Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T11:02:35.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

C. A. Hooker
C. A. Hooker*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

D. H. Sharp has recently argued that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen failed to make good their claim that elementary quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality. Sharp expounds in detail three criticisms (a fourth is mentioned) which focus largely on formal features of the quantum theory. I argue, on grounds centered largely in our search for an adequate physical understanding of the micro domain, that each of these criticisms must be rejected. The original criticism of quantum theory reemerges as a still-important baseline in our search for an adequate understanding of quantum theory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 224 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1] Araki, H., and Yanese, M. M., “Measurement of Quantum Mechanical Operators,” Physical Review, vol. 120, 1960, p. 622.10.1103/PhysRev.120.622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall, N.J., 1966.Google Scholar
[3] Bunge, M., Meta Scientific Queries, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1959.Google Scholar
[4] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N., “Can Quantum-Mechanical Descriptions of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Physical Review, vol. 47, 1935, p. 777.10.1103/PhysRev.47.777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Everett, H., “Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 29, 1957, pp. 454–462.10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Feyerabend, P. K., “Problems of Micro Physics,” Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, (ed. Colodny, R. G.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[7] Hooker, C. A., “Concerning Einstein's, Podolsky's and Rosen's Objection to Quantum Theory,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 38, 1970, p. 851.10.1119/1.1976483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Hooker, C. A., “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein versus Bohr,” Paradox and Paradigm, (ed. R. G. Colodny) University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, vol. V (expected to appear in 1971).Google Scholar
[9] Hooker, C. A., “Energy and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” (forthcoming in the Australian Journal of Philosophy).Google Scholar
[10] Hooker, C. A., “Against Krips' Resolution of a Paradox in Quantum Mechanics,” (to appear in Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, No. 3, September 1971).10.1086/288383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Jauch, J., Foundations of Quantum Theory, Addison Wesley, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Putnam, H., “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics,” Beyond the Edge of Certainty, (ed. Colodny, R. G.) University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[13] Sharp, D. H., “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Re-Examined,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 28, No. 3, 1961, p. 225.10.1086/287806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Wigner, E. P., “Die Messung quantenmechanischer Operatoren,” Zeitschrift fur Physik, vol. 133, 1952, p. 101.10.1007/BF01948686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Yanese, M. M., “Remarks on the Theory of Measurement,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 32, No. 3, 1964, pp. 208–211.10.1119/1.1970177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Yanese, M. M., “Optimal Measuring Apparatus,” Physical Review, vol. 123, No. 2, 1961, p. 666.10.1103/PhysRev.123.666CrossRefGoogle Scholar