It is shown that unavoidable uncertainties arising from the experimental conditions in which systems are prepared for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments severely limit the possibilities for prediction. In the example originally proposed by EPR, time measurements are necessary for precise position predictions. If the preparation is designed to make the timing errors negligible, the parameters chosen for the preparation fix minimum uncertainties in the predictions leaving the observer no choice in the matter. In the case of correlated spin measurements, (...) the preparation leaves the observer no control over the effect of the detector on the particles; the uncertainty of the previous condition of any one particle is so large that no (classical) prediction of the response of another detector is possible. Thus, there are as yet no proposed experiments which satisfy the conditions required by EPR—i.e., precise predictions which violate the uncertainty principle. (shrink)

Since weakly decaying particles are their own polarimeters, reactions like $\eta _c \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda , \psi \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda ,e^ + e^ - \to \mu ^ + \mu ^ -$ , etc. are interesting for testing the non-locality of quantum mechanical predictions. Although such reactions, in principle, do not exclude all classes of hidden variable theories, they can be used to complement current experiments with external polarimeters. The reaction $\eta _c \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda \to \pi ^ (...) - p\pi ^{ + - } \bar p$ is conceptually the simplest and most useful as agedanken experiment, although it has not yet been seen experimentally. The reaction $e^ + e^ - \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda \to \pi ^ - p\pi ^ + \bar p$ near threshold or at the φ resonance can be used for essentially the same test. This is feasible with presently available data and would be the first EPR experiment involving weak interactions. (shrink)

We formulate a model of EPR experiments by including variables determining whether a photon will be detected or not. The resulting deterministic model satisfies Bell's original inequality even though it can agree exactly with the quantum mechanical predictions for the performed experiments. It violates variations of the inequality used in the interpretation of the experiments and deduced with the help of additional assumptions.

A method is given to determine whether or not the distribution functions describing the two spin measurements in the spin-s Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment are compatible with the existence of distributions describing three spin measurements (not all of which can actually be performed). When applied to the spin-1/2 case the method gives the results of Wigner, or of Clauser, Holt, Horne, and Shimony, depending on whether or not the two-spin distributions are assumed to have the forms given by (...) the quantum theory. Generalizations of the conditions of Wigner or of Clauser et al. to the spin-1 case are explicitly calculated. The spin-3/2 case is examined in some simple geometries to show that an apparently monotonic trend toward local realism as s increases from1/2 to1 is, in fact, violated when s increases from1 to3/2. The analysis is based on a novel representation of the modulus squared of a rotation matrix element. The structure of that matrix element responsible for the restoration of local realism in the classical (large s) limit is identified, but a rigorous treatment of the classical limit is not attempted. The higher-spin results are significantly stronger than those given by Mermin's spin-s Bell inequality. (shrink)

According to the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, one can precisely define the state of an individual particle in a many-body system by its position, momentum, and spin. It is shown in the EPR spin experiment that the quantum torque brings about an instantaneous change in the state of one of the particles when the other undergoes a local interaction, but that such a transfer of “information” cannot be extracted by any experiment subject to the laws of quantum (...) mechanics. (shrink)

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox as formulated in their original paper is critically examined. Their argument that quantum mechanics is incomplete is shown to be unsatisfactory on two important grounds. (i) The gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen is physically unrealizable, and consequently their argument is invalid as it stands. (ii) The basic assumptions of their argument are equivalent to the assumption that quantum mechanical systems are in fact describable by unique eigenfunctions of (...) the operators corresponding to physical observables, independent of any observation or measurement. Following an argument due to Furry, it is shown that this interpretation of quantum mechanics must lead to some physical predictions at variance with those of conventional quantum mechanics. A decisive experiment has been performed by Freedman and Clauser, which rules out this interpretation, and imposes severe restrictions on any alternative theory which incorporates the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen concept of physical reality. (shrink)

More specifically, one notices that X1  X2, P1  P2  0 where X1, X2 are the position operators for the first and second particles respectively, and P1, P2 their momenta operators. This means that, in principle, one can prepare the pair of particles with simultaneously known values of X1  X2 and P1  P2. Then the knowledge of the value of P2 allows to infer the value of P1.(However, performing the experiment with these continuous variables is (...) technically impossible and it remains a thought experiment.). (shrink)

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called a “Reality Criterion” imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. They concluded that there must be a more complete description of physical reality involving some hidden variables that can characterize the state of affairs in (...) the world in more detail than the quantum mechanical state. This conclusion leads to paradoxical results. -/- As Bell proved in 1964, under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion that there are hidden variables implies that, in some spin-correlation experiments, the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments since the 1970s. -/- Some researchers have interpreted this result as showing that quantum mechanics is telling us nature is non-local, that is, that particles can affect each other across great distances in a time too brief for the effect to have been due to ordinary causal interaction. Others object to this interpretation, and the problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will. (shrink)

We construct an event-based computer simulation model of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments with photons. The algorithm is a one-to-one copy of the data gathering and analysis procedures used in real laboratory experiments. We consider two types of experiments, those with a source emitting photons with opposite but otherwise unpredictable polarization and those with a source emitting photons with fixed polarization. In the simulation, the choice of the direction of polarization measurement for each detection event is arbitrary. We use (...) three different procedures to identify pairs of photons and compute the frequency of coincidences by analyzing experimental data and simulation data. The model strictly satisfies Einstein’s criteria of local causality, does not rely on any concept of quantum theory and reproduces the results of quantum theory for both types of experiments. We give a rigorous proof that the probabilistic description of the simulation model yields the quantum theoretical expressions for the single- and two-particle expectation values. (shrink)

The spin-j Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiment is examined in the context of how the quantum theoretic probability distributions for the spin measurement outcomes are to be coarse-grained in order to yield classical behavior in the $$j \rightarrow \infty $$ limit. A coarse-graining protocol is found that can be viewed as imperfection either in the detection process or in state preparation process, and is in both viewpoints minimal in the sense that it is no more than what is needed (...) to wash out the execess quantum correlations. In the first point of view the coarse-grained distribution can be written in terms of a Bell-type factorizable hidden variable model wherein the conditional distributions for the spin measurement outcome of each particle is not just nonnegative but actually attains the value zero for some choice of measurement axis. In the second point of view the coarse-grained distribution arises from a spin state whose Wigner function is not just nonnegative but actually attains the value zero for some spin orientations. That such a remarkable dual interpretation should be possible suggests that this type of complementary coarse graining is an intrinsic aspect of how classicality is obtained in the large j limit, but this conclusion remains speculative. (shrink)

Assuming that future experiments confirm Aspect's discovery of nonlocal interactions between quantum pairs of correlated particles, we analyze the constraints imposed by the EPR reasoning on the said interactions. It is then shown that the nonlocal relativistic quantum potential approach plainly satisfies the Einstein causality criteria as well as the energy-momentum conservation in individual microprocesses. Furthermore, this approach bypasses a new causal paradox for timelike separated EPR measurements deduced by Sutherland in the frame of an approach by means of (...) space-time zigzags with advanced potentials. It is finally demonstrated that this inherent quantum causal direct interaction establishes permanent EPR correlations which are always restricted to spacelike separations and are instantaneous only in the center-of-mass rest frame of the two-particle system. (shrink)

Most of the nearly innumerable attempts to provide for a sound understanding of the gedanken experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) contain additional ideas, notions or features imposed on pioneer or traditional quantum mechanics (TQM). In the present paper the problem is analyzed without employing any new or philosophically contested concept. We do even without referring to the probability calculus, and we especially avoid any admixture of realistic ideas. Neither entanglement nor special features of “states” (...) are used. Instead, formulating strictly within the framework of TQM and using an ensemble approach, the crucial point is boiled down to the decision between separability and non-separability. The corresponding second-order correlation functions Δs and Δn−s, resp., which predict the experimental outcome, may differ by a factor of 2 if certain operator pairs are maximally non-commuting. Even in the case of commuting pairs, an experimentally relevant difference between the Δ-functions might exist. Taking into account the experimental evidence, it is unavoidable to accept that the sub-ensembles involved in EPR-type experiments are in fact non-separable. This result has been obtained without resort to Bell's inequality. (shrink)

It follows from Bell’s theorem and quantum mechanics that the detection of a particle of an entangled pair can (somehow) “force” the other distant particle of the pair into a well-defined state (which is equivalent to a reduction of the state vector): no property previously shared by the particles can explain the predicted quantum correlations. This result has been corroborated by experiment, although some loopholes still remain. However, it has not been experimentally proved—and it is far from obvious—that the (...) absence of detection, as in null-result (NR) experiments could have the very same effect. In this paper a way to try to bridge this gap is suggested. (shrink)

The violation of Bell inequalities by quantum physical experiments disproves all relativistic micro causal, classically real models, short Local Realistic Models (LRM). Non-locality, the infamous “spooky interaction at a distance” (A. Einstein), is already sufficiently ‘unreal’ to motivate modifying the “realistic” in “local realistic”. This has led to many worlds and finally many minds interpretations. We introduce a simple many world model that resolves the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. The model starts out as a classical LRM, (...) thus clarifying that the many worlds concept alone does not imply quantum physics. Some of the desired ‘non-locality’, e.g. anti-correlation at equal measurement angles, is already present, but Bell’s inequality can of course not be violated. A single and natural step turns this LRM into a quantum model predicting the correct probabilities. Intriguingly, the crucial step does obviously not modify locality but instead reality: What before could have still been a direct realism turns into modal realism. This supports the trend away from the focus on non-locality in quantum mechanics towards a mature structural realism that preserves micro causality. (shrink)

A realist separable hidden variables theory in conformity with Einstein's principle of causality is developed in this paper to explain the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and the experimental results (including those in Aspect's four polarizers experiment) obtained so far with a view to test the non-separability of quantum mechanics.

The EPR problem is studied both from an instrumentalistic and from a realistic point of view. Bohr's reply to the EPR paper is analyzed and demonstrated to be not completely representative of Bohr's general views on the possibility of defining properties of a microscopic object. A more faithful Bohrian answer would not have led Einstein to the conclusion that Bohr's completeness claim of quantum mechanics implies nonlocality. The projection postulate, already denounced in 1936 by Margenau as the source of (...) the EPR paradox, is found to be also at the origin of the nonlocality conundrum. Its unobservability in EPR-like experiments is demonstrated, thus showing the redundancy of the idea of nonlocality in the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is argued that also from a realist point of view there is no reason to assume nonlocality. The relevance of Bohm's quantum potential and of Bell's inequalities with respect to the (non)locality problem is discussed. (shrink)

Quite often the compatibility of the EPR correlations with the relativity theory has been questioned; it has been stated that “the first in time of two correlated measurements instantaneously collapses the other subsystem”; it has been suggested that a causal asymmetry is built into the Feynman propagator. However, the EPR transition amplitude, as derived from the S matrix, is Lorentz andCPT invariant; the correlation formula is symmetric in the two measurements irrespective of their time ordering, so that the link of (...) the correlations is the Feynman zigzag, and that causality isCPT invariant at the microlevel; finally, although the Feynman propagator has theP andCT symmetries, no causal asymmetry follows from that. As for Stapp's views concerning “process” and “becoming,” and his Whiteheadean concept of an advancing front, I object that they belong to “factlike macrophysics,” and are refuted at the microlevel by the EPR phenomenology, which displays direct Fokker-like space-time connections. The reason for this is a radical one. The very blending of a space-time picture and of a probability calculus is a paradox. The only adequate paradigm is one denying objectivity to space-time—but this, of course, is also required by the complementary of the x and the k pictures, which only “look” compatible at the macrolevel. Therefore, the classical “objectivity” must yield in favor of “intersubjectivity.” Only the macroscopic preparing and measuring devices have “factlike” objectivity; the “transition” of the “quantal system” takes place beyond both thex and thek 4-spaces. Then, the intrinsic symmetries between retarded and advanced waves, and statistical prediction and retrodiction, entails that the future has no less (but no more) existence than the past. It is the future that is significant in “creative process,” the “elementary” forms of which should be termed “precognition” or “psychokinesis”—respectively symmetric to the factlike taboos that “we can neither know into the future nor act into the past.” It is gratifying that Robert Jahn, at the Engineering School of Princeton University, is conducting (after others) conclusive experiments demonstrating “low level psychokinesis”—a phenomenon implied by the very symmetry of the negentropy-information transition. So, what pierces the veil of “maya” is the (rare) occurrence of “paranormal phenomena.” The essential severance between “act” and “potentia” is not a spacelike advancing front, but the “out of” and the “into” factlike space-time. Finally, I do not feel that an adequate understanding of the EPR phenomenology requires going beyond the present status of relativistic quantum mechanics. Rather, I believe that the potentialities of this formalism have not yet been fully exploited. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: * Introduction * The Two-Slit Experiment and Wave-Particle Duality * Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle * Schrödinger’s Cat * The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment * Interpretation: Quantum Reality? * Critical Realism in Science and Theology * Determinism, Human Free Will, and Divine Action * Consonance with Christian Doctrine * References * Further Reading.

In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory, a debate that continues today. The paper (...) features a striking case where two quantum systems interact in such a way as to link both their spatial coordinates in a certain direction and also their linear momenta (in the same direction). As a result of this “entanglement”, determining either position or momentum for one system would fix (respectively) the position or the momentum of the other. EPR use this case to argue that one cannot maintain both an intuitive condition of local action and the completeness of the quantum description by means of the wave function. This entry describes the argument of that 1935 paper, considers several different versions and reactions, and explores the ongoing significance of the issues they raise. (shrink)

This paper discusses the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox from a new point of view. In section II, the arguments by which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen reach their paradoxical conclusions are presented. They are found to rest on two critical assumptions: (a) that before a measurement is made on a system consisting of two non-interacting but correlated sub-systems, the state of the entire system is exactly represented by: ψ a (r̄ 1 ,r̄ 2 )=∑ η a η (...) τ η (r̄ 1 ,r̄ 2 )=∑ i,k α ik ψ i (r̄ 1 )σ k (r̄ 2 ) (b) that the exact measurement of an observable A in one of the sub-systems is possible. In section III it is shown that assumption (b) is incorrect. Thus we conclude, as did Bohr, that the results of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are not valid. The arguments of section III are quite distinct from Bohr's, and therefore in Section IV this work is related to that of Bohr. (shrink)

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (1935) is reexamined in the light of Shannon’s information theory (1984). The EPR argument did not take into account that the observer’s information was localized, like any other physical object.

Einstein Versus Bohr is unlike other books on science written by experts for non-experts, because it presents the history of science in terms of problems, conflicts, contradictions, and arguments. Science normally "keeps a tidy workshop." Professor Sachs breaks with convention by taking us into the theoretical workshop, giving us a problem-oriented account of modern physics, an account that concentrates on underlying concepts and debate. The book contains mathematical explanations, but it is so-designed that the whole argument can be followed (...) with the math omitted. Professor Sachs' story begins with classical and nineteenth century physics, describes the early discoveries in particle theory, and introduces the "old" quantum theory, which evolved into the quantum mechanics of the Copenhagen School. Such important ideas as the Einstein Photon Box experiment and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, and Schrodinger's Cat Paradox are clearly expounded, followed by a completely fresh explanation of relativity in conceptual terms, showing how apparent paradoxes can be removed by Einstein's own interpretation, especially that of his later years. Professor Sachs gives a detailed comparison of the fundamentals of the quantum and relativity theories, suggesting how the contradictions might be resolved. In an epilogue, he makes suggestions, with reference to religious notions, Taoism, and Buber's theory of I-Thou, for generalizing Einstein's approach beyond physics. (shrink)

A model for measurement in collapse-free nonrelativistic fermionic quantum field theory is presented. In addition to local propagation and effectively-local interactions, the model incorporates explicit representations of localized observers, thus extending an earlier model of entanglement generation in Everett quantum field theory (Rubin in Found. Phys. 32:1495–1523, 2002). Transformations of the field operators from the Heisenberg picture to the Deutsch-Hayden picture, involving fictitious auxiliary fields, establish the locality of the model. The model is applied to manifestly-local calculations of the results (...) of measurements, using a type of sudden approximation and in the limit of massive systems in narrow-wavepacket states. Detection of the presence of a spin-1/2 system in a given spin state by a freely-moving two-state observer illustrates the features of the model and the nonperturbative computational methodology. With the help of perturbation theory the model is applied to a calculation of the quintessential “nonlocal” quantum phenomenon, spin correlations in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment. (shrink)

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics involves two assumptions: one about locality and the other about when it is legitimate to infer the existence of an element-of-reality. Using one simple thought experiment, we argue that quantum predictions and the relativity of simultaneity require that both these assumptions fail, whether or not quantum mechanics is complete.

Recently, for spinless non-relativistic particles, Norsen and Norsen et al. show that in the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation it is possible to replace the wave function in the configuration space by single-particle wave functions in physical space. In this paper, we show that this replacment of the wave function in the configuration space by single-particle functions in the 3D-space is also possible for particles with spin, in particular for the particles of the EPR-B experiment, the Bohm version of the (...) class='Hi'>Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment. (shrink)

My theme is thought experiment in natural science, and its relation to real experiment. I shall defend the thesis that thought experiments that do not lead to theorizing and to a real experiment are generally of much less value that those that do so. To illustrate this thesis I refer to three examples, from three very different periods, and with three very different kinds of status. The first is the classic thought experiment in which Galileo imagined (...) that he had, by pure thought, demolished Aristoteles' dogma that heavier bodies fall more quickly than light ones. I will show that he was mistaken. The second is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper purporting to show that quantum mechanics must be incomplete in its domain of application. This thought experiment is a very good one, not because its conclusions are correct, but precisely because it was fruitful, leading to theory and, above all, to a real experiment. Finally I discuss the modern string theory of everything, which, while it is regarded as a physical theory by its instigators, shares some properties of the least successful sort of thought experiment. (shrink)

From conceptual point of view, we argue about the nature of reality inferred from EPR argument in quantum mechanics.

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm (EPRB) experiment performed with random variable and spatially separated analyzers is a milestone test in the controversy between Objective Local Theories (OLT) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). Only a few OLT are still possible. Some of the surviving OLT (specifically, the so called non-ergodic theories) would be undetectable in the averaged statistical values, but they may leave their trace in the time dynamics. For, while QM predicts random processes, the OLT of this kind predict the (...) existence of regularities that may be revealed as a low dimensional object in the phase space. We perform a numerical analysis of the time-resolved data recorded in that experiment to unveil any hypothetical low dimensional dynamics that may be present. We find no consistent indication of such dynamics except for one data file, the longest of all in the real time. The possible causes of these dynamics are discussed. (shrink)

We present the possibility of a relativistic formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. We pay particular attention to the need for a reformulation of the so-called reality criterion. We introduce such a reformulation for the reality criterion due to Ghirardi and Grassi and show how it applies to the nonrelativistic EPR argument. We elaborate on Ghiradi and Grassi’s proof and explain why it cannot be circumvented. Finally, we review and summarise our own views. This is a continuation of (...) the paper by myself and Patrick La Riviere whose defects are exposed in the present work. (shrink)

This chapter gives a concrete example of a question of current scientific interest where capacities matter: ‘Do the Bell inequalities describing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiments show that causality is incompatible with quantum mechanics?’ The question cannot be answered if we rely on probabilistic theories of causality and laws of associations alone. It takes the concept of capacity and related notions of how capacities operate even to formulate the problem correctly. Econometrics models with correlated errors, it is shown, can explain (...) the EPR results when the correlations are given a capacity interpretation. (shrink)

In this paper we present a series of computer calculations carried out in order to demonstrate exactly how the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation works for two-particle quantum mechanics. In particular, we show how the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can account for the essential features of nonrelativistic, two-particle quantum mechanics in terms of well-defined, correlated, individual particle trajectories and spin vectors. We demonstrate exactly how both quantum statistics and the correlations observed in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments can be explained in terms of (...) nonlocal quantum potentials and nonlocal quantum torques which act on the well-defined individual particle coordinates and spin vectors. (shrink)

We rediscuss the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in Bohm's spin version and oppose to it Bohr's controversial point of view. Then we explain Bell's theorem, Bell inequalities, and its consequences. We describe the experiment of Aspect, Dalibard, and Roger in detail. Finally we draw attention to the nonlocal structure of the underlying theory.

Is it possible that the most famous critic of quantum mechanics actually invented most of its fundamentally important concepts? -/- In his 1905 Brownian motion paper, Einstein quantized matter, proving the existence of atoms. His light quantum hypothesis showed that energy itself comes in particles (photons). He showed energy and matter are interchangeable, E = mc2. In 1905 Einstein was first to see nonlocality and instantaneous action-at-a-distance. In 1907 he saw quantum “jumps” between energy levels in matter, six (...) years before Bohr postulated them in his atomic model. Einstein saw wave-particle duality and the “collapse” of the wave in 1909. And in 1916 his transition probabilities for emission and absorption processes introduced ontological chance when matter and radiation interact, making quantum mechanics statistical. He discovered the indistinguishability and odd quantum statistics of elementary particles in 1925 and in 1935 speculated about the nonseparability of interacting identical particles. -/- It took physicists over twenty years to accept Einstein’s light-quantum. He explained the relation of particles to waves fifteen years before Heisenberg matrices and Schrödinger wave functions. He saw indeterminism ten years before the uncertainty principle. And he saw nonlocality as early as 1905, presenting it formally in 1927, but was ignored. In the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, he explored nonseparability, which was dubbed “entanglement” by Schrödinger. The EPR paper has gone from being irrelevant to Einstein’s most cited work and the basis for today’s “second revolution in quantum mechanics.” -/- In a radical revision of the history of quantum physics, Bob Doyle develops Einstein’s idea of objective reality to resolve several of today’s most puzzling quantum mysteries, including the two-slit experiment, quantum entanglement, and microscopic irreversibility. (shrink)

Bohr’s reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory is notoriously difficult to unravel. It is so diffcult, in fact, that over 60 years later, there remains important work to be done understanding it. Work by Fine , Beller and Fine , and Beller goes a long way towards correcting earlier misunderstandings of Bohr’s reply. This essay is intended as a contribution to the program of getting to the truth of the matter, (...) both historically and philosophically. In a paper of this length, a full account of Bohr’s reply is impossible, and so I shall focus on one issue where it seems further clarification is required, namely, Bohr’s attempt to illustrate EPR’s argument by means of a thought experiment. In addition, I shall attempt to clarify a few other points which, however minor, have apparently contributed to misunderstandings of Bohr’s position. As the title of this paper suggests, an account of these few points does not constitute an account of Bohr’s reply, but it is an important step in that direction. (shrink)

As part of the creation-discovery interpretation of quantum mechanics Diederik Aerts presented a setting with macroscopical coincidence experiments designed to exhibit significant conceptual analogies between portions of stuff and quantum compound entities in a singlet state in Einstein—Podolsky—Rosen/Bell-experiments (EPR-experiments). One important claim of the creation-discovery view is that the singlet state describes an entity that does not have a definite position in space and thus does not exist in space. Free Process Theory is a recent proposal by (...) Johanna Seibt of an integrated ontology, i.e., of an ontology suitable for the interpretation of theories of the macrophysical and microphysical domain (quantum field theory). The framework of free process theory allows us to show systematically the relevant analogies and disanalogies between Aerts' experiment and EPR-experiments. From free process ontology it also follows quite naturally that the quantum compound entity described by the singlet state does not exist in space. (shrink)

Bruno de Finetti is one of the founding fathers of the subjectivist school of probability, where probabilities are interpreted as rational degrees of belief. His work on the relation between the theorems of probability and rationality is among the corner stones of modern subjective probability theory. De Finetti maintained that rationality requires that degrees of belief be coherent, and he argued that the whole of probability theory could be derived from these coherence conditions. De Finetti’s interpretation of probability has been (...) highly influential in science. This paper focuses on the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics. We argue that de Finetti held that the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events depend on their verifiability. Accordingly, the standard coherence conditions of degrees of belief that are familiar from the literature on subjective probability only apply to degrees of belief in events which could be jointly verified; and the coherence conditions of degrees of belief in events that cannot be jointly verified are weaker. While the most obvious explanation of de Finetti’s verificationism is the influence of positivism, we argue that it could be motivated by the radical subjectivist and instrumental nature of probability in his interpretation; for as it turns out, in this interpretation it is difficult to make sense of the idea of coherent degrees of belief in, and accordingly probabilities of unverifiable events. We then consider the application of this interpretation to quantum mechanics, concentrating on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and Bell’s theorem. (shrink)

The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, (...) in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments2.1 Standard EPRB2.2 Sideways EPRB2.3 Comparing the experiments2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations3.1 The action symmetry3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III7.1 The free will argument7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective. (shrink)

Abstract Theories in physics require reference to manifolds of locations and events. Abstract versions of these manifolds, ?space?, ?time? and ?space?time? are frequently used as reference systems. Should they be included in the ontology of physics as well as the material manifolds from which they are abstracted? This problem can be approached through a study of the identity conditions of events. The argument is offered that neither an abstract ?time? of moments is viable, nor is the assumption that events are (...) individuated by their locations necessary. Taken together these conclusions would require reinterpretation of relativity as a grammar of histories and of the Einstein?Podolski?Rosen experiment as displaying the possibility of spatially distributed events. (shrink)

Some statistical questions that arise in studies of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations are given precise and complete answers for a very simple but artificial set of pair distributions. Some recent results and conjectures about hidden variable representations of the more complex distributions that describe the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment are examined in the light of the behavior of the simple model.

Bose-Einstein statistics may be characterized in terms of multinomial distribution. From this characterization, an information theoretic analysis is made for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen like situation; using Shannon’s measure of entropy.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and the correlated states it introduced comprise one of the central interpretive problems of quantum mechanics. Because of the apparent nonlocal character of this paradox, it should be given a relativistic treatment. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a treatment.