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

[Gordon Watson]

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.​

 

[Gordon Watson]

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.

 

[DrChinese]

...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!

 

[Mizango]

Fantastic.

 

[nismaratwork]

Happy birthday, and Requiem In Pace.

 

[hypatia]

Happy birthday, and Requiem In Pace.

Ditto.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

To maglev, to efficient power transmission, and to the sheer fun of floating magnets that drew the attention of so many. Nas Drovya!

 

[DrChinese]

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.

That is awesome. I had no idea it was discovered that long ago.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is awesome. I had no idea it was discovered that long ago.

ZapperZ is a "perpectual" source of surprises.

 

[Gordon Watson]

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.