David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008)
In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Claus Beisbart (2012). How Can Computer Simulations Produce New Knowledge? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):395-434.
Nicolaas P. Landsman (2006). When Champions Meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein Debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (1):212-242.
Towfic Shomar (2008). Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):321 - 349.
Towfic Shomar (2008). Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (2):321-349.
N. P. Landsman (2006). When Champions Meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein Debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37 (1):212-242.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Schoch (1988). On the Formal Connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument to Quantum Mechanics and Reality. Erkenntnis 29 (2):269 - 278.
Tilman Sauer (2007). An Einstein Manuscript on the EPR Paradox for Spin Observables. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (4):879-887.
Robert Clifton, Constantine Pagonis & Itamar Pitowsky (1992). Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:114 - 128.
S. V. Bhave (1986). Separable Hidden Variables Theory to Explain Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):467-475.
Jeffrey Bub (1982). Quantum Logic, Conditional Probability, and Interference. Philosophy of Science 49 (3):402-421.
László E. Szabó, The Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
C. A. Hooker (1971). Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox. Philosophy of Science 38 (2):224-233.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #73,367 of 1,781,419 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #123,412 of 1,781,419 )
How can I increase my downloads?