© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

EPR: what has it taught us

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published May 1, 1985• 1 citation

Abstract

This symposium commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is a fitting place to review what that work and its sequels have taught us. Prima facie, the EPR paper appears to have been exceedingly counter-productive for the following reasons: (1) The work was quickly rebutted by Bohr, and this rebuttal was apparently accepted by most workers in the field. (2) Scientists who adopted the position advocated by Bohr have produced, in the intervening fifty years, a marvelous body of useful theory, whereas those following the course suggested by EPR have produced nothing of any certified practical value. (3) It has been shown by Bell that the conclusion reached by EPR is incompatible with their assumptions. Chemists and physicists have recently begun to examine the behavior of quantum mechanical systems that are very small, yet large enough to influence their environment in ways that appreciably modify their own behavior, vis-a-vis the behavior they would have if isolated. Because these systems are neither small enough to be treated as isolated (or as residing in a classically described environment) between preparation and detection, nor large enough to be treated classically, they do not conform to the format demanded by the Copenhagen interpretation. Indeed, the behavior of these systems depends on ontological considerations that were irrelevant in the situations covered by the Copenhagen interpretation, and that were systematically ignored in that interpretation. Scientists now face the task of enlarging the scope of quantum theory to cover these new situations, and comparing the empirical consequences of various ontological assumptions. 17 refs.

Related papers

Foreword

Enrico G. Beltrametti, Gianni Cassinelli, Peter Carruthers

For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 28, 1984•0 citations

The EPR Problem and Nonseparability

Bernard d’Espagnat

This chapter temporarily departs from conventional "orthodoxy" in that the authors set aside the completeness hypothesis and its generalizations. In 1935 A. Einstein and his two younger collaborators, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) issued a paper in which they showed that, assuming the validity of but very general and highly plausible assumptions, the incompleteness of quantum mechanics could be demonstrated. The opinion that quantum mechanics is a complete description of the atomic and subatomic phenomena was so much engrained in the mind of the physicists that this EPR result was soon referred to as a "paradox." The EPR argument was based on assumptions, or premises, that, prima facie look most plausible. On the theoretical side it has been shown that the D. Greenberger, M. Home, and A. Zeilinger argument can be developed without involving any spin, essentially by replacing the spin-component measurements by presence measurements performed by means of counters.

CRC Press eBooks•May 4, 2018•0 citations

Wonderful Copenhagen?

Alastair I. M. Rae

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 26, 2012•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a reprinting of Bohr’s note to Nature advertising his forthcoming response to the EPR paper. It is very brief but contains in essence the argumentative tack Bohr would in fact employ in his full response to EPR.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations

Reconsidering Bohr’s reply to EPR

Rob Clifton

Abstract The past few decades have seen tremendous growth in our under standing of interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, a number of ‘nogo’ results have been obtained which show that some or other interpretation violates constraints that we would expect any plausible interpretation of quantum mechanics to satisfy. Thus, although there is no immediate hope of convergence of opinion on interpretive issues, we certainly have an increased understanding of the technical and conceptual issues at stake. Perhaps, then, we can make use of this increased technical awareness to shed some new light on the great old episodes in the conceptual development of quantum mechanics.

•Sep 23, 2009•0 citations

Wonderful Copenhagen?

Alastair I. M. Rae

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•0 citations

This symposium commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is a fitting place to review what that work and its sequels have taught us. Prima facie, the EPR paper appears to have been exceedingly counter-productive for the following reasons: (1) The work was quickly rebutted by Bohr, and this rebuttal was apparently accepted by most workers in the field. (2) Scientists who adopted the position advocated by Bohr have produced, in the intervening fifty years, a marvelous body of useful theory, whereas those following the course suggested by EPR have produced nothing of any certified practical value. (3) It has been shown by Bell that the conclusion reached by EPR is incompatible with their assumptions. Chemists and physicists have recently begun to examine the behavior of quantum mechanical systems that are very small, yet large enough to influence their environment in ways that appreciably modify their own behavior, vis-a-vis the behavior they would have if isolated. Because these systems are neither small enough to be treated as isolated (or as residing in a classically described environment) between preparation and detection, nor large enough to be treated classically, they do not conform to the format demanded by the Copenhagen interpretation. Indeed, the behavior of these systems depends on ontological considerations that were irrelevant in the situations covered by the Copenhagen interpretation, and that were systematically ignored in that interpretation. Scientists now face the task of enlarging the scope of quantum theory to cover these new situations, and comparing the empirical consequences of various ontological assumptions. 17 refs.

For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.

This chapter temporarily departs from conventional "orthodoxy" in that the authors set aside the completeness hypothesis and its generalizations. In 1935 A. Einstein and his two younger collaborators, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) issued a paper in which they showed that, assuming the validity of but very general and highly plausible assumptions, the incompleteness of quantum mechanics could be demonstrated. The opinion that quantum mechanics is a complete description of the atomic and subatomic phenomena was so much engrained in the mind of the physicists that this EPR result was soon referred to as a "paradox." The EPR argument was based on assumptions, or premises, that, prima facie look most plausible. On the theoretical side it has been shown that the D. Greenberger, M. Home, and A. Zeilinger argument can be developed without involving any spin, essentially by replacing the spin-component measurements by presence measurements performed by means of counters.

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.

Abstract The past few decades have seen tremendous growth in our under standing of interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, a number of ‘nogo’ results have been obtained which show that some or other interpretation violates constraints that we would expect any plausible interpretation of quantum mechanics to satisfy. Thus, although there is no immediate hope of convergence of opinion on interpretive issues, we certainly have an increased understanding of the technical and conceptual issues at stake. Perhaps, then, we can make use of this increased technical awareness to shed some new light on the great old episodes in the conceptual development of quantum mechanics.

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.