Einstein’s Boxes: Incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics Without a Separation Principle
Einstein made several attempts to argue for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM), not all of them using a separation principle. One unpublished example, the box parable, has received increased attention in the recent literature. Though the example is tailor-made for applying a separation principle and Einstein indeed applies one, he begins his discussion without it. An analysis of this first part of the parable naturally leads to an argument for incompleteness not involving a separation principle. I discuss the argument and its systematic import. Though it should be kept in mind that the argument is not the one Einstein intends, I show how it suggests itself and leads to a conflict between QM’s completeness and a physical principle more fundamental than the separation principle, i.e. a principle saying that QM should deliver probabilities for physical systems possessing properties at definite times.
KeywordsCompleteness of quantum mechanics Hidden variables No-hidden-variable proofs Separability
- 1.Fine, A.: The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, Chapter 5. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986)Google Scholar
- 4.Held, C.: Die Bohr-Einstein-Debatte. Quantenmechanik und physikalische Wirklichkeit. Schöningh, Paderborn (1998)Google Scholar
- 8.Popper, K.R.: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Routledge, London (1982)Google Scholar
- 9.Butterfield, J.: Quantum theory and the mind. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supp.) LXIX, vol. 113 (1995)Google Scholar
- 16.Bell, J.S.: On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966); reprint in , pp. 1–13.Google Scholar