David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008)
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called a “Reality Criterion” imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. They concluded that there must be a more complete description of physical reality involving some hidden variables that can characterize the state of affairs in the world in more detail than the quantum mechanical state. This conclusion leads to paradoxical results. As Bell proved in 1964, under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion that there are hidden variables implies that, in some spin-correlation experiments, the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments since the 1970s. Some researchers have interpreted this result as showing that quantum mechanics is telling us nature is non-local, that is, that particles can affect each other across great distances in a time too brief for the effect to have been due to ordinary causal interaction. Others object to this interpretation, and the problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.
|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
Iñaki San Pedro (2012). Causation, Measurement Relevance and No-Conspiracy in EPR. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):137-156.
Soazig Le Bihan (2009). Fine's Ways to Fail to Secure Local Realism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2):142-150.
György Darvas (2009). Can the Causal Paradoxes of Qm Be Explained in the Framework of Qed? Foundations of Science 14 (4):273-280.
Similar books and articles
Arthur Fine, The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
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.
Abner Shimony (1984). Contextual Hidden Variables Theories and Bell's Inequalities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1):25-45.
Miklos Redei (1991). Bell's Inequalities, Relativistic Quantum Field Theory and the Problem of Hidden Variables. Philosophy of Science 58 (4):628-638.
Sascha Vongehr, Many Worlds Model Resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox Via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition That Preserves Einstein Locality.
Peter Kosso (2000). Quantum Mechanics and Realism. Foundations of Science 5 (1):47-60.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads98 ( #32,309 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #231,316 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?