Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:40:23.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Einstein and EPR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert Deltete  and
Reed Guy
Robert Deltete*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Seattle University
Reed Guy
Affiliation:
Department of Physics Seattle University
*
†Send reprint requests to the authors, Department of Philosophy, Seattle University, Seattle, WA 98122.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that Einstein did not write the EPR paper and that he was disappointed with the outcome. He thought, rightly, that his own argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory was badly presented in the paper. We reconstruct the argument of EPR, indicate the reasons Einstein was dissatisfied with it, and discuss Einstein's own argument. We show that many commentators have been misled by the obscurity of EPR into proposing interpretations of its argument that do not accurately represent Einstein's own views. Finally, we evaluate Einstein's own incompleteness argument, concluding that recent experimental findings have likely shown it to be unsound.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 377 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

References

Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Physical Review Letters 49: 1804–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, L. E. (1970), “The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics 42: 358–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, L. E. (1972), “Einstein's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, American Journal of Physics 40: 1763–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, L. E. and Jarrett, J. (1987), “Bell's Theorem: Does Quantum Mechanics Contradict Relativity?”, American Journal of Physics 55: 696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964), “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1971), “Introduction to the Hidden Variables Question”, in B. d'Espagnat (ed.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 171–181.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935a), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 48: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935b), “Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality”, Nature 136: 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, M. (ed.) ([1969] 1971), The Born-Einstein Letters; Correspondence Between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born. Translated by I. Born. Originally published as Albert Einstein-Hedwig und Max Born: Briefwechsel, 1916–1955. (Munich: Nymphenburger). New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar
Brush, S. G. (1980), “The Chimerical Cat: Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective”, Social Studies of Science 10: 393–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauser, J. F. and Shimony, A. (1978), “Bell's Theorem: Experimental Tests and Implications”, Reports on Progress in Physics 41: 1881–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1949a), “Autobiographical Notes”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor, pp. 2–95.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1949b), “Reply to Criticisms”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor, pp. 665–688.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. ([1936] 1954), “Physik und Realität”. Reprinted and translated in A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions. (Originally published in Journal of the Franklin Institute 221: 313–347 [English translation, pp. 349–382]). New York: Bonanza Books, pp. 290–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. ([1948] 1971), “Quantum-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit”. Translated in M. Born, (Originally published in Dialectica 2: 320–324), pp. 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. ([1981] 1986a), “Einstein's Critique of Quantum Theory: The Roots and Significance of EPR”. Reprinted in A. Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. (!Originally published in P. Parker and C. Shugart (eds.), After Einstein. Memphis: Memphis State University Press, pp. 147–158.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 26–39.Google Scholar
Fine, A. ([1984] 1986b), “What is Einstein's Statistical Interpretation, or Is It Einstein for Whom Bell's Theorem Tolls?” Reprinted in A. Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. (Originally published in Topoi 3: 23–36.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, A. P. (ed.) (1979), Einstein: A Centenary Volume. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1970), “Concerning Einstein's, Podolsky's, and Rosen's Objection to Quantum Theory”, American Journal of Physics 38: 851–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1972), “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein Versus Bohr”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–302.Google Scholar
Howard, D. (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 171—201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jammer, M. (1974), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics; The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. New York; Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jarrett, J. (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, Noûs 18: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, B. H. (1977), “The Physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Foundations of Physics 7: 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krips, H. P. (1969), “Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics”, Philosophy of Science 36: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. H. (1978), “A Formal Statement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 17: 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mermin, N. D. (1985), “Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory”, Physics Today 38: 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1978), “Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, International Philosophical Quarterly 18: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1988), “The Reality of the Quantum World”, Scientific American 258: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapp, H. P. (1987), “Quantum Nonlocality”, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Preprint LBL–22815.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. (1981), “The ‘EPR’ Argument: A Post-Mortem”, Philosophical Studies 40: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweifel, P. F. (1974), “Measurement in Quantum Mechanics, and the EPR Paradox”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 10: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar