The key to the above incompleteness argument is that one can, by measurement of an observable of particle 2, predict with certainty the result of any measurement of a particular observable of particle 1. In his presentation of the EPR incompleteness argument (which concerns position and momentum) Schrödinger uses a colorful analogy to make the situation clear. He imagines particles 1 and 2 as being a student and his instructor. The measurement of particle 2 corresponds to the instructor consulting a textbook to check the answer to an examination question, and the measurement of particle 1 to the response the student gives to this question. Since he always gives the correct answer, i.e., the same as that in the instructor's textbook, the student must have known the answer beforehand. Schrödinger presents the situation as follows: (emphasis by original author)

Let us focus attention on the system labeled with small letters p, q and call it for brevity the 'small' system. Then things stand as follows. I can direct one of two questions to the small system, either that about q or that about p. Before doing so I can, if I choose, procure the answer to one of these questions by a measurement on the fully separated other system (which we shall regard as auxiliary apparatus), or I may take care of this afterwards. My small system, like a schoolboy under examination, cannot possibly know whether I have done this or for which questions, or whether or for which I intend to do it later. From arbitrarily many pretrials I know that the pupil will correctly answer the first question I put to him. From that it follows that in every case, he knows the answer to both questions. . . . No school principal would judge otherwise . . . He would not come to think that his, the teacher's, consulting a textbook first suggests to the pupil the correct answer, or even, in the cases when the teacher chooses to consult it only after ensuing answers from the pupil, that the pupil's answer has changed the text of the notebook in the pupil's favor.

—Douglas L. Hemmick, Hidden Variables and Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics (dissertation, .pdf)

As is well known, GTR was constructed as a geometrification of physical reality: GTR's attempt to describe gravity is purely geometric and macroscopic. As such, there are some known limitations in GTR, including:

a. Classical general relativity by itself is unable to predict the sign of the gravitational force (attraction rather than repulsion). Consoli (2000) also noted: 'Einstein had to start from the peculiar properties of Newtonian gravity to get the basic idea of transforming the classical effects of this type of interaction into a metric structure.' In other words, it seems that GTR is not the complete theory Einstein was looking for.

b. There is no mechanism for gravitational forces: the 'graviton' has never been observed.

c. There is no convincing mechanism to describe the interaction between matter, inertia, and space (Mach principle is merely postulated).

d. There is no description of the medium of space. Although Einstein apparently considered a perfect fluid to describe this medium in his Leiden lecture in 1921 (Einstein 1921), he never attempted to theorize this medium formally--perhaps for good reason.

e. It is quite difficult to imagine how matter can affect the spacetime curvature and vice versa as postulated by GTR (for instance H. Arp).

f. Using GTR it is also quite difficult to explain the so-called 'hidden matter' which is supposed to exist in order to get average density of matter in the universe that required for flat universe, Omega=1 (Chapline 1998). Alternatively some theorists have shown we can reconcile this issue using Navier-Stokes model (Gibson 1999).

g. The spacetime curvature hypothesis cannot explain phenomena in the micro world of Quantum Mechanics. In contrast, by the Ehrenfest theorem, Quantum Mechanics reduces to classical physics if we use classical parameters consistently (see also Signell 2002).

—V. Christianto, The Cantorian Superfluid Vortex Hypothesis

As is well known, GTR was constructed as a geometrification of physical reality: GTR's attempt to describe gravity is purely geometric and macroscopic. As such, there are some known limitations in GTR, including:

a. Classical general relativity by itself is unable to predict the sign of the gravitational force (attraction rather than repulsion). Consoli (2000) also noted: 'Einstein had to start from the peculiar properties of Newtonian gravity to get the basic idea of transforming the classical effects of this type of interaction into a metric structure.' In other words, it seems that GTR is not the complete theory Einstein was looking for.

b. There is no mechanism for gravitational forces: the 'graviton' has never been observed.

c. There is no convincing mechanism to describe the interaction between matter, inertia, and space (Mach principle is merely postulated).

d. There is no description of the medium of space. Although Einstein apparently considered a perfect fluid to describe this medium in his Leiden lecture in 1921 (Einstein 1921), he never attempted to theorize this medium formally--perhaps for good reason.

e. It is quite difficult to imagine how matter can affect the spacetime curvature and vice versa as postulated by GTR (for instance H. Arp).

f. Using GTR it is also quite difficult to explain the so-called 'hidden matter' which is supposed to exist in order to get average density of matter in the universe that required for flat universe, Omega=1 (Chapline 1998). Alternatively some theorists have shown we can reconcile this issue using Navier-Stokes model (Gibson 1999).

g. The spacetime curvature hypothesis cannot explain phenomena in the micro world of Quantum Mechanics. In contrast, by the Ehrenfest theorem, Quantum Mechanics reduces to classical physics if we use classical parameters consistently (see also Signell 2002).

—V. Christianto, The Cantorian Superfluid Vortex Hypothesis

As is well known, GTR was constructed as a geometrification of physical reality: GTR's attempt to describe gravity is purely geometric and macroscopic. As such, there are some known limitations in GTR, including:

a. Classical general relativity by itself is unable to predict the sign of the gravitational force (attraction rather than repulsion). Consoli (2000) also noted: 'Einstein had to start from the peculiar properties of Newtonian gravity to get the basic idea of transforming the classical effects of this type of interaction into a metric structure.' In other words, it seems that GTR is not the complete theory Einstein was looking for.

b. There is no mechanism for gravitational forces: the 'graviton' has never been observed.

c. There is no convincing mechanism to describe the interaction between matter, inertia, and space (Mach principle is merely postulated).

d. There is no description of the medium of space. Although Einstein apparently considered a perfect fluid to describe this medium in his Leiden lecture in 1921 (Einstein 1921), he never attempted to theorize this medium formally--perhaps for good reason.

e. It is quite difficult to imagine how matter can affect the spacetime curvature and vice versa as postulated by GTR (for instance H. Arp).

f. Using GTR it is also quite difficult to explain the so-called 'hidden matter' which is supposed to exist in order to get average density of matter in the universe that required for flat universe, Omega=1 (Chapline 1998). Alternatively some theorists have shown we can reconcile this issue using Navier-Stokes model (Gibson 1999).

g. The spacetime curvature hypothesis cannot explain phenomena in the micro world of Quantum Mechanics. In contrast, by the Ehrenfest theorem, Quantum Mechanics reduces to classical physics if we use classical parameters consistently (see also Signell 2002).

—V. Christianto, The Cantorian Superfluid Vortex Hypothesis