Discussion: Popper's Variant of the EPR Experiment Does Not Test the Copenhagen Interpretation

Asher Peres

Flavio Del Santo

J. M. Domingos, Fernando Nogueira, Maria Helena Caldeira +1 more

We comment on a recently published criticism of our analysis of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

Donald Bedford, F. Selleri

Qureshi, T

A thought experiment, proposed by Karl Popper, which has been experimentally realized recently, is critically examined. A basic flaw in Popper's argument which has also been prevailing in subsequent debates, is pointed out. It is shown that Popper's experiment can be understood easily within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. An alternate experiment, based on discrete variables, is proposed, which constitutes Popper's test in a clearer way. It refutes the argument of absence of nonlocality in quantum mechanics.

Georgios Zouros

Popper invented a thought experiment that is alleged to test the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, though not the theory itself. In particular it is alleged to test the application of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to indirect measurements. The experiment is similar to the EPR thought experiment, but it suffers from some technical flaws. These flaws are examined to see if they affect the validity of the argument; so long as they can be alleviated by technical means, the argument retains its force. The experiment has been recently instantiated, with some resolutions of these technical flaws. The results, on face value seem to vindicate Popper and to indicate a violation of the uncertainty principle. Nevertheless, Kim and Shih, who carried out the experiment, give their own interpretation that suggests that the principle should be considered intact but that the correct way to understand the results is to adopt a new metaphysics. Others suggest different reasons why the results do not amount to a violation of the uncertainty principle. Despite a variety of responses, which are carefully examined, the general point that an interpretation cannot alter the empirical basis of a theory is shown to be true. The importance of Rigolid's work in this connection is emphasized.