The Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) argument aiming to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM) was opposed by most EPR's contemporary physicists and is not accepted within the standard interpretation of QM, which maintains that QM is a complete theory. An analysis of the semantic implications of the opponent positions shows that they imply different notions of truth. The introduction of a nonclassical notion of truth within the standard interpretation is usually justified by referring to known theorems that should prove that QM is a contextual and nonlocal theory. However, these theorems are based on a doubtful implicit epistemological assumption. If one renounces it, one can provide an alternative interpretation of QM that it realistic in a semantic sense. Within this interpretation the EPR viewpoint is recovered and QM is considered a (semantically) incomplete, noncontextual and local theory. Furthermore, the new interpretation provides several suggestions for constructing a more general theory embedding QM and for connecting QM with classical physics and relativity.
The Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) argument aiming to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM) was opposed by most EPR's contemporary physicists and is not accepted within the standard interpretation of QM, which maintains that QM is a complete theory. An analysis of the semantic implications of the opponent positions shows that they imply different notions of truth. The introduction of a nonclassical notion of truth within the standard interpretation is usually justified by referring to known theorems that should prove that QM is a contextual and nonlocal theory. However, these theorems are based on a doubtful implicit epistemological assumption. If one renounces it, one can provide an alternative interpretation of QM that it realistic in a semantic sense. Within this interpretation the EPR viewpoint is recovered and QM is considered a (semantically) incomplete, noncontextual and local theory. Furthermore, the new interpretation provides several suggestions for constructing a more general theory embedding QM and for connecting QM with classical physics and relativity.
The old Bohr–Einstein debate about the completeness of quantum mechanics (QM) was held on an ontological ground. The completeness problem becomes more tractable, however, if it is preliminarily discussed from a semantic viewpoint. Indeed every physical theory adopts, explicitly or not, a truth theory for its observative language, in terms of which the notions of semantic objectivity and semantic completeness of the physical theory can be introduced and inquired. In particular, standard QM adopts a verificationist theory of truth that implies its semantic nonobjectivity; moreover, we show in this paper that standard QM is semantically complete, which matches Bohr’s thesis. On the other hand, one of the authors has provided a Semantic Realism (or SR) interpretation of QM that adopts a Tarskian theory of truth as correspondence for the observative language of QM (which was previously mantained to be impossible); according to this interpretation QM is semantically objective, yet incomplete, which matches EPR’s thesis. Thus, standard QM and the SR interpretation of QM come to opposite conclusions. These can be reconciled within an integrationist perspective that interpretes non–Tarskian theories of truth as theories of metalinguistic concepts different from truth.
From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.
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.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. EPR’s (1935) argument for the incompleteness of QM turns upon the following sufficient condition: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.“ EPR apply this condition in a case where knowledge gained from measuring one quantum system allows one to predict with certainty a value for a physical quantity on another.
Assessment of Einstein's argument Is quantum mechanics complete and local … It was observed in §1.4 that Einstein's method of criticizing the orthodox view of quantum theory was to focus on examples whose special characteristics could be used to show that adherence to the completeness assumption compels one to adopt ‘unnatural theoretical interpretations’. It was a way not of disproving the conventional interpretation by attempting to locate in it some logical flaw, but of pushing it into a corner that in Einstein's view no one would seriously want to inhabit. The paper of Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (EPR) (1935) is the most famous component of this programme and the purpose of this chapter is to analyse the extent to which the arguments presented in it are compatible with the quantum theory of motion. From contemporaneous correspondence it appears that the EPR paper was written by Podolsky and that Einstein did not consider that the point which was really troubling him had been made explicit (Fine, 1986, Chap. 3). According to Einstein's accounts, EPR had the following purpose: to show that if one believes the wavefunction exhausts all the statements that can be meaningfully asserted about a physical system, then one must also accept that the real physical state of the system depends on what befalls another system with which it has previously interacted, no matter how far apart the two systems may become.
We explore the different notions of completeness applied in the EPR discussion following and amending the thorough analysis of Arthur Fine. To this aim, we propose a classification scheme for scientific theories that provides a methodology for analyzing the different levels at which interpretive approaches come into play. This allows us to contrast several concepts of completeness that operate on specific levels of the theory. We introduce the notion of theory completeness and compare it with the established notions of Born completeness, Schrödinger completeness and bijective completeness. We relate these notions to the recent concept of ψ-completeness and predictable completeness. The paper shows that the EPR argument contains conflicting versions of completeness. The confusion of these notions led to misunderstandings in the EPR debate and hindered its progress. Their clarification will thus contribute to recent debates on interpretational issues of quantum mechanics. Finally, we discuss the connection between the EPR paper and the Einstein–Rosen paper with regard to the question of completeness.