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This is a reprinting from Jammer (1974) of Podolsky’s unpublished response to Kemble’s criticisms of the EPR paper. Podolsky rightly criticises Kemble for missing the point of EPR’s argument and adds a few comments agreeing with Kemble that a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is best – yet Podolsky maintains such an interpretation is incomplete.

This chapter provides a complete list and brief analyses of published and unpublished responses to EPR in 1935 (virtually all of which are reprinted as later chapters in this book). We invite a renewed consideration of certain contributors not much discussed elsewhere in the literature. These include going beyond Kemble’s short criticism of EPR to his ensuing disagreement with Margenau about the viability of an ensemble interpretation of the wavefunction, and also a response to Kemble’s note on EPR by Podolsky himself. We also examine the correspondence between Margenau and Einstein in the wake of EPR, discussing the role of the collapse postulate, and finally we discuss two papers by Furry, which although not entirely satisfactory qua a response to EPR’s arguments, are nevertheless of great potential interest for the foundations literature more generally.

This is a reprinting of Edwin Kemble’s 1935 reply to the EPR paper. Kemble misses EPR’s point by taking their completeness criterion to be merely an epistemic concept; Kemble himself admits as much in a letter to Einstein later that year. His original response to EPR is nevertheless of interest, as Kemble there provides an argument for a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction – a view he attributes to Slater already in a 1929 paper, but for which Kemble provides greater clarity and motivation.

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.