argues against the statistical interpretation of the collapse postulate suggested by Kemble and others.

This chapter presents a collection of letters between the main protagonists in the EPR debate as analysed in the present volume. Among many other letters, it includes the first ever complete English translation of the correspondence Schrödinger held concerning the EPR paper with, e.g., Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Born and Teller. He kept these letters in a special folder labelled ‘The Einstein Paradox’, only a small portion of which has previously been discussed in the foundations literature. These historical documents, many of which are published here for the first time, form the basis of our analysis in the beginning chapters of this book.

This chapter introduces in more comprehensive fashion than elsewhere in the literature the interesting role of Heisenberg in the EPR debate. Although we have already published an analysis of Heisenberg’s posthumously published draft response to EPR, only now are we able to situate this excellent primary source in its fullest context, by contributing a chapter describing, for example, Heisenberg’s thinking prior to EPR about interacting systems and hidden variables, the crucial role of Grete Hermann for Heisenberg’s thinking about separability, completeness and observational context, and describing the correspondence between Heisenberg and Bohr discussing Heisenberg’s manuscript.

This is a reprinting of Bohr’s note to Nature advertising his forthcoming response to the EPR paper. It is very brief but contains in essence the argumentative tack Bohr would in fact employ in his full response to EPR.

This is a translation of the excerpts published in Naturwissenschaften of Grete Hermann’s 1935 essay on philosophy of quantum mechanics, recently translated into English. Her main thesis, in line with her natural-philosophical training and neo-Kantian commitments, is to argue that quantum mechanics does not refute the principle of causality. Quantum mechanics cannot be completed by, hidden variables, because it is already causally complete (albeit retroductively). In establishing this provocative thesis, she makes important use of Bohr’s principles of correspondence and complementarity and of Weizsäcker's version of the gamma-ray microscope, arguing that the lesson of quantum mechanics is the impossibility of an absolute description of nature independent of the context of observation.

This is a reprinting of Wolfe’s response to the EPR paper. Wolfe insists upon an epistemic reading of the wavefunction, arguing that, under such an interpretation, the EPR paradox dissolves.

This chapter details not only the prehistory of EPR but also examines the structure and logic of the EPR paper – including Einstein’s own preferred version of the argument for incompleteness. We here attempt a seamless interweaving of the excellent extant literature with additional details that have emerged from our work and the recent work of others. Some examples of new aspects in this prehistory of EPR include evidence of a ‘proto’ photon-box thought experiment Einstein had developed in connection with his ill-starred collaboration with Emil Rupp in 1926. We also describe the potential importance to this prehistory of Einstein’s paper with Tolman and Podolsky and of Einstein’s seminar and discussions with Schrödinger in Berlin in the early 1930s.

This is a translation of notes by Schrödinger wherein he draws the implications of Einstein’s photon-box thought experiment.

This is a reprinting of Furry’s response to Schrödinger’s cat paper and entanglement papers, as well as Furry’s response to other responses to the EPR paper, especially Bohr’s.

This is a transcription of a typescript Kemble had appended to a letter to Margenau in 1935. In this paragraph, Kemble admits that his initial published response to EPR missed the point of their argument.

In this chapter, we dive deeply into Bohr’s views on (in)completeness and (non)locality. Perhaps the most outspoken and famous respondent to EPR, Bohr is generally thought to be obscure in his reply. We analyse it afresh (at least to our satisfaction), in particular in regard to its argumentative structure, the role of Bohr's examples and that of his 'non-mechanical disturbance'. We also assess its limitations as a reply to Einstein's wider concerns.

The topic of this chapter is the wave function – what it is, how it is to be interpreted and how information can be extracted from it. To this end, the notion of operators in quantum physics is introduced. And the statistical interpretation called the Born interpretation is discussed. This discussion also involves terms such as expectation values and standard deviations. The first part, however, is dedicated to a brief outline of how quantum theory came about – who were the key people involved, and how the theory grew out of a need for understanding certain natural phenomena. Parallels are drawn to the historical development of our understanding of light. At a time when it was generally understood that light is to be explained in terms of travelling waves, an additional understanding of light consisting of small quanta turned out to be required. It was in this context that Louis de Broglie introduced the idea that matter, which finally was known to consist of particles – atoms – must be perceived as waves as well. Finally, formal aspects such as Dirac notation and inner products are briefly addressed. And units are introduced which allow for convenient implementations in the following chapters.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the history of the development of quantum theory, with a critical focus on the antirealist tradition inaugurated by Niels Bohr. The distinction between “principle theories” and “constructive theories” is discussed, and it is noted that quantum mechanics is a “principle theory.” It is argued that quantum theory is amenable to a fully realist interpretation provided we let go of the demand that reality be classically picturable.

This chapter covers the early years of quantum theory, a time of guesswork, inspired by problems presented by the properties of atoms and radiation and their interaction. Later, in the 1920s, this struggle led to the systematic theory known as quantum mechanics, the subject of Chapter 5. Quantum mechanics started with the problem of understanding radiation in thermal equilibrium at a non-zero temperature. It was not possible to make progress in applying quantum ideas to atoms without some understanding of what atoms are. The growth of this understanding began with the discovery of radioactivity.