Reconsidering Bohr's reply to EPR

Hans Halvorson, Rob Clifton

备注：: 24 pages, LaTeX; Contribution to NATO Advanced Research Workshop "Modality, Probability, and Bell's Theorems", Cracow, Poland, August 19-23, 2001
发表信息：: In Non-locality and Modality, edited by T. Placek and J. Butterfield. Kluwer (2002), pp. 3-18.

英文摘要：

Although Bohr's reply to the EPR argument is supposed to be a watershed moment in the development of his philosophy of quantum theory, it is difficult to find a clear statement of the reply's philosophical point. Moreover, some have claimed that the point is simply that Bohr is a radical positivist. In this paper, we show that such claims are unfounded. In particular, we give a mathematically rigorous reconstruction of Bohr's reply to the \emph{original} EPR argument that clarifies its logical structure, and which shows that it does not rest on questionable philosophical assumptions. Rather, Bohr's reply is dictated by his commitment to provide "classical" and "objective" descriptions of experimental phenomena.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。

阅读原文

阅读 PDF ↗

arXiv 页面 ↗HTML 原文 ↗

本文内容

英文摘要相关论文

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。

继续探索

相关论文

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

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.

2001-02-09quant-ph

Nonlocality and Bohr's reply to EPR

Henry Stapp's commentary (quant-ph/9711060) does not capture the point I was trying to make in my essay (quant-ph/9711052) on how a subtle flaw in his ``proof of quantum nonlocality'' clearly illustrates a central issue in Bohr's reply to EPR. I therefore wish to emphasize what I do and do not say in that essay and even, with some trepidation, what Bohr did and did not say in his reply to EPR.

1997-12-01quant-ph

Reconstructing Bohr's Reply to EPR in Algebraic Quantum Theory

Halvorson and Clifton have given a mathematical reconstruction of Bohr's reply to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), and argued that this reply is dictated by the two requirements of classicality and objectivity for the description of experimental data, by proving consistency between their objectivity requirement and a contextualized version of the EPR reality criterion which had been introduced by Howard in his earlier analysis of Bohr's reply. In the present paper, we generalize the above consistency theorem, with a rather elementary proof, to a general formulation of EPR states applicable …

2011-11-26math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Nonlocality and Bohr's Reply to EPR

David Mermin's recent paper with the same title as this one makes it clear that his claim to have found a gap in my reasoning rests on his claim that my argument violates a criterion for meaningfulness of counterfactual statements that I myself had set down. I set down no such requirement. But I am willing to accept it as a conservative sufficient condition. This already entails, within my proof, that nature must have a deep structure that extends beyond what actually occurs. It imposes, without appeal to the notion of determinism or hidden variables, constraints connecting, at the macroscopic…

1997-12-17quant-ph

Stop making sense of Bell's theorem and nonlocality? A reply to Stephen Boughn

In a recent paper [arXiv:1703.11003] on this journal Stephen Boughn argued that quantum mechanics does not require nonlocality of any kind and that the common interpretation of Bell theorem as a nonlocality result is based on a misunderstanding. In this note I argue that the Boughn arguments, that summarize views widespread in certain areas of the foundations of quantum mechanics, are based on an incorrect reading of the presuppositions of the EPR argument and the Bell theorem and, as a consequence, are totally unfounded.

2017-05-03quant-ph

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problema…

2015-03-24physics.hist-phquant-ph

更多相关论文收起更多论文

Quantum discord is Bohr's notion of non-mechanical disturbance introduced in his answer to EPR

By rigorously formalizing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument, and Bohr's reply, one can appreciate that both arguments were technically correct. Their opposed conclusions about the completeness of quantum mechanics hinged upon an explicit difference in their criteria for when a measurement on Alice's system can be regarded as not disturbing Bob's system. The EPR criteria allow their conclusion (incompletness) to be reached by establishing the physical reality of just a single observable $q$ (not a conjugate pair $q$ and $p$), but I show that Bohr's definition of disturbance prevents th…

2013-05-03physics.hist-phquant-ph

Response to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell's 1964 Paper

Wiseman has claimed that Bell was wrong in stating that determinism was inferred rather than assumed in the summary of the EPR argument in his 1964 paper. The reply of Wiseman and his co-authors to my comment misstates my reasons for disputing this point, and fails to address the central criticism that their claim is based on a seriously flawed formalization of Bell's argument deriving from an unreasonably strong interpretation of the the terms, 'influence', 'affect', and 'depend on'.

2016-08-22quant-ph

解决薛定谔对爱因斯坦-波多尔斯基-罗森悖论的分析：一个不完备性判据和弱实在元素

Resolving Schrödinger's analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: an incompleteness criterion and weak elements of reality

本文从薛定谔对EPR的回复视角出发，基于弱宏观实在论推导量子力学不完备性判据，提出薛定谔思想实验的场正交相位振幅实现方案，通过模拟阐释相关预定值的涌现，解决薛定谔提出的问题。

2024-11-30quant-ph