Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:06:49.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPR: The Correlations are Still A Mystery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frederick M. Kronz
Frederick M. Kronz*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a critical discussion of a recent article by Bas van Fraassen (1985) in which he suggests the following view: we should admit that we have no explanation of the EPR correlations, but refuse to consider the correlations as mysterious nevertheless (pp. 126–128). We shall focus on just three of the claims made by van Fraassen in support of this view. The three claims are these:

  1. (1) The EPR correlations cannot be explained by signals being transmitted from one component of an EPR compound to the other (pp. 114–115).

  2. (2) There is, in the EPR situation, no empirically verifiable action at a distance (pp. 124–126).

  3. (3) The demand for an explanation of the EPR correlations is similar to the Aristotelian demand of the post-Newtonian proponents of the law of inertia to explain what keeps a body moving if there are no forces impressed on it (pp. 126–128).

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 1988 , pp. 631 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am especially grateful to Bas van Fraassen and the referee for Philosophy of Science, and to my colleagues Herb Hochberg, Hans Kamp, Dan Bonevac, and Nicholas Asher for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Achinstein, P. (1983), The Nature of Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allcock, G. R. (1969), “The Time of Arrival in Quantum Mechanics: I. Formal Considerations”, Annals of Physics 53: 253–285.10.1016/0003-4916(69)90251-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspect, A., and Granger, P. (1983), “Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilaniuk, O., and Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1969), “Particles Beyond the Light Barrier”, Physics Today 5: 43–51.10.1063/1.3035574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D., and Hiley, B. J. (1975), “On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory”, Foundations of Physics 5: 93–109.10.1007/BF01100319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1950] (1971), Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clauser, J. F., and Horne, M. A. (1974), “Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories”, Physical Review D 10: 526–535.10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. (1972), “Tachyons and Quantum Statistics”, Physical Review D 5: 329–331.10.1103/PhysRevD.5.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hanni, H., and Hugertobler, E. (1978), “Tachyons and Experimental Physics”, in E. Recami (ed.), Tachyons, Monopoles and Related Topics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965), “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation”, in his Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), “Falsification and the Methodology of Research Programs”, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. (1983), “Nonlocality and Peaceful Coexistence”, in R. Swineburne (ed.), Space, Time and Causality. Dordrecht: D. Riedel.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1983), “Controllable and Uncontrollable Non-Locality”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Stapp, H. P. (1977), “Are Superluminal Connections Necessary?”, Il Nuovo Cimento 40B, N.1: 191–205.10.1007/BF02739191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in R. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge in the Quantum Domain. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1974), “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Synthese 29: 291–309.10.1007/BF00484962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1982), “The Charybdis of Realism”, Synthese 52: 25–38.10.1007/BF00485253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1985), “EPR: When Is a Correlation Not a Mystery?”, in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. World Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar