We assess the analysis made by Bohr in 1935 of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox/theorem. We explicitly describe Bohr's gedanken experiment involving a double-slit moving diaphragm interacting with two independent particles and show that the analysis provided by Bohr was flawed. We propose a different protocol correcting Bohr's version that confirms EPR dilemma: Quantum mechanics is either incomplete or non-local.
We assess the analysis made by Bohr in 1935 of the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox/theorem. We explicitly describe Bohr's gedanken experiment involving a double-slit moving diaphragm interacting with two independent particles and show that the analysis provided by Bohr was flawed. We propose a different protocol correcting Bohr's version that confirms EPR dilemma: Quantum mechanics is either incomplete or non-local.
The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) famously published a paper arguing for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, using the example of two spatially separated but entangled particles. In his almost equally famous reply, Niels Bohr argued against EPR by providing a careful analysis of quantum measurements from the point of view of complementarity. Perhaps oddly, this analysis focuses on the example of a *single* particle passing through a slit. In this paper I argue that the disanalogy between the two examples is only apparent, and does not constitute an obstacle in trying to understand Bohr's views on complementarity.
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.
Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.
Abstract The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 through a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) when they argued about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, the EPR argument about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to it, are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and the answer was nothing what Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell–CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling result that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and that the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics is presented.
The EPR experiment is analysed in terms of ordinary quantum mechanics and shown to be compatible with the orthodox interpretation of this theory. There is no need to refer to Bohrs resolution of the EPR paradox, nor is it necessary to assume any further unusual properties of the quantum physical reality. In particular, it is shown that the EPR experiment does not contradict the fact that incommensurable properties cannot be objectivized simultaneously in a quantum mechanical system, and that the measuring process can be understood in terms of quantum theory as an interaction of the measuring apparatus and the object system. From these results it follows that there is no reason to search for modifications of the quantum theory which might be more convenient for a realistic interpretation of the EPR experiment. Furthermore, the EPR experiment cannot be used as a motivation for introducing hidden variables into the quantum theory. Experimental investigations which try to test quantum mechanics in respect to the possibility of introducing local hidden variables can therefore not be justified by the EPR paradox.