Foundations of Physics 40 (4):463-468 (2010)
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
|
Keywords | Quantum mechanics Elements of reality Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Logic |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1007/s10701-010-9411-9 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky & Nathan Rosen - 1935 - Physical Review (47):777-780.
On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.J. S. Bell - 2004 [1964] - In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14--21.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Reexamination of the Arguments of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.P. A. Moldauer - 1974 - Foundations of Physics 4 (2):195-205.
The Physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.B. H. Kellett - 1977 - Foundations of Physics 7 (9-10):735-757.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities.László E. Szabó - 2007 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory.Arthur Fine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky & Nathan Rosen - 1935 - Physical Review (47):777-780.
Description of Many Separated Physical Entities Without the Paradoxes Encountered in Quantum Mechanics.Dirk Aerts - 1982 - Foundations of Physics 12 (12):1131-1170.
Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR.Robert Clifton, Constantine Pagonis & Itamar Pitowsky - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992 (Volume One: Contributed Papers):114 - 128.
Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox.C. A. Hooker - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (2):224-233.
Quantum Mechanics, Can It Be Consistent with Locality?Giuseppe Nisticò & Angela Sestito - 2011 - Foundations of Physics 41 (7):1263-1278.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-11-22
Total views
121 ( #95,306 of 2,498,558 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,098 of 2,498,558 )
2013-11-22
Total views
121 ( #95,306 of 2,498,558 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,098 of 2,498,558 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads