Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T05:27:11.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Robert Clifton ,
Constantine Pagonis  and
Itamar Pitowsky
Robert Clifton
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Constantine Pagonis
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Itamar Pitowsky
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Part III. Quantum Theory I
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1992 , 1992 , pp. 114 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Sections 2 and 3 of this paper clarify and extend the arguments given in Clifton (1991, Ch. 4) and Pitowsky (1991), respectively. We are especially grateful to Jeremy Butterfield and Gordon Fleming for their comments. For their generous support, Rob Clifton thanks Christ’s College and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Constantine Pagonis thanks the Arnold Gerstenberg Fund, the British Academy and Wolfson College; and Itamar Pitowsky thanks the Sidney Edelstein Center for the History and Philosophy of Science at The Hebrew University. Truly a formidable financial package.

References

Bohm, D. (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II”,Physical Review 85:166-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1989),Nature's Capacities and their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, R.K. (1991),Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics: Signalling, Counterfactuals, Probability and Causation. Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Dirac, P.A.M. (1958),The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Fourth Edition (Revised). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”,Physical Review 47 :777-780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. (1989), “Lorentz Invariant State Reductions and Localization”, inPhilosophy of Science Association 1988, Volume II, Fine, A. and Forbes, M. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 112-126.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. (1992), “The Objectivity and Invariance of Quantum Predictions”, this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973),Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986),Philosophical Papers, Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mermin, N.D. (1990), “What's Wrong With These Elements-of-Reality?”,Physics Today 43:9-11.Google Scholar
Newton, T.D. and Wigner, E.P. (1949), “Localized States for Elementary Systems”,Reviews of Modern Physics 21:400-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1991), “The Relativity of Quantum Predictions”,Physics Letters A 156: 137-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.G. (1987),Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Redhead, M.G. (1992), “Propensities, Correlations and Metaphysics”,Foundations of Physics 22: 381-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1984), “EPR: Lessons for Metaphysics”,Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9:245-255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar