Is EPR's Concept of a Complete Description of Physical Reality Possible?

  • Thread starter Gordon Watson
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Epr
In summary: Many thanks Zz; quite amazing! We live in a wondrous world in wondrous times.In summary, EPR wrote a great paper that motivated many people to pursue QM. However, I am critical of their definition of elements of physical reality.
  • #1
Gordon Watson
375
0
HAPPY 76th BIRTHDAY!

EPR

25 March 1935 - 25 March 2011

From your many supporters at PF and beyond.

Especially those still motivated by your final paragraph:

"While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible."

Critics, supporters, others,
are cordially invited
to post hereunder
their views etc on EPR.​
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
As an engineer, EPR is the paper that motivated my interest in QM, via this direct chain:

EPR - Bohm - Bell - Aspect - Mermin.​

There a many more developments and branchings, but the "purity" of this particular chain impressed me. Each link from the hand of a master of their art; EPR itself written by Podolsky, after discussions with Einstein and Rosen.

However, I am critical of EPR's definition of elements of physical reality. For it is unclear to me that EPR clearly differentiate between naive realism (what we found via measurement was what was there) and a more rational realism, IMHO, long known to the founders of QM (a measurement perturbs the measured system). Reading their definition, often: I'm still not clear if they endorse the latter, which is my view. (Comments welcome.)

It is my understanding that Einstein (unhappy with the EPR paper for other reasons), never used the EPR definition in his subsequent writings. (This must mean something?) I make the point, correctly I trust, that all measurements known to me, DO perturb the measured system. Surely, in EPRB experiments, polarizers of spin-1/2 and spin-1 particles do perturb them?

Maybe I missed some clever techniques, over the years? And, for sure, I'm not up-to-date with recent quantum-metrology. (Comments welcome.)

PS: And I'm still a believing dreamer and toiler re EPR's final sentence: We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Gordon Watson said:
...EPR's final sentence: We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.

Sadly, Einstein never got the benefit of Bell. Which of course is the nail in the coffin on the above speculation. But I agree that EPR is a great paper, and an important contribution to science.

Happy birthday!
 
  • #4
Fantastic.
 
  • #5
Happy birthday, and Requiem In Pace.
 
  • #6
nismaratwork said:
Happy birthday, and Requiem In Pace.

Ditto.
 
  • #10
DrChinese said:
That is awesome. I had no idea it was discovered that long ago.

ZapperZ is a "perpectual" source of surprises. :smile:
 
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
Never knew that "76 birthday" is such a big deal. I'm celebrating Superconductivity 100th birthday. Now THAT is a big deal.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/page/Celebrating 100 years of superconductivity

Zz.

Many thanks Zz; quite amazing! We live in a wondrous world in wondrous times.

PS: It was not the "76" so much as the chance to celebrate EPR and have a drink with friends. Maybe make new ones.
 

1. What is EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality?

EPR, or the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, is a thought experiment that challenges the completeness of quantum mechanics. It proposes that two particles, once in contact but now separated, will still have a connection that allows for instantaneous communication between them, violating the speed of light and the principle of locality.

2. Is EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality possible?

There is currently no consensus among scientists on whether EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality is possible. Some argue that the uncertainty principle and other quantum principles make it impossible for a complete description of reality, while others believe that new theories or interpretations of quantum mechanics may provide a solution.

3. How does EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality relate to the concept of "hidden variables"?

EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality is closely related to the idea of hidden variables, which are hypothetical properties of particles that determine their behavior and can account for the randomness observed in quantum mechanics. EPR argued that if such hidden variables existed, it would be possible to have a complete description of physical reality.

4. What are the implications of EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality for our understanding of the universe?

EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality has significant implications for our understanding of the universe. If it is possible to have a complete description of reality, it would mean that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete. It would also challenge the notion of causality and the idea that events are determined by local interactions.

5. Are there any experiments that can test the validity of EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality?

There have been several proposed experiments to test the validity of EPR's concept of a complete description of physical reality, including the Bell test experiments. These experiments aim to measure the correlation between entangled particles and determine if there is a hidden variable that can account for their behavior. However, the results of these experiments have been inconclusive, and the debate about the completeness of quantum mechanics continues.

Similar threads

A Bohr's solution to the EPR paradox
    • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
100
Views
9K
Einstein's later thoughts on EPR
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
666
EPR/Bohm/Bell & Localism vs Universalism
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
62
Views
11K
Truth is a complete fiction( So is reality).
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
B Understanding Spacetime Diagrams from "Reality is not What it Seems
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
Physics Opportunities after completing PhD in your 40s
    • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
12
Views
3K
Is Physics Unique? Exploring the Question of a Singular Description of Nature
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
2K
I What Does Gauge Invariance Tell Us About Reality?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
What’s wrong with this EPR-Bell FTL Gedankenexperiment?
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top