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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Physical Reality and Quantum Mechanics

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

Published Nov 14, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This is a transcription of a typescript Kemble had appended to a letter to Margenau in 1935. In this paragraph, Kemble admits that his initial published response to EPR missed the point of their argument.
DOI
10.1017/9781139028493.028

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a reprinting of Bohr’s note to Nature advertising his forthcoming response to the EPR paper. It is very brief but contains in essence the argumentative tack Bohr would in fact employ in his full response to EPR.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations

A Discussion of the EPR Contained in Quantum Mechanical Terms without Arguments of Realities or Bell's Relations

Oreste Piccioni, Werner A. W. Mehlhop

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences•Dec 1, 1986•3 citations

The Correlation of Wave Functions with the States of Physical Systems

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a reprinting of Edwin Kemble’s 1935 reply to the EPR paper. Kemble misses EPR’s point by taking their completeness criterion to be merely an epistemic concept; Kemble himself admits as much in a letter to Einstein later that year. His original response to EPR is nevertheless of interest, as Kemble there provides an argument for a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction – a view he attributes to Slater already in a 1929 paper, but for which Kemble provides greater clarity and motivation.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations

States and Reality of Physical Systems

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a reprinting from Jammer (1974) of Podolsky’s unpublished response to Kemble’s criticisms of the EPR paper. Podolsky rightly criticises Kemble for missing the point of EPR’s argument and adds a few comments agreeing with Kemble that a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is best – yet Podolsky maintains such an interpretation is incomplete.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations

1935. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”: The EPR Experiment and Complementarity

Arkady Plotnitsky

SpringerBriefs in physics•Sep 4, 2012•1 citation

Quantum-Mechanical Description

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Elise Crull

This is a reprinting of Margenau’s response to EPR (and to some extent, his evaluation of previous responses to EPR by Bohr, Kemble and Ruark). Margenau’s contribution to the EPR debate is certainly one of the most original, no doubt at least in part due to the meaty correspondence he had with Einstein while producing it. Margenau’s main strategy in this paper is to argue against the standard collapse postulate of quantum mechanics, suggesting that the EPR argument only applies to quantum mechanics with this postulate added. He also argues against the statistical interpretation of the collapse postulate suggested by Kemble and others.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 14, 2024•0 citations
This is a reprinting of Edwin Kemble’s 1935 reply to the EPR paper. Kemble misses EPR’s point by taking their completeness criterion to be merely an epistemic concept; Kemble himself admits as much in a letter to Einstein later that year. His original response to EPR is nevertheless of interest, as Kemble there provides an argument for a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction – a view he attributes to Slater already in a 1929 paper, but for which Kemble provides greater clarity and motivation.
This is a reprinting of Margenau’s response to EPR (and to some extent, his evaluation of previous responses to EPR by Bohr, Kemble and Ruark). Margenau’s contribution to the EPR debate is certainly one of the most original, no doubt at least in part due to the meaty correspondence he had with Einstein while producing it. Margenau’s main strategy in this paper is to argue against the standard collapse postulate of quantum mechanics, suggesting that the EPR argument only applies to quantum mechanics with this postulate added. He also argues against the statistical interpretation of the collapse postulate suggested by Kemble and others.