Introduction
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox challenges quantum mechanics, aiming to reveal its limitations and advocate for a more deterministic theory. This thought experiment leads to two conflicting outcomes concerning quantum systems composed of subsystems A and B:
- Immediate Non-Local Effects: Measuring subsystem A has an instant, non-local impact on subsystem B.
- Hidden Variables: Alternatively, quantum mechanics remains incomplete, necessitating the introduction of hidden variables to describe the outcome of measuring subsystem B after A.
Understanding the EPR Paradox
The paradox stems from the assumption that a “physical” theory must be objective and local, where observable particle properties exist independently of measurements and do not influence other measurements.

Entangled States and Measurements
Consider a source emitting entangled electron pairs, one reaching Alice at point A and the other Bob at point B. Entangled states involve superpositions of different spin states, such as +z and -z for state I and II.
Quantum Superposition
Alice measures her electron’s spin projection along the z-axis, collapsing the wave function into state I (+z) or II (-z). This collapse dictates Bob’s result: if Alice gets +z, Bob will get -z, and vice versa.
Exploring Different Axes
Alice and Bob can also measure the spin projection along the x-axis, revealing states Ia (+x) and IIa (-x). The entangled state comprises superpositions of these states, leading to correlated outcomes when measured.
Incompatible Observables
Quantum mechanics imposes uncertainty between spin projections along the x and z-axes. Bob’s measurement results are probabilistic when Alice’s measurement along a different axis precedes it.
The Mystery of Quantum Communication
The question arises: How does Bob’s electron react to Alice’s choice of measurement axis and outcome (+z or -z)? This scenario challenges the concept of locality and suggests the existence of instantaneous actions or foreknowledge within the Copenhagen interpretation.
Realism and Completeness
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen emphasize two critical concepts: an element of physical reality and the completeness of a physical theory. They argue that if a physical quantity objectively exists, it corresponds to an element of physical reality, and a theory is complete if it includes all such elements. Their aim is to demonstrate that quantum mechanics falls short of being a “complete” theory by these definitions.
Alice’s choice of measurement axis determines Bob’s measurement outcome, making it an element of physical reality. If quantum mechanics were complete, both x-spin and z-spin couldn’t simultaneously be elements of physical reality.

The Challenge of Locality
Locality, derived from the Special Theory of Relativity, states that events at one location cannot instantly influence events at another. Quantum mechanics challenges this principle, as certain interpretations defy locality without violating causality.
By revising the article with shorter sentences, active voice, and clear subheadings, we’ve made the content more accessible and reader-friendly while retaining its essential concepts.