Editing Albert Einstein (section)

=== Quantum mechanics ===
==== Einstein's objections to quantum mechanics ====
[[File:NYT May 4, 1935.jpg|thumb|upright|Newspaper headline on 4 May 1935]]
Einstein played a major role in developing quantum theory, beginning with his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. However, he became displeased with modern quantum mechanics as it had evolved after 1925, despite its acceptance by other physicists. He was skeptical that the randomness of quantum mechanics was fundamental rather than the result of determinism, stating that God "is not playing at dice".<ref name="zZ2hS"/> Until the end of his life, he continued to maintain that quantum mechanics was incomplete.<ref name="yzZtL"/>

==== Bohr versus Einstein ====
{{Main|Bohr–Einstein debates}}
[[File:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein4 by Ehrenfest cr.jpg|upright|alt=Two men sitting, looking relaxed. A dark-haired Bohr is talking while Einstein looks skeptical.|thumb|Einstein and [[Niels Bohr]], 1925]] The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Einstein and [[Niels Bohr]], who were two of its founders. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the [[philosophy of science]].<ref name="Bohr1949" /><ref>Einstein (1969).</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schlosshauer |first1=Maximilian |last2=Kofler |first2=Johannes |last3=Zeilinger |first3=Anton |date=1 August 2013 |title=A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=222–230 |arxiv=1301.1069 |bibcode=2013SHPMP..44..222S |doi=10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004 |issn=1355-2198 |s2cid=55537196}}</ref> Their debates would influence later [[interpretations of quantum mechanics]].

==== Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox ====
{{Main|EPR paradox}}
Einstein never fully accepted quantum mechanics. While he recognized that it made correct predictions, he believed a more fundamental description of nature must be possible. Over the years he presented multiple arguments to this effect, but the one he preferred most dated to a debate with Bohr in 1930. Einstein suggested a [[Einstein's thought experiments|thought experiment]] in which two objects are allowed to interact and then moved apart a great distance from each other. The quantum-mechanical description of the two objects is a mathematical entity known as a [[wavefunction]]. If the wavefunction that describes the two objects before their interaction is given, then the [[Schrödinger equation]] provides the wavefunction that describes them after their interaction. But because of what would later be called [[quantum entanglement]], measuring one object would lead to an instantaneous change of the wavefunction describing the other object, no matter how far away it is. Moreover, the choice of which measurement to perform upon the first object would affect what wavefunction could result for the second object. Einstein reasoned that no influence could propagate from the first object to the second instantaneously fast. Indeed, he argued, physics depends on being able to tell one thing apart from another, and such instantaneous influences would call that into question. Because the true "physical condition" of the second object could not be immediately altered by an action done to the first, Einstein concluded, the wavefunction could not be that true physical condition, only an incomplete description of it.{{sfnp|Howard|1990}}{{sfnp|Harrigan|Spekkens|2010}}

A more famous version of this argument came in 1935, when Einstein published a paper with [[Boris Podolsky]] and [[Nathan Rosen]] that laid out what would become known as the [[EPR paradox]].<ref>Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (1935).</ref> In this thought experiment, two particles interact in such a way that the wavefunction describing them is entangled. Then, no matter how far the two particles were separated, a precise position measurement on one particle would imply the ability to predict, perfectly, the result of measuring the position of the other particle. Likewise, a precise momentum measurement of one particle would result in an equally precise prediction for of the momentum of the other particle, without needing to disturb the other particle in any way. They argued that no action taken on the first particle could instantaneously affect the other, since this would involve information being transmitted faster than light, which is forbidden by the [[theory of relativity]]. They invoked a principle, later known as the "EPR criterion of reality", positing that: {{qi|If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with [[probability]] equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity.}} From this, they inferred that the second particle must have a definite value of both position and of momentum prior to either quantity being measured. But quantum mechanics considers these two observables [[Observable#Incompatibility of observables in quantum mechanics|incompatible]] and thus does not associate simultaneous values for both to any system. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen therefore concluded that quantum theory does not provide a complete description of reality.{{sfnp|Peres|2002}}

In 1964, [[John Stewart Bell]] carried the analysis of quantum entanglement much further. He deduced that if measurements are performed independently on the two separated particles of an entangled pair, then the assumption that the outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half implies a mathematical constraint on how the outcomes on the two measurements are correlated. This constraint would later be called a [[Bell inequality]]. Bell then showed that quantum physics predicts correlations that violate this inequality. Consequently, the only way that hidden variables could explain the predictions of quantum physics is if they are "nonlocal", which is to say that somehow the two particles are able to interact instantaneously no matter how widely they ever become separated.{{sfnp|Mermin|1993}}{{sfnp|Penrose|2007}} Bell argued that because an explanation of quantum phenomena in terms of hidden variables would require nonlocality, the EPR paradox {{qi|is resolved in the way which Einstein would have liked least}}.{{sfnp|Bell|1966}}

Despite this, and although Einstein personally found the argument in the EPR paper overly complicated,{{sfnp|Howard|1990}}{{sfnp|Harrigan|Spekkens|2010}} that paper became among the most influential papers published in ''[[Physical Review]]''. It is considered a centerpiece of the development of [[quantum information theory]].{{Sfnp|Fine|2017}}