Logical refutation of the EPR argument

Physics Essays 26:21-23 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

On the grounds that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument is an example of reasoning by reductio ad absurdum, and that a counterexample is unacceptable, unless all its elements meet all the necessary conditions, its conclusions are invalidated. The arguments in this paper are strictly logical. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen made a mathematical assumption that is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Einstein and EPR.Robert Deltete & Reed Guy - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (3):377-397.
The Einstein-podolsky-Rosen argument in quantum theory.Arthur Fine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Einstein-podolsky-Rosen paradox re-examined.David H. Sharp - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (3):225-233.
Quantum logic, conditional probability, and interference.Jeffrey Bub - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (3):402-421.
Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR.Robert Clifton, Constantine Pagonis & Itamar Pitowsky - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992 (Volume One: Contributed Papers):114 - 128.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
809 (#17,977)

6 months
57 (#74,098)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Oscar Chavoya Aceves
Glendale Community College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references