Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:29:14.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Re-Examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

David H. Sharp
David H. Sharp*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions:

  1. (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by:

  2. (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible.

In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid.

The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 1961 , pp. 225 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1961

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

∗∗

The author is grateful to Dr. Dieter Brill, Dr. Frederick Werner, and Professor John A. Wheeler for several helpful comments on this paper. Especially appreciated is the interest and assistance of Professor Hilary Putnam, with whom I have had many very helpful discussions concerning this and related problems.

References

1 A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev., 47, 777 (1935).

2 N. Bohr, Phys. Rev., 48, 696 (1935); and “Discussion with Einstein,” appearing in “Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.” Library of Living Philosophers, a series edited by P. A. Schlipp (Tudor Publishing Co., 1951), 201-41.

3 The italics signify here that the terms are to be understood as defined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

4 This will happen if, in Eq. (7), can be written as where the are all distinct.

5 E. P. Wigner, Z. Physik, 133, 101 (1952).

These results have recently been generalized by Araki and Yanesse, in an article to appear shortly in the Physical Review.

6 J. von Neumann, “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” translated by R. T. Beyer, (Princeton University Press, 1955).

7 Attention is limited in both the formulation and resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox to systems describable by elementary non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

8 A. Einstein, “Reply to Criticism” appearing in “Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist” (See ref. 2) pp. 685-86.