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

Principia an international journal of epistemology

Did bohr succeed in defending the completeness of quantum mechanics?

K Morita

Published Apr 28, 2020• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.

DOI
10.5007/1808-1711.2020v24n1p51

Related papers

Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered incomplete?

Gilles Brassard A, André Allan Méthot

In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701001•Dec 30, 2006•3 citations

ALGEBRAIC WAY OF SIMULTANEOUSLY ANALYZING BOTH EINSTEIN, PODOLSKY AND ROSEN PAPER AND BOHR'S REPLY TO IT

Nakka Gurappa

In their celebrated paper titled Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) showed for the first time the existence of `Spooky action-at-a-distance'. Though the result of their paper is unquestionable, but the conclusion of the same became sensational because of its challenge to quantum mechanical formalism whether it's complete or not in describing the physical reality of Nature. Bohr's physical and philosophical reply to that conclusion justified the completeness of quantum mechanics. Here, a simple algebraic way is presented for the results of these two classic papers in such a way that the actual reason behind why quantum world necessarily exhibits the action-at-a-distance and how Bohr defended against the incompleteness of the quantum formalism will become clear.This approach naturally reveals what physical assumption of EPR went wrong while considering the entangled quantum system and also provides the missing mathematical argument in Bohr's reply.

•Jan 1, 2018•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

Neglecting non-locality: the response to EPR

Kristian Camilleri

Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.

The European Physical Journal H•Aug 12, 2026•0 citations

Is reality really real?

Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

Abstract The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 through a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) when they argued about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, the EPR argument about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to it, are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and the answer was nothing what Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell–CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling result that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and that the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics is presented.

•Sep 14, 2023•0 citations

CAN QUANTUM-MECHANICAL DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE?

Gilles Brassard A, André Allan Méthot

In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.

International Journal of Quantum Information•Feb 1, 2006•8 citations
This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.
In their celebrated paper titled Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) showed for the first time the existence of `Spooky action-at-a-distance'. Though the result of their paper is unquestionable, but the conclusion of the same became sensational because of its challenge to quantum mechanical formalism whether it's complete or not in describing the physical reality of Nature. Bohr's physical and philosophical reply to that conclusion justified the completeness of quantum mechanics. Here, a simple algebraic way is presented for the results of these two classic papers in such a way that the actual reason behind why quantum world necessarily exhibits the action-at-a-distance and how Bohr defended against the incompleteness of the quantum formalism will become clear.This approach naturally reveals what physical assumption of EPR went wrong while considering the entangled quantum system and also provides the missing mathematical argument in Bohr's reply.
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.
Abstract The 1935 Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paper, “Can Quantum–Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, stands as a landmark in the foundational debates over quantum mechanics. While the paper has since become one of Einstein’s most cited works, it initially received little attention, and the feature of non-locality, which was central to the argument in the paper, was largely neglected for decades. In this paper, I offer two reasons for this early neglect of non-locality in the immediate aftermath of EPR. First, early responses to the EPR paper defended the completeness of quantum mechanics by reformulating the thought experiment the authors had presented, thereby obscuring the feature of quantum mechanics the authors had wished to highlight. Bohr’s influential reply, for instance, substituted the specific thought experiment presented by EPR with the two-slit experiment, thus suppressing the entanglement between spatially separated systems. A second reason for the marginalization of non-locality was the tendency to see Einstein’s critique of quantum mechanics as proceeding from a commitment to determinism, though this in fact played no role in the EPR paper or in his later writings and correspondence. This paper argues that the failure to recognize non-locality was partly a result of the rhetorical manoeuvring by EPR’s critics, but also to a broader philosophical climate dominated by concerns over determinism, which effectively eclipsed all other conceptual issues, Only with Bell’s theorem in the 1960s did non-locality return as a serious focus of foundational inquiry.
Abstract The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 through a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) when they argued about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, the EPR argument about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to it, are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and the answer was nothing what Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell–CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling result that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and that the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics is presented.
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.