Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical Review

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, N. Rosen

Published May 15, 1935• 16,642 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality. A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system. In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that if (1) is false then (2) is also false. One is thus led to conclude that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete.

DOI
10.1103/physrev.47.777

Related papers

The Complete Theory of Quantum Mechanics

Kazmer Ujvarosy

Based on a thought experiment the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper’s authors concluded that in quantum mechanics the mathematical objects called wave functions fail to describe the physical reality and consequently quantum theory is incomplete. They left open the question of whether or not a complete description of the physical reality exists, but expressed their belief that such a complete theory is possible. In this paper I show that indeed a theory that gives a complete description of the physical reality exists.

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Quantum-mechanical wave functions as elements of reality

E.L. Renkema

This thesis explores the relations between the wave functions that describe the state of a system in quantum mechanics and the hypothetical »ontic« states a system can have in reality. What quantum mechanics precisely implies about the nature of reality has always been a disputed point; among the contended features of quantum mechanics as a physical theory are completeness and locality. Recent results indicate that if some assumptions are made about reality being local, then quantum-mechanical and ontic states must be in one-to-one correspondence.

•Sep 9, 2013•0 citations

Is a System’s Wave Function in One-to-One Correspondence with Its Elements of Reality?

Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner

Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function--the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e., an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular, that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.

arXiv:1111.6597•Physical Review Letters•Apr 11, 2012•245 citations

Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR

Robert K. Clifton, Constantine Pagonis, Itamar Pitowsky

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. EPR’s (1935) argument for the incompleteness of QM turns upon the following sufficient condition: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.“ EPR apply this condition in a case where knowledge gained from measuring one quantum system allows one to predict with certainty a value for a physical quantity on another.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1992•28 citations

Why the future cannot be open in the quantum world

K Morita

In this study, I argue that the future is not open if quantum mechanics is complete. An open future means that the value observed when measuring a physical quantity in the future is not determined. At first glance, quantum mechanics seems to support the open future thesis, because it cannot always predict measurement value with certainty. However, many interpretations regard quantum mechanics as deterministic. These interpretations only suggest that the quantum mechanical world can be deterministic. I argue that, although quantum mechanics cannot predict the future with certainty, the quantum mechanical world must bedeterministic, and the value observed by the observer is determined. I examine the following two cases: (1) the wave-function completely describes the physical state and (2) the wave-function does not describe the physical state. Then, I argue that the future cannot be open in either case when quantum mechanics is complete.

arXiv:2101.01894•Principia an international journal of epistemology•Dec 13, 2022•2 citations

The Logic of Quantum Mechanics

Garrett Birkhoff, John von Neumann

One of the aspects of quantum theory which has attracted the most general attention, is the novelty of the logical notions which it presupposes. It asserts that even a complete mathematical description of a physical system S does not in general enable one to predict with certainty the result of an experiment on S, and that in particular one can never predict with certainty both the position and the momentum of S, (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). It further asserts that most pairs of observations are incompatible, and cannot be made on S, simultaneously (Principle of Non-commutativity of Observations).

Annals of Mathematics•Oct 1, 1936•2,849 citations
In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality. A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system. In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that if (1) is false then (2) is also false. One is thus led to conclude that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete.
Based on a thought experiment the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper’s authors concluded that in quantum mechanics the mathematical objects called wave functions fail to describe the physical reality and consequently quantum theory is incomplete. They left open the question of whether or not a complete description of the physical reality exists, but expressed their belief that such a complete theory is possible. In this paper I show that indeed a theory that gives a complete description of the physical reality exists.
This thesis explores the relations between the wave functions that describe the state of a system in quantum mechanics and the hypothetical »ontic« states a system can have in reality. What quantum mechanics precisely implies about the nature of reality has always been a disputed point; among the contended features of quantum mechanics as a physical theory are completeness and locality. Recent results indicate that if some assumptions are made about reality being local, then quantum-mechanical and ontic states must be in one-to-one correspondence.
Although quantum mechanics is one of our most successful physical theories, there has been a long-standing debate about the interpretation of the wave function--the central object of the theory. Two prominent views are that (i) it corresponds to an element of reality, i.e., an objective attribute that exists before measurement, and (ii) it is a subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. A recent result [M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, arXiv:1111.3328] has placed the subjective interpretation into doubt, showing that it would contradict certain physically plausible assumptions, in particular, that multiple systems can be prepared such that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. Here we show, based only on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality. This also eliminates the possibility that it can be interpreted subjectively.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. EPR’s (1935) argument for the incompleteness of QM turns upon the following sufficient condition: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.“ EPR apply this condition in a case where knowledge gained from measuring one quantum system allows one to predict with certainty a value for a physical quantity on another.
In this study, I argue that the future is not open if quantum mechanics is complete. An open future means that the value observed when measuring a physical quantity in the future is not determined. At first glance, quantum mechanics seems to support the open future thesis, because it cannot always predict measurement value with certainty. However, many interpretations regard quantum mechanics as deterministic. These interpretations only suggest that the quantum mechanical world can be deterministic. I argue that, although quantum mechanics cannot predict the future with certainty, the quantum mechanical world must bedeterministic, and the value observed by the observer is determined. I examine the following two cases: (1) the wave-function completely describes the physical state and (2) the wave-function does not describe the physical state. Then, I argue that the future cannot be open in either case when quantum mechanics is complete.
One of the aspects of quantum theory which has attracted the most general attention, is the novelty of the logical notions which it presupposes. It asserts that even a complete mathematical description of a physical system S does not in general enable one to predict with certainty the result of an experiment on S, and that in particular one can never predict with certainty both the position and the momentum of S, (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). It further asserts that most pairs of observations are incompatible, and cannot be made on S, simultaneously (Principle of Non-commutativity of Observations).