N. David Mermin
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.
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
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.
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, B…
Quantum trajectories are used to investigate the EPR-Bohr debate in a modern sense by examining entanglement and nonlocality. We synthesize a single "entanglement molecule" from the two scattered particles of the EPR experiment. We explicitly investigate the behavior of the entanglement molecule rather than the behaviors of the two scattered particles to gain insight into the EPR-Bohr debate. We develop the entanglement molecule's wave function in polar form and its reduced action, both of which manifest entanglement. We next apply Jacobi's theorem to the reduced action to generate the equatio…
Why Bohr was wrong in his response to EPR
本文指出玻尔1935年对EPR悖论的分析存在缺陷，并提出修正方案，证实量子力学要么不完备要么非局域。
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 …
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…
In 1930 Einstein argued against consistency of the time-energy uncertainty relation by discussing a thought experiment involving a measurement of mass of the box which emitted a photon. Bohr seemingly triumphed over Einstein by arguing that the Einstein's own general theory of relativity saves the consistency of quantum mechanics. We revisit this thought experiment from a modern point of view at a level suitable for undergraduate readership and find that neither Einstein nor Bohr was right. Instead, this thought experiment should be thought of as an early example of a system demonstrating nonl…
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…
The recent analysis of De la Torre, Daleo and Garcia-Mata of the reply of Bohr to the famous clock-in-the-box challenge of Einstein is criticized.
The support of Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the discussion concerning EPR experiments has been based fundamentally on two mistakes. First, quantum mechanics as well as hidden-variable theory give the same predictions; the statement of Belinfante from 1973 about the significant difference must be denoted as mistake. Secondly, the experimental violation of Bell's inequalities has been erroneously interpreted as excluding the hidden-variable alternative, while they have been based on assumption corresponding to classical physics. The EPR experiments cannot bring, therefore, any decision in the…
The reply of de la Torre, Daleo and Garcia-Mata [Eur. J. Phys. 23 (2002) L15-L16] to a criticism of their `demythologizing' analysis of the clock-in-the-box debate between Einstein and Bohr is commented on.
We emphasize the role of the precise correlations loophole in attempting to connect the CHSH type inequalities with the EPR-argument. The possibility to test theories with hidden variables experimentally by using such inequalities is questioned. The role of the original Bell inequality is highlighted. The interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the spirit of Bohr, as a new test of incompatibility, is presented. The positions of Bohr, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt, De Broglie, Hertz, and Boltzmann on interrelation of theory and experiment are enlightened.
The photon box thought experiment can be considered a forerunner of the EPR-experiment: by performing suitable measurements on the box it is possible to ``prepare'' the photon, long after it has escaped, in either of two complementary states. Consistency requires that the corresponding box measurements be complementary as well. At first sight it seems, however, that these measurements can be jointly performed with arbitrary precision: they pertain to different systems (the center of mass of the box and an internal clock, respectively). But this is deceptive. As we show by explicit calculation,…
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.
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 proo…
We show that the projection postulate plays a crucial role in the discussion on the so called "quantum nonlocality", in particular in the EPR-argument. We stress that the original von Neumann projection postulate was crucially modified by extending it to observables with degenerate spectra (the Lüders postulate) and we show that this modification is highly questionable from a physical point of view, and it is the real source of "quantum nonlocality". The use of the original von Neumann postulate eliminates this problem: instead of "action at the distance"-nonlocality, we obtain a classical mea…
The EPR argument points to the existence of additional variables that are necessary to complete standard quantum theory. It was dismissed by Bohr because it attributes physical reality to isolated microscopic systems, independently of the macroscopic measurement apparatus. Here, we transpose the EPR argument to macroscopic systems, assuming that they are in spatially extended Fock spin states and subject to spin measurements in remote regions of space. Bohr's refutation of the EPR argument does not seem to apply in this case, since the difference of scale between the microscopic measured syste…
A new formulation of the EPR argument is presented, one which uses John Bell's mathematically precise local causality condition in place of the looser locality assumption which was used in the original EPR paper and on which Niels Bohr seems to have based his objection to the EPR argument. The new formulation of EPR bears a striking resemblance to Bell's derivation of his famous inequalities. The relation between these two arguments -- in particular, the role of EPR as part one of Bell's two-part argument for nonlocality -- is also discussed in detail.
In a recent paper Griffiths [38] has argued, based on the consistent histories interpretation, that Hilbert space quantum mechanics (QM) is noncontextual. According to Griffiths the problem of contextuality disappears if the apparatus is "designed and operated by a competent experimentalist" and we accept the Single Framework Rule (SFR). We will argue from a representational realist stance that the conclusion is incorrect due to the misleading understanding provided by Griffiths to the meaning of quantum contextuality and its relation to physical reality and measurements. We will discuss how t…
By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr's complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement's output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics' type. Then this Bell's kind of nonlocality - {\it subquantum nonlocality} - was lifted …
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…
Without Niels Bohr, QBism would be nothing. But QBism is not Bohr. This paper attempts to show that, despite a popular misconception, QBism is no minor tweak to Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is something quite distinct. Along the way, we lay out three tenets of QBism in some detail: 1) The Born Rule---the foundation of what quantum theory means for QBism---is a normative statement. It is about the decision-making behavior any individual agent should strive for; it is not a descriptive "law of nature" in the usual sense. 2) All probabilities, including all quantum probabilities…
We analyze the question whether or not quantum theory should be used to describe single particles. Our final result is that a rational basis for such an 'individuality interpretation' does not exist. A critical examination of three principles, supporting the individuality interpretation, leads to the result that no one of these principles seems to be realized in nature. The well-known controversy characterized by the names of Einstein (EPR), Bohr and Bell is analyzed. EPR proved 'predictive incompleteness' of quantum theory, which implies that no individuality interpretation exists. Contrary t…
This note is a part of my efforts for getting rid of nonlocality from quantum mechanics (QM). Quantum nonlocality is two faced Janus, one face is Lüders projection nonlocality, another face is Bell nonlocality. This paper is devoted to disillusion of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model with hidden variables is that it straightforwardly contradicts to the Heinsenberg's uncertainty and generally Bohr's complementarity principles. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the mode…
In a recent preprint Gill and Lambare, criticize our paper published in Frontiers in Physics. Their criticism is unfounded and misleading. They define a probabilistic coupling, in which BI-CHSH hold for all finite samples. It does not mean, that BI-CHSH hold in our model, in which four incompatible experiments are described by setting dependent random variables implemented on 4 disjoint dedicated probability spaces. A joint probability distribution of these random variables does not exist and may not be used to derive inequalities. Moreover, their probabilistic coupling is useless, for a subse…
In this Einstein Year of Physics it seems appropriate to look at an important aspect of Einstein's work that is often down-played: his contribution to the debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Contrary to popular opinion, Bohr had no defence against Einstein's 1935 attack (the EPR paper) on the claimed completeness of orthodox quantum mechanics. I suggest that Einstein's argument, as stated most clearly in 1946, could justly be called Einstein's reality-locality-completeness theorem, since it proves that one of these three must be false. Einstein's instinct was that completeness o…
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。