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

Philosophy of Science

Comments on the Paper of David Sharp

Hilary Putnam

Published Jul 1, 1961• 32 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Mr. Sharp's resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is, in my opinion, the right one. However, the resolution does not in my opinion show that “God's in his heaven; all's right with the world (quantum mechanics).” This is in no way a criticism of Sharp; rather, it is inevitable that any resolution of this paradox, dealing as it does with the quantum mechanical concept of “measurement”, must tangle with some of the real difficulties which are lurking in the notion. The purpose of these comments is to use Mr. Sharp's remarks as a basis for bringing out one of the serious conceptual difficulties connected with measurement.

DOI
10.1086/287807

Related papers

The Quantum Measurement Problem

A. J. Leggett

Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.

Science•Feb 10, 2005•102 citations

Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox

C. A. Hooker

D. H. Sharp has recently argued that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen failed to make good their claim that elementary quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality. Sharp expounds in detail three criticisms (a fourth is mentioned) which focus largely on formal features of the quantum theory. I argue, on grounds centered largely in our search for an adequatephysical understandingof the micro domain, that each of these criticisms must be rejected. The original criticism of quantum theory reemerges as a still-important baseline in our search for an adequate understanding of quantum theory.

Philosophy of Science•Jun 1, 1971•7 citations

Discussion: comments on comments on comments: a reply to Margenau and Wigner

Hilary Putnam

The Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ (1962) on my ‘Comments on the Paper of David Sharp’ (Putnam, 1961; Sharp, 1961) is a strange document. First the authors say, in effect, ‘had anything been wrong (with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics) we should certainly have heard’. Then they issue various obiter dicta (e.g. the ‘cut between observer and object’ is unavoidable in quantum mechanics; the – highly subjectivistic – London-Bauer treatment of quantum mechanics is described, along with von Neumann's book, as ‘the most compact and explicit formulation of the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics’). My assumption 2 (that the whole universe is a system) is described as ‘not supportable’, because ‘the measurement is an interaction between the object and the observer’. The ‘object’ (the closed system) cannot include the observer. The issues involved in this discussion are fundamental ones. I believe that the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics today is as unhealthy as the conceptual structure of the calculus was at the time Berkeley's famous criticism was issued. For this reason – as much to emphasize the seriousness of the present situation in the foundations of quantum mechanics as to remove confusions that may be left in the mind of the general reader upon reading the Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ – I intend to restate the main points of my previous ‘Comments’, and to show in detail why the Margenau and Wigner remarks fail completely to meet them.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 30, 1979•18 citations

Against Krips' Resolution of Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics

Clifford Alan Hooker

Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1971•3 citations

On the solution of the EPR paradox and the explanation of the violation of Bell's inequality

Gyula Bene

A new interpretation offers a consistent conceptual basis for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox is solved and the violation of Bell's inequality is explained by maintaining realism, inductive inference and Einstein separability.

arXiv:quant-ph/9708045•Aug 27, 1997•1 citation

Concerning Einstein's, Podolsky's, and Rosen's Objection to Quantum Theory

C. A. Hooker

Professor J. Jauch, in his recent book, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, claims to resolve the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Jauch's approach is representative of that adopted by the majority of physicists. I argue that, although Jauch does exhibit a consistent quantum formalism for dealing with situations of the type involved in the original paradox, that formalism, so far from doing away with the paradox, serves only to highlight the difficulties of providing an acceptable physical understanding of it. The paradox must remain, therefore, as a central clue in the search for a more adequate understanding of quantum theory.

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1970•16 citations
Mr. Sharp's resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is, in my opinion, the right one. However, the resolution does not in my opinion show that “God's in his heaven; all's right with the world (quantum mechanics).” This is in no way a criticism of Sharp; rather, it is inevitable that any resolution of this paradox, dealing as it does with the quantum mechanical concept of “measurement”, must tangle with some of the real difficulties which are lurking in the notion. The purpose of these comments is to use Mr. Sharp's remarks as a basis for bringing out one of the serious conceptual difficulties connected with measurement.
Despite the spectacular success of quantum mechanics (QM) over the last 80 years in explaining phenomena observed at the atomic and subatomic level, the conceptual status of the theory is still a topic of lively controversy. Most of the discussion centers around two famous paradoxes (or, as some would have it, pseudoparadoxes) associated, respectively, with the names of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and with Schrodinger's cat. In this Viewpoint, I will concentrate on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat or, as it is often known (to my mind somewhat misleadingly), the quantum measurement paradox.
D. H. Sharp has recently argued that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen failed to make good their claim that elementary quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality. Sharp expounds in detail three criticisms (a fourth is mentioned) which focus largely on formal features of the quantum theory. I argue, on grounds centered largely in our search for an adequatephysical understandingof the micro domain, that each of these criticisms must be rejected. The original criticism of quantum theory reemerges as a still-important baseline in our search for an adequate understanding of quantum theory.
The Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ (1962) on my ‘Comments on the Paper of David Sharp’ (Putnam, 1961; Sharp, 1961) is a strange document. First the authors say, in effect, ‘had anything been wrong (with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics) we should certainly have heard’. Then they issue various obiter dicta (e.g. the ‘cut between observer and object’ is unavoidable in quantum mechanics; the – highly subjectivistic – London-Bauer treatment of quantum mechanics is described, along with von Neumann's book, as ‘the most compact and explicit formulation of the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics’). My assumption 2 (that the whole universe is a system) is described as ‘not supportable’, because ‘the measurement is an interaction between the object and the observer’. The ‘object’ (the closed system) cannot include the observer. The issues involved in this discussion are fundamental ones. I believe that the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics today is as unhealthy as the conceptual structure of the calculus was at the time Berkeley's famous criticism was issued. For this reason – as much to emphasize the seriousness of the present situation in the foundations of quantum mechanics as to remove confusions that may be left in the mind of the general reader upon reading the Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ – I intend to restate the main points of my previous ‘Comments’, and to show in detail why the Margenau and Wigner remarks fail completely to meet them.
Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.
Professor J. Jauch, in his recent book, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, claims to resolve the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Jauch's approach is representative of that adopted by the majority of physicists. I argue that, although Jauch does exhibit a consistent quantum formalism for dealing with situations of the type involved in the original paradox, that formalism, so far from doing away with the paradox, serves only to highlight the difficulties of providing an acceptable physical understanding of it. The paradox must remain, therefore, as a central clue in the search for a more adequate understanding of quantum theory.