Epr

&
Foundations of Physics 22 (3):313-332 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We present an exegesis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, and defend it against the critique in Fine. (1) We contend,contra Fine, that it compares favorably with an argument reconstructed by him from a letter by Einstein to Schrödinger; and also with one given by Einstein in a letter to Popper. All three arguments turn on a dubious assumption of “separability,” which accords separate elements of reality to space-like separated systems. We discuss how this assumption figures in the literature spawned by the Bell inequalities

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1007/bf01883898

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

The physics of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.B. H. Kellett - 1977 - Foundations of Physics 7 (9-10):735-757.
Logical refutation of the EPR argument.Oscar Chavoya-Aceves - 2013 - Physics Essays 26:21-23.
Non-separability Does Not Relieve the Problem of Bell’s Theorem.Joe Henson - 2013 - Foundations of Physics 43 (8):1008-1038.
The Einstein-podolsky-Rosen argument and the bell inequalities.László E. Szabó - unknown
On the formal connection of the Einstein-podolsky-Rosen argument to quantum mechanics and reality.Daniel Schoch - 1988 - Erkenntnis 29 (2):269 - 278.
The Einstein-podolsky-Rosen paradox re-examined.David H. Sharp - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (3):225-233.
Einstein, Incompleteness, and the Epistemic View of Quantum States.Nicholas Harrigan & Robert W. Spekkens - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (2):125-157.
Einstein and EPR.Robert Deltete & Reed Guy - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (3):377-397.
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities.László E. Szabó - 2007 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory.Arthur Fine - 1986 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Separability of Quantum States vs. Original Bell (1964) Inequalities.Marek Żukowski - 2006 - Foundations of Physics 36 (4):541-545.
Reexamination of the arguments of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.P. A. Moldauer - 1974 - Foundations of Physics 4 (2):195-205.
Separable hidden variables theory to explain Einstein-podolsky-Rosen paradox.S. V. Bhave - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):467-475.
The Einstein-podolsky-Rosen argument in quantum theory.Arthur Fine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
109 (#156,255)

6 months
4 (#678,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Alan Hajek
Australian National University
Jeffrey Bub
University of Maryland, College Park

Citations of this work

A philosopher's understanding of quantum mechanics. Possibilities and impossibilities of a modal interpretation.T. Placek - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (4):739-744.
Three principles leading to the bell inequalities.Gábor Hofer-Szabó - 2016 - Belgrade Philosophical Annual 29:57-66.
Causal Independence in EPR Arguments.Jeremy Butterfield - 1990 - PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990 (1):213-225.
Bearers of properties in the quantum mechanical description of nature.Allen Dotson & Henry Folse - 1994 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8 (3):179 – 194.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The philosophy of quantum mechanics.Max Jammer - 1974 - New York,: Wiley. Edited by Max Jammer.
The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory.Arthur Fine - 1986 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references