Does EPR contradict SR in non-relativistic QM?

[facenian]

I read some about EPR and the way it seems to contradict SR and I don't understand this:
Since we are talking about not relativistic QM isn't it natural for it to contradict SR,
for instance, Newton 3rd. law (action and reaction) contradicts the finite velocity of interactions but nobody
worries about it because it is non relativistic.
May be it is because the axioms of non relativistic QM are still valid in quantum relativstic theory?

 

[DrChinese]

I read some about EPR and the way it seems to contradict SR and I don't understand this:
Since we are talking about not relativistic QM isn't it natural for it to contradict SR,
for instance, Newton 3rd. law (action and reaction) contradicts the finite velocity of interactions but nobody
worries about it because it is non relativistic.
May be it is because the axioms of non relativistic QM are still valid in quantum relativstic theory?

Whether or not you think QM contradicts SR is mostly a matter of semantics and interpretation. First, there is no specific conflict. It's not like SR predicts one thing and QM predicts another. Second, EPR+Bell+Aspect led to the conclusion that local (effects not propagating faster than c) hidden variable theories were not viable. If you interpret that to mean that hidden variables do not exist, then locality is left intact.

There have been some prior threads on this subject as well, although I don't have the link.

 

[Meir Achuz]

I read some about EPR and the way it seems to contradict SR and I don't understand this:
Since we are talking about not relativistic QM isn't it natural for it to contradict SR?

You are right. If the effect is described using NR QM, SR is irrelevant.
Using relativistic quantum field theory describes EPR type phenomena consistent with SR.