Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Correct?

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an earlier paper written in loving memory of Asher Peres, we gave a critical analysis of the celebrated 1935 paper in which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics. There, we had pointed out logical shortcomings in the EPR paper. Now, we raise additional questions concerning their suggested program to find a theory that would “provide a complete description of the physical reality”. In particular, we investigate the extent to which the EPR argumentation could have lead to the more dramatic conclusion that quantum mechanics is in fact incorrect. With this in mind, we propose a speculation, made necessary by a logical shortcoming in the EPR paper caused by the lack of a necessary condition for “elements of reality”, and surmise that an eventually complete theory would either be inconsistent with quantum mechanics, or would at least violate Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aczel, A.D.: Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics. Four Walls Eight Windows, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bohm, D.: A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables. I & II. Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohr, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 48, 696–702 (1935)

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brassard, G., Méthot, A.A.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered incomplete? Int. J. Quantum Inf. 4(1), 45–54 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Einstein, A.: Statement by Einstein: He says he did not authorize report on quantum theory. New York Times, p. 21, 7 May (1935)

  7. Einstein, A.: Letter to Erwin Schrödinger. Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Folder 22, Document 47, 19 June (1935)

  8. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Isaacson, W.: Einstein: His Life and Universe. Simon and Schuster, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mermin, N.D.: My life with Einstein. Phys. Today 58(12), 10–11 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département IRO, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Gilles Brassard

  2. Group of Applied Physics, Université de Genève, Rue de l’Ecole-de-Médecine 20, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland

    André Allan Méthot

Authors
  1. Gilles Brassard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Allan Méthot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilles Brassard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brassard, G., Méthot, A.A. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Correct?. Found Phys 40, 463–468 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9411-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9411-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation