From conceptual point of view, we argue about the nature of reality inferred from EPR argument in quantum mechanics.

In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper (...) features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise. (shrink)

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called a “Reality Criterion” imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. They concluded that there must be a more complete description of physical reality involving some hidden variables that can characterize the state of affairs in (...) the world in more detail than the quantum mechanical state. This conclusion leads to paradoxical results. -/- As Bell proved in 1964, under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion that there are hidden variables implies that, in some spin-correlation experiments, the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments since the 1970s. -/- Some researchers have interpreted this result as showing that quantum mechanics is telling us nature is non-local, that is, that particles can affect each other across great distances in a time too brief for the effect to have been due to ordinary causal interaction. Others object to this interpretation, and the problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will. (shrink)

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called a “Reality Criterion” imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. They concluded that there must be a more complete description of physical reality involving some hidden variables that can characterize the state of affairs in (...) the world in more detail than the quantum mechanical state. This conclusion leads to paradoxical results. -/- As Bell proved in 1964, under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion that there are hidden variables implies that, in some spin-correlation experiments, the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments since the 1970s. -/- Some researchers have interpreted this result as showing that quantum mechanics is telling us nature is non-local, that is, that particles can affect each other across great distances in a time too brief for the effect to have been due to ordinary causal interaction. Others object to this interpretation, and the problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will. (shrink)

More specifically, one notices that X1  X2, P1  P2  0 where X1, X2 are the position operators for the first and second particles respectively, and P1, P2 their momenta operators. This means that, in principle, one can prepare the pair of particles with simultaneously known values of X1  X2 and P1  P2. Then the knowledge of the value of P2 allows to infer the value of P1.(However, performing the experiment with these continuous variables is technically (...) impossible and it remains a thought experiment.). (shrink)

We present the possibility of a relativistic formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. We pay particular attention to the need for a reformulation of the so-called reality criterion. We introduce such a reformulation for the reality criterion due to Ghirardi and Grassi and show how it applies to the nonrelativistic EPR argument. We elaborate on Ghiradi and Grassi’s proof and explain why it cannot be circumvented. Finally, we review and summarise our own views. This is a (...) continuation of the paper by myself and Patrick La Riviere whose defects are exposed in the present work. (shrink)

This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: ψ a (r̄ 1 ,r̄ 2 )=∑ η a η (...) τ η (r̄ 1 ,r̄ 2 )=∑ i,k α ik ψ i (r̄ 1 )σ k (r̄ 2 ) (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr. (shrink)

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (1935) is reexamined in the light of Shannon’s information theory (1984). The EPR argument did not take into account that the observer’s information was localized, like any other physical object.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox as formulated in their original paper is critically examined. Their argument that quantum mechanics is incomplete is shown to be unsatisfactory on two important grounds. (i) The gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is physically unrealizable, and consequently their argument is invalid as it stands. (ii) The basic assumptions of their argument are equivalent to the assumption that quantum mechanical systems are in fact describable by unique (...) eigenfunctions of the operators corresponding to physical observables, independent of any observation or measurement. Following an argument due to Furry, it is shown that this interpretation of quantum mechanics must lead to some physical predictions at variance with those of conventional quantum mechanics. A decisive experiment has been performed by Freedman and Clauser, which rules out this interpretation, and imposes severe restrictions on any alternative theory which incorporates the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen concept of physical reality. (shrink)

Some new aspects of the EPR paradox are considered. We first show that the authors' argument, leading to the conclusion that quantum theory is incomplete, is based on a tacit assumption that may be questioned. We then investigate the non-local features of the EPR setup and point out an interesting connection between the nonlocality involved in the quantum correlations of pairs of particles and that of a single particle in quantum theory.

Verifiable physical theories can deal only with reproducible phenomena. To the extent that some objectively real aspects of quantum phenomena are inherently not reproducible, to that extent quantum theory cannot be expected to provide a complete description of reality. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued, however, that quantum mechanics does not even provide a complete description of reproducible reality. But their reasoning fails to distinguish between the “predictability” and the “predictedness” of a physical quantity. It is shown that (...) in quantum mechanics, as in classical mechanics, predictability is not affected by a nondisturbing measurement, only predictedness is affected. Since Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen define the (reproducible) reality of a quantity on the basis of its predictability, we find that the quantum mechanical description of this reproducible reality is unaffected by nondisturbing measurements and does not need to be considered incomplete. (shrink)

It is argued that formal reconstructions of the EPR-argument do not only show semantical incompleteness, but also incorrectness of quantum mechanics together with the projection postulate. The latter has to be rejected because it contradicts Schrödinger's equation. A logical analogon to the problem is given.

Assuming that future experiments confirm Aspect's discovery of nonlocal interactions between quantum pairs of correlated particles, we analyze the constraints imposed by the EPR reasoning on the said interactions. It is then shown that the nonlocal relativistic quantum potential approach plainly satisfies the Einstein causality criteria as well as the energy-momentum conservation in individual microprocesses. Furthermore, this approach bypasses a new causal paradox for timelike separated EPR measurements deduced by Sutherland in the frame of an approach by means of (...) space-time zigzags with advanced potentials. It is finally demonstrated that this inherent quantum causal direct interaction establishes permanent EPR correlations which are always restricted to spacelike separations and are instantaneous only in the center-of-mass rest frame of the two-particle system. (shrink)

It is shown that unavoidable uncertainties arising from the experimental conditions in which systems are prepared for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments severely limit the possibilities for prediction. In the example originally proposed by EPR, time measurements are necessary for precise position predictions. If the preparation is designed to make the timing errors negligible, the parameters chosen for the preparation fix minimum uncertainties in the predictions leaving the observer no choice in the matter. In the case of correlated spin measurements, (...) the preparation leaves the observer no control over the effect of the detector on the particles; the uncertainty of the previous condition of any one particle is so large that no (classical) prediction of the response of another detector is possible. Thus, there are as yet no proposed experiments which satisfy the conditions required by EPR—i.e., precise predictions which violate the uncertainty principle. (shrink)

A method is given to determine whether or not the distribution functions describing the two spin measurements in the spin-s Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment are compatible with the existence of distributions describing three spin measurements (not all of which can actually be performed). When applied to the spin-1/2 case the method gives the results of Wigner, or of Clauser, Holt, Horne, and Shimony, depending on whether or not the two-spin distributions are assumed to have the forms given by the (...) quantum theory. Generalizations of the conditions of Wigner or of Clauser et al. to the spin-1 case are explicitly calculated. The spin-3/2 case is examined in some simple geometries to show that an apparently monotonic trend toward local realism as s increases from1/2 to1 is, in fact, violated when s increases from1 to3/2. The analysis is based on a novel representation of the modulus squared of a rotation matrix element. The structure of that matrix element responsible for the restoration of local realism in the classical (large s) limit is identified, but a rigorous treatment of the classical limit is not attempted. The higher-spin results are significantly stronger than those given by Mermin's spin-s Bell inequality. (shrink)

Bose-Einstein statistics may be characterized in terms of multinomial distribution. From this characterization, an information theoretic analysis is made for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen like situation; using Shannon’s measure of entropy.

Since weakly decaying particles are their own polarimeters, reactions like $\eta _c \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda , \psi \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda ,e^ + e^ - \to \mu ^ + \mu ^ -$ , etc. are interesting for testing the non-locality of quantum mechanical predictions. Although such reactions, in principle, do not exclude all classes of hidden variable theories, they can be used to complement current experiments with external polarimeters. The reaction $\eta _c \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda \to \pi ^ (...) - p\pi ^{ + - } \bar p$ is conceptually the simplest and most useful as agedanken experiment, although it has not yet been seen experimentally. The reaction $e^ + e^ - \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda \to \pi ^ - p\pi ^ + \bar p$ near threshold or at the φ resonance can be used for essentially the same test. This is feasible with presently available data and would be the first EPR experiment involving weak interactions. (shrink)

According to the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, one can precisely define the state of an individual particle in a many-body system by its position, momentum, and spin. It is shown in the EPR spin experiment that the quantum torque brings about an instantaneous change in the state of one of the particles when the other undergoes a local interaction, but that such a transfer of “information” cannot be extracted by any experiment subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

It follows from Bell’s theorem and quantum mechanics that the detection of a particle of an entangled pair can (somehow) “force” the other distant particle of the pair into a well-defined state (which is equivalent to a reduction of the state vector): no property previously shared by the particles can explain the predicted quantum correlations. This result has been corroborated by experiment, although some loopholes still remain. However, it has not been experimentally proved—and it is far from obvious—that the absence (...) of detection, as in null-result (NR) experiments could have the very same effect. In this paper a way to try to bridge this gap is suggested. (shrink)

The EPR problem is studied both from an instrumentalistic and from a realistic point of view. Bohr's reply to the EPR paper is analyzed and demonstrated to be not completely representative of Bohr's general views on the possibility of defining properties of a microscopic object. A more faithful Bohrian answer would not have led Einstein to the conclusion that Bohr's completeness claim of quantum mechanics implies nonlocality. The projection postulate, already denounced in 1936 by Margenau as the source of (...) the EPR paradox, is found to be also at the origin of the nonlocality conundrum. Its unobservability in EPR-like experiments is demonstrated, thus showing the redundancy of the idea of nonlocality in the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is argued that also from a realist point of view there is no reason to assume nonlocality. The relevance of Bohm's quantum potential and of Bell's inequalities with respect to the (non)locality problem is discussed. (shrink)

We construct an event-based computer simulation model of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments with photons. The algorithm is a one-to-one copy of the data gathering and analysis procedures used in real laboratory experiments. We consider two types of experiments, those with a source emitting photons with opposite but otherwise unpredictable polarization and those with a source emitting photons with fixed polarization. In the simulation, the choice of the direction of polarization measurement for each detection event is arbitrary. We use (...) three different procedures to identify pairs of photons and compute the frequency of coincidences by analyzing experimental data and simulation data. The model strictly satisfies Einstein’s criteria of local causality, does not rely on any concept of quantum theory and reproduces the results of quantum theory for both types of experiments. We give a rigorous proof that the probabilistic description of the simulation model yields the quantum theoretical expressions for the single- and two-particle expectation values. (shrink)

We formulate a model of EPR experiments by including variables determining whether a photon will be detected or not. The resulting deterministic model satisfies Bell's original inequality even though it can agree exactly with the quantum mechanical predictions for the performed experiments. It violates variations of the inequality used in the interpretation of the experiments and deduced with the help of additional assumptions.

The violation of Bell inequalities by quantum physical experiments disproves all relativistic micro causal, classically real models, short Local Realistic Models (LRM). Non-locality, the infamous “spooky interaction at a distance” (A. Einstein), is already sufficiently ‘unreal’ to motivate modifying the “realistic” in “local realistic”. This has led to many worlds and finally many minds interpretations. We introduce a simple many world model that resolves the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. The model starts out as a classical LRM, (...) thus clarifying that the many worlds concept alone does not imply quantum physics. Some of the desired ‘non-locality’, e.g. anti-correlation at equal measurement angles, is already present, but Bell’s inequality can of course not be violated. A single and natural step turns this LRM into a quantum model predicting the correct probabilities. Intriguingly, the crucial step does obviously not modify locality but instead reality: What before could have still been a direct realism turns into modal realism. This supports the trend away from the focus on non-locality in quantum mechanics towards a mature structural realism that preserves micro causality. (shrink)

D. H. Sharp has recently argued that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen failed to make good their claim that elementary quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality. Sharp expounds in detail three criticisms (a fourth is mentioned) which focus largely on formal features of the quantum theory. I argue, on grounds centered largely in our search for an adequate physical understanding of the micro domain, that each of these criticisms must be rejected. The original criticism (...) of quantum theory reemerges as a still-important baseline in our search for an adequate understanding of quantum theory. (shrink)

Most of the nearly innumerable attempts to provide for a sound understanding of the gedanken experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) contain additional ideas, notions or features imposed on pioneer or traditional quantum mechanics (TQM). In the present paper the problem is analyzed without employing any new or philosophically contested concept. We do even without referring to the probability calculus, and we especially avoid any admixture of realistic ideas. Neither entanglement nor special features of “states” are (...) used. Instead, formulating strictly within the framework of TQM and using an ensemble approach, the crucial point is boiled down to the decision between separability and non-separability. The corresponding second-order correlation functions Δs and Δn−s, resp., which predict the experimental outcome, may differ by a factor of 2 if certain operator pairs are maximally non-commuting. Even in the case of commuting pairs, an experimentally relevant difference between the Δ-functions might exist. Taking into account the experimental evidence, it is unavoidable to accept that the sub-ensembles involved in EPR-type experiments are in fact non-separable. This result has been obtained without resort to Bell's inequality. (shrink)

A realist separable hidden variables theory in conformity with Einstein's principle of causality is developed in this paper to explain the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and the experimental results (including those in Aspect's four polarizers experiment) obtained so far with a view to test the non-separability of quantum mechanics.

RésuméSoixante‐cinq ans après sa publication, la controverse que l'article #Einstein, Podolsky et Rosen suscita à propos de I'image de l'univers physique suggérée par le formalisme de la théorié quantique n'est pas close. Elle oppose une minorité«localiste», petit cercle de physiciens réalistes partisans de la localitéd’ Einstein, á une majorité«non localisten» adepte – non uniformément, cependant – des prédictions non locales de la thhrie quantique et de l'Interprétation dite positiviste de Copenhague érigée principalement sur la philosophie de (...) Bohr et de Heisenberg.Les arguments, les modèles avands par des physiciens de ces deux camps philosophiques et les tests expkrimentaux, passb ou futurs, destinb depuis les InBgalités de Bell à trancher cette controverse sont présidera à la lumière de I'enjeu percu par une minorité d'entre eux: quelle définition du réalisme physique: Locale on non‐locale, présidera à la construction de l'«image du monde», requise par la théorie quantique? (shrink)

Einstein Versus Bohr is unlike other books on science written by experts for non-experts, because it presents the history of science in terms of problems, conflicts, contradictions, and arguments. Science normally "keeps a tidy workshop." Professor Sachs breaks with convention by taking us into the theoretical workshop, giving us a problem-oriented account of modern physics, an account that concentrates on underlying concepts and debate. The book contains mathematical explanations, but it is so-designed that the whole argument can be (...) followed with the math omitted. Professor Sachs' story begins with classical and nineteenth century physics, describes the early discoveries in particle theory, and introduces the "old" quantum theory, which evolved into the quantum mechanics of the Copenhagen School. Such important ideas as the Einstein Photon Box experiment and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, and Schrodinger's Cat Paradox are clearly expounded, followed by a completely fresh explanation of relativity in conceptual terms, showing how apparent paradoxes can be removed by Einstein's own interpretation, especially that of his later years. Professor Sachs gives a detailed comparison of the fundamentals of the quantum and relativity theories, suggesting how the contradictions might be resolved. In an epilogue, he makes suggestions, with reference to religious notions, Taoism, and Buber's theory of I-Thou, for generalizing Einstein's approach beyond physics. (shrink)

RésuméSoixante‐cinq ans après sa publication, la controverse que l'article #Einstein, Podolsky et Rosen suscita à propos de I'image de l'univers physique suggérée par le formalisme de la théorié quantique n'est pas close. Elle oppose une minorité«localiste», petit cercle de physiciens réalistes partisans de la localitéd’ Einstein, á une majorité«non localisten» adepte – non uniformément, cependant – des prédictions non locales de la thhrie quantique et de l'Interprétation dite positiviste de Copenhague érigée principalement sur la philosophie de (...) Bohr et de Heisenberg.Les arguments, les modèles avands par des physiciens de ces deux camps philosophiques et les tests expkrimentaux, passb ou futurs, destinb depuis les InBgalités de Bell à trancher cette controverse sont présidera à la lumière de I'enjeu percu par une minorité d'entre eux: quelle définition du réalisme physique: Locale on non‐locale, présidera à la construction de l'«image du monde», requise par la théorie quantique? (shrink)

Quite often the compatibility of the EPR correlations with the relativity theory has been questioned; it has been stated that “the first in time of two correlated measurements instantaneously collapses the other subsystem”; it has been suggested that a causal asymmetry is built into the Feynman propagator. However, the EPR transition amplitude, as derived from the S matrix, is Lorentz andCPT invariant; the correlation formula is symmetric in the two measurements irrespective of their time ordering, so that the link of (...) the correlations is the Feynman zigzag, and that causality isCPT invariant at the microlevel; finally, although the Feynman propagator has theP andCT symmetries, no causal asymmetry follows from that. As for Stapp's views concerning “process” and “becoming,” and his Whiteheadean concept of an advancing front, I object that they belong to “factlike macrophysics,” and are refuted at the microlevel by the EPR phenomenology, which displays direct Fokker-like space-time connections. The reason for this is a radical one. The very blending of a space-time picture and of a probability calculus is a paradox. The only adequate paradigm is one denying objectivity to space-time—but this, of course, is also required by the complementary of the x and the k pictures, which only “look” compatible at the macrolevel. Therefore, the classical “objectivity” must yield in favor of “intersubjectivity.” Only the macroscopic preparing and measuring devices have “factlike” objectivity; the “transition” of the “quantal system” takes place beyond both thex and thek 4-spaces. Then, the intrinsic symmetries between retarded and advanced waves, and statistical prediction and retrodiction, entails that the future has no less (but no more) existence than the past. It is the future that is significant in “creative process,” the “elementary” forms of which should be termed “precognition” or “psychokinesis”—respectively symmetric to the factlike taboos that “we can neither know into the future nor act into the past.” It is gratifying that Robert Jahn, at the Engineering School of Princeton University, is conducting (after others) conclusive experiments demonstrating “low level psychokinesis”—a phenomenon implied by the very symmetry of the negentropy-information transition. So, what pierces the veil of “maya” is the (rare) occurrence of “paranormal phenomena.” The essential severance between “act” and “potentia” is not a spacelike advancing front, but the “out of” and the “into” factlike space-time. Finally, I do not feel that an adequate understanding of the EPR phenomenology requires going beyond the present status of relativistic quantum mechanics. Rather, I believe that the potentialities of this formalism have not yet been fully exploited. (shrink)

A la différence de plusieurs interprétations de la mécanique quantique basées sur la phénoménologie de l'expérimentation macroscopique, celle-ci repose exclusivement sur le formalisme de la mécanique quantique relativiste lui-même. On y assimile le concept de causalité à celui d'une probabilité conditionnelle ayant deux traits spécifiques : « non-séparabilité » des occurrences au sens du calcul quantique des probabilités ; invariance sous les rotations et les retournements d'axes du référentiel spatio-temporel cartésien, impliquant une réversibilité cause-effet. Unlike various interpretations of quantum mechanics (...) based upon the phenomenology of macroscopic experimentation, this one rests entirely upon the formalism of relativistic quantum mechanics per se. The concept of causality is likened to that of a conditional probability endowed with two specific features : « non-separability » of occurrences in the sense of the quantal calculus of probabilities ; invariance under rotations and reversals of axes of the spatiotemporal Cartesian reference frame, entailing cause-effect reversibility. (shrink)

The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, (...) in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments2.1 Standard EPRB2.2 Sideways EPRB2.3 Comparing the experiments2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations3.1 The action symmetry3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III7.1 The free will argument7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective. (shrink)

A closer look at some proposed Gedanken-experiments on BECs promises to shed light on several aspects of reduction and emergence in physics. These include the relations between classical descriptions and different quantum treatments of macroscopic systems, and the emergence of new properties and even new objects as a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

b>: Replacing faulty nineteenth century physics by its orthodox quantum successor converts the earlier materialist conception of nature to a structure that does not enforce the principle of the causal closure of the physical. The quantum laws possess causal gaps, and these gaps are filled in actual scientific practice by inputs from our streams of consciousness. The form of the quantum laws permits and suggests the existence of an underlying reality that is built not on substances, but on psychophysical events, (...) and on objective tendencies for these events to occur. These events constitute intrinsic mind-brain connections. They are fundamental links between brain processes described in physical terms and events in our streams of consciousness. This quantum ontology confers upon our conscious intentions the causal efficacy assigned to them in actual scientific practice, and creates a substance- free interactive dualism. This putative quantum ontology has previously been shown to have impressive explanatory power in both psychology and neuroscience. Here it is used to reconcile the existence of physically efficacious conscious free will with causal anomalies of both the Libet and Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky types. (shrink)

The goal of the dissertation is, first, to develop in the tradition of conventional quantum mechanics what I call a propensity view of quantum properties, and to examine its coherence. Conventional quantum mechanics assumes the completeness of quantum mechanics. Taking the ontic version of the completeness assumption, which says that a state vector completely describes an individual quantum system as it is, I argue that the propensity view of quantum properties, i.e., the attribution of certain irreducible propensities to a quantum (...) system, is not only demanded but also can be coherently maintained. ;Second, I evaluate the relation between a propensity view of quantum properties and the demands of Einstein's program of realism, the backbone of which is the requirement that physical systems, as described by a theory, have properties independently of measurement. In doing so, I argue for a non-relational version of the quantum propensity view, which amounts to attributions propensities to individual quantum systems, and claim that conventional quantum mechanics together with the non-relational propensity view of quantum properties realizes physical realism, which is a particular version of Einstein's realist thesis and which reads that a physical system, as described by a theory, has at least some of its extrinsic properties independently of measurement. ;Third, quantum mechanics, in spite of its empirical success, has suffered from certain well-known conceptual puzzles, viz., the measurement problem and the problem of nonlocality as it arises in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. So we ask whether the propensity view of quantum properties can help us the resolve these problems. I argue that the so-called reduction of the wave packet is the source of both problems and suggest that there is a sense in which the propensity view of quantum properties explains the reduction of the wave packet and its nonlocal nature. On the other hand, the propensity view by itself fails to resolve the question of when or in what circumstances the reduction of the wave packet occurs, indicating that we do not as yet possess a complete understanding of quantum propensities. (shrink)

The empirical validity of the locality (LOC) principle of relativity is used to argue in favour of a local hidden variable theory (HVT) for individual quantum processes. It is shown that such a HVT may reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics (QM), provided the reproducibility of initial hidden variable states is limited. This means that in a HVT limits should be set to the validity of the notion of counterfactual definiteness (CFD). This is supported by the empirical evidence that (...) past, present, and future are basically distinct. Our argumentation is contrasted with a recent one by Stapp resulting in the opposite conclusion, i.e. nonlocality or the existence of faster-than-light influences. We argue that Stapp’s argumentation still depends in an implicit, but crucial, way on both the notions of hidden variables and of CFD. In addition, some implications of our results for the debate between Bohr and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are discussed. (shrink)

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm (EPRB) experiment performed with random variable and spatially separated analyzers is a milestone test in the controversy between Objective Local Theories (OLT) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). Only a few OLT are still possible. Some of the surviving OLT (specifically, the so called non-ergodic theories) would be undetectable in the averaged statistical values, but they may leave their trace in the time dynamics. For, while QM predicts random processes, the OLT of this kind predict the existence (...) of regularities that may be revealed as a low dimensional object in the phase space. We perform a numerical analysis of the time-resolved data recorded in that experiment to unveil any hypothetical low dimensional dynamics that may be present. We find no consistent indication of such dynamics except for one data file, the longest of all in the real time. The possible causes of these dynamics are discussed. (shrink)

A formulation by Einstein of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen incompleteness argument found in his scientific manuscripts is presented and briefly commented on. It is the only known version in which Einstein discussed the argument for spin observables. The manuscript dates, in all probability, from late 1954 or early 1955 and hence also represents Einstein's latest version of the incompleteness argument and one of his last statements on quantum theory in general. A puzzling formulation (...) raises the question of Einstein's interpretation of space quantization and the non-classical spin degree of freedom. (shrink)

Niels Bohr was born on October 7, 1885. He was one of the great innovators in physical science in the twentieth century. It so happens that 1985 also marks fifty years since the long discussions, which had begun in the 1920s between Albert Einstein and Bohr on the philosophical problems of quantum physics, attained their apogee. An article co-authored by Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, "Can Quantum Mechanics Be Considered a Complete Description of Physical Reality?," (...) was published in 1935 in the journal Physical Review. According to Bohr, "by virtue of its clarity and, it would seem, flawless argumentation, the work of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen has created excitement among physicists and played a great role in the discussion of general philosophical questions of physics." Precisely as a result of the publication of this article, the critical position of Einstein concerning quantum mechanics became known to a broader circle of physicists. In the same year, Bohr responded to Einstein and his co-authors with an article under the same title. (shrink)

The status of the vacuum in relativistic quantum field theory is examined. A sharp distinction arises between the global vacuum and the local vacuum. The concept of local number density is critically assessed. The global vacuum state implies fluctuations for all local observables. Correlations between such fluctuations in space-like separated regions of space-time are discussed and the existence of correlations which are maximal in a certain sense is remarked on, independently of how far apart those regions may be. The analogy (...) with the mirror-image correlations in the singlet state of two spin-1/2 particles is explained. The connection between these maximal correlations and the well-known violation of the Bell inequality in the vacuum state is discussed, together with the way in which the existence of these correlations might be exploited in developing a vacuum version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. The recent relativistic formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument by Ghirardi and Grassi is critically assessed with particular reference to the vacuum case. (shrink)

Due to its extraordinary predictive power and the great generality of its mathematical structure, quantum theory is able, at least in principle, to describe all the microscopic and macroscopic properties of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmological level. Nevertheless, ever since the Copen hagen and Gottingen schools in 1927 gave it the definitive formu lation, now commonly known as the orthodox interpretation, the theory has suffered from very serious logical and epistemologi cal problems. These shortcomings were immediately (...) pointed out by some of the principal founders themselves of quantum theory, to wit, Planck, Einstein, Ehrenfest, Schrodinger, and de Broglie, and by the philosopher Karl Popper, who assumed a position of radical criticism with regard to the standard formulation of the theory. The aim of the participants in the workshop on Open Questions in Quantum Physics, which was held in Bari (Italy), in the Department of Physics of the University, during May 1983 and whose Proceedings are collected in the present volume, accord ingly was to discuss the formal, the physical and the epistemo logical difficulties of quantum theory in the light of recent crucial developments and to propose some possible resolutions of three basic conceptual dilemmas, which are posed respectively ~: (a) the physical developments of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument and Bell's theorem, i. e. (shrink)

The debate over the question whether quantum mechanics should be considered as a complete account of microphenomena has a long and deeply involved history, a turning point in which has been certainly the Einstein-Bohr debate, with the ensuing charge of incompleteness raised by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. In quantum mechanics, physical systems can be prepared in pure states that nevertheless have in general positive dispersion for most physical quantities; hence in the EPR argument, the attention (...) is focused on the question whether the account of the microphysical phenomena provided by quantum mechanics is to be regarded as an exhaustive description of the physical reality to which those phenomena are supposed to refer, a question to which Einstein himself answered in the negative. However, there is a mathematical side of the completeness issue in quantum mechanics, namely the question whether the kind of states with positive dispersion can be represented as a different, dispersion-free kind of states in a way consistent with the mathematical constraints of the quantum mechanical formalism. From this point of view, the other source of the completeness issue in quantum mechanics is the no hidden variables theorem formulated by John von Neumann in his celebrated book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, the preface of which already anticipates the program and the conclusion concerning the possibility of ‘neutralizing’ the statistical character of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

Dignity plays a central role in current thinking about law and human rights, but there is sharp disagreement about its meaning. Combining conceptual precision with a broad historical background, Michael Rosen puts these controversies in context and offers a novel, constructive proposal. “Penetrating and sprightly...Rosen rightly emphasizes the centrality of Catholicism in the modern history of human dignity. His command of the history is impressive...Rosen is a wonderful guide to the recent German constitutional thinking about human dignity...[ (...) class='Hi'>Rosen] is in general an urbane and witty companion, achieving his aim of accessibly written philosophy.” —Samuel Moyn, The Nation “[An] elegant, interesting and lucid exploration of the concept of dignity...Drawing on classical, liberal and Catholic traditions, Rosen hopes to rehabilitate dignity to its rightful place near the centre of moral thought...Rosen's admirable book deserves wide attention from political theorists, jurisprudes and political philosophers.” —Simon Blackburn, Times Higher Education “Dignity deserves to be widely read, not only for its intrinsic interest, but also as a corrective to the habit of discussing such topics in abstraction from their social context. Whether or not one agrees with Rosen's arguments, there can be no doubt he has widened our horizons.” —Rae Langton, Times Literary Supplement. (shrink)