Advertisement

Abstract

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, 1 usually just called EPR, was written in 1935. Following his discussions with Bohr, which were described in the previous chapter, Einstein was now prepared to admit that it was not possible to measure momentum and position simultaneously to a better accuracy that allowed by the Heisenberg principle. The EPR argument was, at the very least, an ingenious attempt to show that nevertheless both observables do actually have simultaneous values at all times. Bohr fairly quickly produced what he claimed to be rebuttals of the EPR thesis,2,3 and it is clear that, with very few exceptions, physicists practically at once decided that Bohr’s arguments had succeeded yet again in defeating those of Einstein. By this time, of course, Einstein had long since nailed his colours to the mast of opposition to Copenhagen, and was thus almost universally regarded as being completely out of touch with the requirements of modern science. His further criticisms of orthodoxy were taken only as demonstrating yet again his lack of understanding and appreciation; it is doubtful if many physicists of the day bothered to read either EPR or Bohr’s response before deciding who was right and who was wrong.

Keywords

Quantum Theory Entangle State Physical Reality Hide Variable Quantum Information Theory 
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.
    Einstein A., Podolsky B., and Rosen N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–80.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohr N. (1935). Quantum mechanics and physical reality, Nature 136, 65.ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohr N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 48, 696–702.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pais A. (1982). ’subtle is the Lord...’: The Science and Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein J. (1991). Quantum Profiles. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitaker A. (2006). Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum Dilemma. (1st edn. 1996, 2nd edn. 2006) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard D. (1994). What makes a classical concept classical? In: Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Faye J. and Folse H.J., (eds.)) Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howard D. (1979). Complementarity and ontology: Niels Bohr and the problem of scientific realism in quantum physics, Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Folse H. J. (1985). The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murdoch D. (1987). Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honner J. (1987). The Philosophy of Nature: Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Quantum Physics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krips H. (1987). The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faye J. (1991). Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy: An Anti-Realist View of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petruccioli S. (1993). Atoms, Metaphors and Paradoxes: Niels Bohr and the Construction of a New Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ottaviani J. (2004). Suspended in Language: Niels Bohr’s Life and the Century he Shaped. Ann Arbor: G.T. Labs.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beller M. and Fine A. (1994). Bohr’s response to EPR, In: Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. (Faye J. and Folse H.J., (eds.)) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halvorson H. and Clifton R. (2003). Reconsidering Bohr’s response to EPR, In: Non-Locality and Modality. (Placek T. and Butterfield J., (eds.)) Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dickson M. (2003). Bohr on Bell: A proposed reading of Bohr and its implications for Bell’s theorem, In: Non-Locality and Modality. (Placek T. and Butterfield J., (eds.)) Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitaker M.A.B. (2004). The EPR paper and Bohr’s response, Foundations of Physics 34, 1305–40.MATHMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jammer M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jammer M. (1985). The EPR problem in its historical development, In: Symposium on the Foundation of Modern Physic: 50 Years of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment. (Lahti P. and Mittelstaedt P., (eds.)) Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 129–49.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fine A. (1986). The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Einstein A. (1948). Quantum mechanics and reality, Dialectica 2, 320–4.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Born M. (2005). The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-1955. 2nd edn., Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Einstein A. (1949). Autobiographical notes, In: Albert-Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 1–95.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bohm D. (1951). Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 614–23.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schrödinger E. (1935). Probability relations between separated systems, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31, 555–62.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schrödinger E. (1936). Probability relations between separated systems, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32, 446–52.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Einstein A. (1949). Response to criticisms, In: Albert-Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 665–88.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosen N. (1985). Quantum mechanics and reality, In: Symposium on the Foundation of Modern Physic: 50 Years of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment. (Lahti P. and Mittelstaedt P., (eds.)) Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 17–33.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schrödinger E. (1935). Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik [The present situation in quantum mechanics], Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–12, 823–8, 844–9. Translation by J.D. Trimmer in Ref. [32].CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wheeler J.A. and Zurek W.H. ((eds.)) (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 152–67.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bohm D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden variables’, I and II, Physical Review 85, 166–79, 180-93.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bell J.S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195–200 (1964); reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. (1st edn. 1987, 2nd tion. 2004) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14–21.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Redhead M. (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maudlin T. (1994). Quantum Non-Locality: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ghirardi G.-C. (2005). Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards: Unraveling the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen M.A. and Chuang I.L.(2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steane A. (1998). Quantum computing, Reports on Progress in Physics 61, 117–74.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bell J.S. (1981). Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique 42, C241–61 (1981); reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1987), pp. 139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Halvorson H. (2000). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state maximally violates Bell’s inequalities, Letters in Mathematical Physics 53, 321–9.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cooper J.L.B. (1950). The paradox of separated systems in quantum theory, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 46, 620–5.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Epstein P.S. (1945). The reality problem in quantum mechanics, American Journal of Physics 13, 127–36.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosenfeld L. (1967). Niels Bohr in the thirties: consolidation and extension of the concept of complementarity, In: Niels Bohr: His Life and Work as Seen by his Friends and Colleagues. (Rozental S., ed.) Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 14–36.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bohr N. (1949). Discussions with Einstein, In: Albert-Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 199–241.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beller M. (1999). Quantum Dialogue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bell J.S. (1976). Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments, In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Frontier Problems in High Energy Physics. Pisa: Scuola Normale, pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moore W. (1989). Schrödinger: Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 302–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations