Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 7, Issue 9–10, pp 735–757 | Cite as

The physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

  • B. H. Kellett
Article

Abstract

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox as formulated in their original paper is critically examined. Their argument that quantum mechanics is incomplete is shown to be unsatisfactory on two important grounds. (i) The gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is physically unrealizable, and consequently their argument is invalid as it stands. (ii) The basic assumptions of their argument are equivalent to the assumption that quantum mechanical systems are in fact describable by unique eigenfunctions of the operators corresponding to physical observables, independent of any observation or measurement. Following an argument due to Furry, it is shown that this interpretation of quantum mechanics must lead to some physical predictions at variance with those of conventional quantum mechanics. A decisive experiment has been performed by Freedman and Clauser, which rules out this interpretation, and imposes severe restrictions on any alternative theory which incorporates the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen concept of physical reality.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Rosen Mechanical System Basic Assumption Physical Reality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. A. Hooker, inParadigms and Paradoxes, R. G. Colodny, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972);Am. J. Phys. 38, 851 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. H. Furry,Phys. Rev. 49, 393 (1936).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne,Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. d'Espagnat,Phys. Rev. D 11, 1424 (1975).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Bohr,Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Bohm,Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1951), Chapter 22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Bohm and Y. Aharanov,Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Einstein, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientists, P. A. Schilpp, ed. (Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949), pp. 665–676.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. S. Bell,Physics 1, 195 (1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. P. Wigner,Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005 (1970).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Peres and P. Singer,Nuovo Cimento 15, 907 (1960).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. R. Inglis,Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 1 (1961).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Breitenberger,Nuovo Cimento 38, 356 (1965).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. E. Ballentine,Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Barden, P. Franzini, and J. Lee,Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 33 (1961).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Bachenstoff, B. D. Hyams, G. Knop, P. C. Martin, and U. Stierlin,Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 415 (1961).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. S. Snyder, S. Pasternack, and J. Hornbostel,Phys. Rev. 73, 440 (1948).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Bleuler and H. L. Bradt,Phys. Rev. 73, 1398 (1948).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. S. Wu and I. Shaknov,Phys. Rev. 77, 136 (1950).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. A. Kocher and E. D. Commins,Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 575 (1967).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser,Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich,The Theory of Photons and Electrons (Addison-Wesley, 1955).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Fierz,Helv. Phys. Acta 13, 95 (1940).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. A. Holt, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard (unpublished, 1972).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. F. Clauser,Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1223 (1976).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Bohm,Phys. Rev. 85, 166, 180 (1952).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Bohm and J. Bub,Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 453, 470 (1966);40, 235 (1968).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. M. Jauch and C. Piron,Helv. Phys. Acta 36, 827 (1963); J. M. Jauch,Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 228 (1968).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. M. Gleason,J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. S. Bell,Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966);Lecture Notes, International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course IL (Academic Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corp 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. H. Kellett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural PhilosophyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations