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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gordon Watson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Epr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of the EPR paper and its assertion regarding the completeness of physical reality as described by quantum mechanics. Participants reflect on EPR's contributions, critique its definitions, and celebrate its historical significance, while also drawing connections to other developments in quantum theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses admiration for the EPR paper and its influence on their interest in quantum mechanics, noting a direct intellectual lineage from EPR to later developments like Bell's theorem.
  • Another participant critiques EPR's definition of elements of physical reality, questioning whether it adequately distinguishes between naive realism and a more nuanced understanding of measurement perturbation.
  • There is a mention that Einstein, who had reservations about the EPR paper, did not adopt its definitions in his later work, suggesting a potential critique of EPR's conclusions.
  • Some participants celebrate the anniversary of EPR, while others draw attention to the centenary of superconductivity, indicating a broader context of scientific milestones.
  • One participant humorously notes the significance of the 100th anniversary of superconductivity compared to EPR's 76th birthday, emphasizing the excitement surrounding scientific discoveries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of admiration for EPR and critique of its definitions, indicating that multiple views remain regarding the completeness of physical reality as proposed by EPR. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the validity of EPR's claims or the implications of measurement in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in EPR's definitions and the assumptions underlying their arguments, particularly regarding the nature of measurement and its effects on physical systems. There is also an acknowledgment of the historical context of EPR's contributions in relation to subsequent developments in quantum theory.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, the philosophical implications of measurement in physics, and the historical development of quantum theory.

Gordon Watson
Messages
375
Reaction score
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
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:
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!
 
Fantastic.
 
Happy birthday, and Requiem In Pace.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
11K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
22K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K