A Bohr's solution to the EPR paradox

Click For Summary
Bohr's resolution to the EPR paradox emphasizes that the state of a particle is not an independent property but is influenced by the experimental conditions. He argues that predictions about a particle's behavior depend on the measurements made, asserting that unmeasured properties do not necessarily have defined values. John Bell expresses confusion over Bohr's terminology and the implications of counter-factual definiteness (CFD), questioning whether it can be applied to quantum measurements. The discussion highlights the distinction between the outcomes of measurements and the assumptions made about unmeasured states, reinforcing that quantum mechanics does not support the idea of independent states outside of experimental contexts. Ultimately, the conversation seeks to clarify the nature of quantum states and the validity of counter-factual reasoning in quantum experiments.
  • #101
Thread closed for moderation.

Edit by @DrClaude: this thread was going nowhere and will stay closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

B How does the EPR paradox work?
Replies
4
Views
1K
B "We cannot measure both position and momentum...."
Replies
16
Views
3K
I Could an experiment confirm the EPR paradox's implications on uncertainty?
Replies
20
Views
2K
B Double Slit Paradox: A Wave-Particle Mystery
Replies
13
Views
2K
I Imagining the EPR paradox/quantum entanglement
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Why do photon polarization experiments show similar outcomes in different situations?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Confused about EPR Thought Experiment
Replies
12
Views
2K
EPR paradox and time of collapse
Replies
12
Views
3K
I "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
Replies
36
Views
7K
EPR Paradox: Entanglement & Opposite Spin Exploration
Replies
4
Views
2K