Schrödinger’s reaction to the EPR paper is less widely known than, say, Bohr’s, and yet our analysis shows that it fits rather nicely with contemporary concerns in foundations of quantum mechanics. Taking the lead both from the EPR paper and from Pauli’s remarks in their correspondence, Schrödinger shows that EPR’s locality considerations lead to the assignment of values to all quantum mechanical observables, but that under apparently mild assumptions this then leads to contradictions of the von Neumann type. This dilemma (as he explicitly calls it) is thus similar to more recent debates between nonlocality on the one hand and no-go results on the other (whether through violation of the Bell inequalities, the Kochen–Specker theorem, or what you will). We shall first look at Schrödinger’s fundamental worries in the years leading up to 1935. The chapter then discusses in detail the direct reaction by Schrödinger to EPR. It will, however, not exhaust our discussion of Schrödinger, who is a recurring character in the book, having poked and prodded his peers on EPR during the whole summer and autumn of 1935.

This chapter presents a collection of letters between the main protagonists in the EPR debate as analysed in the present volume. Among many other letters, it includes the first ever complete English translation of the correspondence Schrödinger held concerning the EPR paper with, e.g., Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Born and Teller. He kept these letters in a special folder labelled ‘The Einstein Paradox’, only a small portion of which has previously been discussed in the foundations literature. These historical documents, many of which are published here for the first time, form the basis of our analysis in the beginning chapters of this book.

In this chapter, we dive deeply into Bohr’s views on (in)completeness and (non)locality. Perhaps the most outspoken and famous respondent to EPR, Bohr is generally thought to be obscure in his reply. We analyse it afresh (at least to our satisfaction), in particular in regard to its argumentative structure, the role of Bohr's examples and that of his 'non-mechanical disturbance'. We also assess its limitations as a reply to Einstein's wider concerns.