Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox.

In spite of the fact that statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) can only be tested if large amount of data is available a claim has been made that QT provides the most complete description of an individual physical system. Einstein’s opposition to this claim and the paradox he presented in the article written together with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935 inspired generations of physicists in their quest for better understanding of QT. Seventy years after EPR article it is clear that without deep understanding of the character and limitations of QT one may not hope to find a meaningful unified theory of all physical interactions, manipulate qubits or construct a quantum computer.. In this paper we present shortly the EPR paper, the discussion, which followed it and Bell inequalities (BI). To avoid various paradoxes we advocate purely statistical contextual interpretation (PSC) of QT. According to PSC a state vector is not an attribute of a single electron, photon, trapped ion or quantum dot. A value of an observable assigned to a physical system has only a meaning in a context of a particular physical experiment PSC does not provide any mental space-time picture of sub phenomena. The EPR paradox is avoided because the reduction of the state vector in the measurement process is a passage from a description of the whole ensemble of the experimental results to a particular sub-ensemble of these results. We show that the violation of BI is neither a proof of the completeness of QT nor of its non-locality. Therefore we rephrase the EPR question and ask whether QT is “predictably “complete or in other words does it provide the complete description of experimental data. To test the “predictable completeness” it is not necessary to perform additional experiments it is sufficient to analyze more in detail the existing experimental data by using various non-parametric purity tests and other specific statistical tools invented to study the fine structure the time-series. © 2006 American Institute of Physics [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]