On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox
1964 · paper · Physics
Formulates mathematically the idea that quantum mechanics could be completed by hidden variables obeying locality. Shows that any such theory is incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics, and that reproducing them requires nonlocal structure.
Checked: PDF from people.disim.univaq.it, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
2 findings
Reference or label Reference 1 lists 'A. EINSTEIN, N. ROSEN and B. PODOLSKY, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)', while the title and the text say 'Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1]'.
- p. 6 Reference 1
A. EINSTEIN, N. ROSEN and B. PODOLSKY, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)
- p. 1 Introduction, first sentence
THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1]
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the 1935 Phys. Rev. 47, 777 paper's author order is Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen. On the page-6 image, reference 1 prints the order Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky. The paper's own title ('ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX') and the first sentence of the Introduction (page 1 image) both use the order Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, so the reference entry is also inconsistent with the paper itself.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Eq. (9), second line, prints 'B(a, b) = − sign b·λ' (no vector arrows on the arguments); per Eq. (1) the arguments should be (b, λ), as the right-hand side shows.
- p. 3 Eq. (9), second line
B (a, b) = - sign b · A
- p. 3 Eq. (9), second line
B (a, b) = - sign b · λ
Judge's note: The crop of page 3 shows the first line as A(a⃗, λ⃗) = sign a⃗·λ⃗ and the second as B(a, b) = − sign b⃗·λ⃗. The text on page 1 and Eq. (1) define B as determined by b and λ, i.e. B(b, λ), and the right-hand side depends only on b and λ. The argument list (a, b) is inconsistent with that. The meaning can be recovered from the right-hand side, so this is a notation misprint, not a wrong result. The second listed quote ('· λ') is missing from the text layer only because the OCR renders λ as 'A'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
4 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Typo First line of p. 198 reads "It follows that c is another unit vector"; the word 'if' is missing ('It follows that if c is another unit vector').
- p. 4 First line of p. 198
It follows that c is another unit vector
Judge's note: Crop confirms the printed wording. A word is missing, so it is cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo p. 199 prints "Then using (19) and 21)"; the opening parenthesis of (21) is missing.
- p. 5 Line before the inequality following (21)
Then using (19) and 21)
Judge's note: Crop confirms the missing parenthesis in print.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 2 prints the editor as "P. A. SCHILP" (presumably Schilpp).
- p. 6 Reference 2
(Edited by P. A. SCHILP)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the editor's surname is Schilpp. The crop confirms the 'SCHILP' spelling.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 3 prints "Mathematishe Grundlagen der Quanten-mechanik"; the German word is 'Mathematische'.
- p. 6 Reference 3
Mathematishe Grundlagen der Quanten-mechanik
Judge's note: Crop confirms 'Mathematishe', which is not a valid German spelling. The hyphen in 'Quanten-mechanik' may be a line-break or style choice, so only the misspelling is confirmed.
Second check: none (judge only)