sahashmi
- 96
- 18
- TL;DR Summary
- Is the EPR argument correct?
The Einstein podolsky rosen argument is detailed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/
The argument creates a logical fork and says there are only two options. In the case of perfect correlations where you have two photons that either both pass or are both absorbed by the filter, Einstein and the rest argue that if the particles are NOT physically influencing each other (spooky action at a distance), there are local hidden variables
So, he argues that either
a) there are local hidden variables
or
b) the particles are physically influencing each other (spooky action)
Now, his argument for a) relies on this. In the case of perfect correlations, as soon as Alice observes that her photon passes through the filter, she can predict with **certainty** that Bob on the other end must also have had a photon pass.
If you can predict a measurement with a certainty of 1, and neither particle is influencing each other, they then argue that there must be an “element of reality” to the particle that results in that (i.e. a local hidden variable).
This is no different from saying that if I can predict every time that Bob’s coin toss landed on heads or will land on heads, it implies that something in the coin determined it to land on heads.
Here’s the interesting part of this fork. If this fork is correct, and if this argument is correct, then physicists have no option but to say that the particles are influencing each other since Bell’s theorem already ruled out the local hidden variable option. This would contradict a lot of modern physicist beliefs (unless you believe in many worlds). There is no third option.
So the physicists who say that one can explain this by merely “dropping realism” are ultimately arguing that if you can predict X with a probability of 1, it doesn’t imply that X was determined to be 1. But isn’t that the very definition of determinism? How else do we scientifically figure out if something is determined? Denial of this seems to be solipsistic in nature and seems to point to absurdities. With that being said, I’d love to be proven wrong if I’m missing something here.
So I must ask, is this argument correct? Why or why not?
Original paper: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf
Note that my question is not about whether local hidden variables exist (we know they don’t), but is more about whether his logical fork of the two options (local hidden variables vs action/influences between particles) is correct.
EDIT: I’m not exactly sure whether Einstein concluded that there were local hidden variables or not (it seems from the below comments that he didn’t fully conclude that so I omitted a detail in my post that said Einstein’s conclusion that local hidden variables are underlying QM is incorrect)
The argument creates a logical fork and says there are only two options. In the case of perfect correlations where you have two photons that either both pass or are both absorbed by the filter, Einstein and the rest argue that if the particles are NOT physically influencing each other (spooky action at a distance), there are local hidden variables
So, he argues that either
a) there are local hidden variables
or
b) the particles are physically influencing each other (spooky action)
Now, his argument for a) relies on this. In the case of perfect correlations, as soon as Alice observes that her photon passes through the filter, she can predict with **certainty** that Bob on the other end must also have had a photon pass.
If you can predict a measurement with a certainty of 1, and neither particle is influencing each other, they then argue that there must be an “element of reality” to the particle that results in that (i.e. a local hidden variable).
This is no different from saying that if I can predict every time that Bob’s coin toss landed on heads or will land on heads, it implies that something in the coin determined it to land on heads.
Here’s the interesting part of this fork. If this fork is correct, and if this argument is correct, then physicists have no option but to say that the particles are influencing each other since Bell’s theorem already ruled out the local hidden variable option. This would contradict a lot of modern physicist beliefs (unless you believe in many worlds). There is no third option.
So the physicists who say that one can explain this by merely “dropping realism” are ultimately arguing that if you can predict X with a probability of 1, it doesn’t imply that X was determined to be 1. But isn’t that the very definition of determinism? How else do we scientifically figure out if something is determined? Denial of this seems to be solipsistic in nature and seems to point to absurdities. With that being said, I’d love to be proven wrong if I’m missing something here.
So I must ask, is this argument correct? Why or why not?
Original paper: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf
Note that my question is not about whether local hidden variables exist (we know they don’t), but is more about whether his logical fork of the two options (local hidden variables vs action/influences between particles) is correct.
EDIT: I’m not exactly sure whether Einstein concluded that there were local hidden variables or not (it seems from the below comments that he didn’t fully conclude that so I omitted a detail in my post that said Einstein’s conclusion that local hidden variables are underlying QM is incorrect)
Last edited: