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

Completeness in Physics

Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Richard Lawrence Norman

Published Apr 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Here it is intended to raise some questions surrounding the whole notion of completeness in physics. This does, of course, have bearing on issues raised by the well-known paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

Related papers

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen physical reality is completely described by quantum mechanics

Don Nelson Page

Physics Letters A•Aug 1, 1982•54 citations

Can Relativity be Considered Complete? From Newtonian Nonlocality to Quantum Nonlocality and Beyond

Nicolas Gisin

arXiv:quant-ph/0512168•Lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2015•30 citations

Completeness Revisited: A Temporal Resolution of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Argument

Daniel Baker

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) argument was originally posed as a challenge to the completeness of quantum mechanics, rather than its empirical adequacy. While subsequent developments—most notably Bell’s theorem and experimental tests of nonlocal correlations— have constrained classes of hidden-variable theories, they have not resolved the underlying on- tological question raised by EPR: whether the quantum state exhausts physical reality. In this paper, we revisit the EPR criterion of completeness from the perspective of a temporally grounded physical framework, the Temporal Inertia Framework (TIF). We argue that the orig- inal EPR dilemma rests on an implicit assumption that physical reality must be specified on spacelike hypersurfaces, an assumption shared by both EPR and Bohr. By relaxing this assump- tion and allowing physical correlations to arise from shared temporal structure rather than local spatial variables or superluminal influence, one may satisfy the EPR realism criterion without violating relativistic causality or Bell-type constraints. Quantum mechanics is thus interpreted as operationally complete but ontologically incomplete, with quantum indeterminacy emerging from dynamical interactions with a proposed underlying temporal structure.

•Jan 27, 2026•0 citations

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

Niels Henrik David Bohr

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1996•475 citations

L'argument Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) : Paradoxe, Alternative, Demonstration

Roussel, Pierre

The EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) argument and the Schrodinger cat paradox are revisited in relation with modern quantum optics and atomic physics and with the concept of decoherence. It is shown that the questions raised fifty years ago are still at the heart of our understanding of quantum physics today.

arXiv:quant-ph/0308170•Aug 29, 2003•0 citations

Should quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?

Luiz Carlos Ryff

Foundations of Physics•Sep 1, 1990•3 citations
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) argument was originally posed as a challenge to the completeness of quantum mechanics, rather than its empirical adequacy. While subsequent developments—most notably Bell’s theorem and experimental tests of nonlocal correlations— have constrained classes of hidden-variable theories, they have not resolved the underlying on- tological question raised by EPR: whether the quantum state exhausts physical reality. In this paper, we revisit the EPR criterion of completeness from the perspective of a temporally grounded physical framework, the Temporal Inertia Framework (TIF). We argue that the orig- inal EPR dilemma rests on an implicit assumption that physical reality must be specified on spacelike hypersurfaces, an assumption shared by both EPR and Bohr. By relaxing this assump- tion and allowing physical correlations to arise from shared temporal structure rather than local spatial variables or superluminal influence, one may satisfy the EPR realism criterion without violating relativistic causality or Bell-type constraints. Quantum mechanics is thus interpreted as operationally complete but ontologically incomplete, with quantum indeterminacy emerging from dynamical interactions with a proposed underlying temporal structure.