arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv quant-ph/0701001quant-ph
收藏

量子力学对物理实在的描述可以被认为是不完整的吗?

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

Gilles Brassard, Andre Allan Methot

摘要:

为了纪念阿什尔·佩雷斯,我们讨论了他的论文导师和导师内森·罗森与阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦和鲍里斯·波多尔斯基在1935年写的一篇最重要和最有影响力的论文。在那篇论文中,被称为EPR的三人组质疑了量子力学的完整性。作者认为,当时的新理论不应该被认为是最终的,因为他们认为它无法描述物理现实。爱因斯坦和玻尔之间的史诗般的战斗在同年晚些时候玻尔的回应之后加剧了。三十年过去了,约翰·S。贝尔给出了一个毁灭性的证据,证明EPR论证存在致命缺陷。我们的论文的目的是对原始EPR论文进行批判性分析,并以70年前就可以完成的方式指出其逻辑缺陷,而无需等待贝尔定理。我们还提出了一个概述玻尔的反应,在利益显示它如何未能解决的EPR论点的要点。

英文摘要:

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.

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。

↑