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

Il dibattito tra Einstein, Bohr e Schrodinger: Causalita, determinazione e azione a distanza

Gennaro Auletta

Published Jan 1, 2007• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

A formal reconstruction of EPR's argument is provided. It consists of a formal deduction, an ideal experiment, and a conclusion. Both Bohr and Schrödinger denied the conclusion of the formal deduction and of the whole argument. However, Bohr derived the negation of the reality principle whereas Schrödinger inferred the negation of the separability principle. Bohr's argument is shown to be an induction, whereas Schrödinger's one is an abduction.

Related papers

Einstein, Bohr e Schrodinger: Un esempio di dibattito filosofico-scientifico

Gennaro Auletta

Il tema di questo articolo riguarda i rapporti controversi tra Einstein e altri due padri della meccanica quantistica, Bohr e Schroedinger. Innanzitutto esporrò i principi fondamentali di questa discplina. Poi parlerò dell'esperiemento mentale di Einstein, Podolsky e Rosen e mostrerò che questi fisici hanno fatto uso nel loro articolo di una precisa forma di inferenza. Di seguito vedremo le risposte di Bohr e Schrödinger, e come esse siano paradigmatiche di altre due forme di inferenza. Infine cercherò di trarra qualche piccola conclusione.

•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations

Essential Ambiguity and Essential Influence: Rereading Bohr’s Reply to EPR

Arkady Plotnitsky

The article offers a rereading of Bohr’s reply to the argument of A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen (EPR) concerning the incompleteness, or else nonlocality, of quantum mechanics. Bohr shows EPR’s argument to be deficient on their own terms, by virtue of an ambiguity found in their application of the criterion of reality they propose to the phenomena in question. He also offers an alternative interpretation of the EPR experiment itself, the thought experiment proposed by EPR, as part of his overall interpretation of quantum mechanics as complementarity.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations

Il dibattito Einstein-Bohr 1927-1935

Arturo Agostinelli

Analisi dello scambio di idee tra Bohr e Einstein, dai congressi Solvay del 1927 e 1930, alla formulazione dell'argomento EPR.

•Jul 1, 2019•0 citations

EPR

David Wick

The third round of the Bohr-Einstein debate was conducted by way of the journals rather than in person. Five years after Bohr’s victory at the Sixth Solvay Conference, Einstein, working with two younger colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, finally achieved a sharp formulation of the argument that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. They published in the American journal The Physical Review , in 1935. As one expects in a paper bearing Einstein’s name, the argument is simple but very clever. An improvement by Schrödinger speeds up the exposition. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks•Jan 1, 1995•0 citations

An Everett Perspective on Bohr and EPR

Guido Bacciagaluppi

After summarising a previously given analysis of Bohr's reply to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), this chapter endorses the claim made by Everett himself that Everettian quantum mechanics `in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and Bohr'. On the one hand, it shows how Everett's theory provides a reconstruction of Bohr's viewpoint of complementarity as applied to the EPR case and a justi�cation of his criticism of EPR's `criterion of reality'. On the other hand, it includes a notion of physical reality that is independent of any observational context, and suggests a remaining shortcoming of Bohr's reply.

Bloomsbury Academic eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•1 citation

The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr's Reply to EPR

Michael Dickson

Recent work on Bohr's reply to EPR has helped improve our understanding of Bohr's reply, but further work is needed. In this paper I do two things towards that end. First, I make some elementary points about EPR's argument, which help to clear the air of some minor criticisms of Bohr's reply. Second, I argue that Bohr's thought experiment is a reasonable realization of EPR's argument, and I briefly suggest how to understand that experiment. I finish with a brief remark about Bohm's version of the experiment, and its relation to Bohr's.

arXiv:quant-ph/0102053•Feb 9, 2001•0 citations
A formal reconstruction of EPR's argument is provided. It consists of a formal deduction, an ideal experiment, and a conclusion. Both Bohr and Schrödinger denied the conclusion of the formal deduction and of the whole argument. However, Bohr derived the negation of the reality principle whereas Schrödinger inferred the negation of the separability principle. Bohr's argument is shown to be an induction, whereas Schrödinger's one is an abduction.
Il tema di questo articolo riguarda i rapporti controversi tra Einstein e altri due padri della meccanica quantistica, Bohr e Schroedinger. Innanzitutto esporrò i principi fondamentali di questa discplina. Poi parlerò dell'esperiemento mentale di Einstein, Podolsky e Rosen e mostrerò che questi fisici hanno fatto uso nel loro articolo di una precisa forma di inferenza. Di seguito vedremo le risposte di Bohr e Schrödinger, e come esse siano paradigmatiche di altre due forme di inferenza. Infine cercherò di trarra qualche piccola conclusione.
The article offers a rereading of Bohr’s reply to the argument of A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen (EPR) concerning the incompleteness, or else nonlocality, of quantum mechanics. Bohr shows EPR’s argument to be deficient on their own terms, by virtue of an ambiguity found in their application of the criterion of reality they propose to the phenomena in question. He also offers an alternative interpretation of the EPR experiment itself, the thought experiment proposed by EPR, as part of his overall interpretation of quantum mechanics as complementarity.
The third round of the Bohr-Einstein debate was conducted by way of the journals rather than in person. Five years after Bohr’s victory at the Sixth Solvay Conference, Einstein, working with two younger colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, finally achieved a sharp formulation of the argument that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. They published in the American journal The Physical Review , in 1935. As one expects in a paper bearing Einstein’s name, the argument is simple but very clever. An improvement by Schrödinger speeds up the exposition. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
After summarising a previously given analysis of Bohr's reply to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), this chapter endorses the claim made by Everett himself that Everettian quantum mechanics `in a certain sense bridges the positions of Einstein and Bohr'. On the one hand, it shows how Everett's theory provides a reconstruction of Bohr's viewpoint of complementarity as applied to the EPR case and a justi�cation of his criticism of EPR's `criterion of reality'. On the other hand, it includes a notion of physical reality that is independent of any observational context, and suggests a remaining shortcoming of Bohr's reply.
Recent work on Bohr's reply to EPR has helped improve our understanding of Bohr's reply, but further work is needed. In this paper I do two things towards that end. First, I make some elementary points about EPR's argument, which help to clear the air of some minor criticisms of Bohr's reply. Second, I argue that Bohr's thought experiment is a reasonable realization of EPR's argument, and I briefly suggest how to understand that experiment. I finish with a brief remark about Bohm's version of the experiment, and its relation to Bohr's.