CAN QUANTUM-MECHANICAL DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE?
CAN QUANTUM-MECHANICAL DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1142/s0219749906001608
复制
发表时间：
2006-02
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
G. Brassard;A. A. Méthot-A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Brassard;A. A. Méthot-A.
为了缅怀阿舍·佩雷斯，我们来探讨一篇由他的论文导师及良师内森·罗森，与阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦和鲍里斯·波多尔斯基在1935年撰写的极其重要且极具影响力的论文。在那篇论文中，被称为EPR的三人组对量子力学的完备性提出了质疑。作者们认为，当时的新理论不应被视为定论，因为他们认为该理论无法描述物理实在。在同年晚些时候玻尔做出回应之后，爱因斯坦与玻尔之间的这场史诗般的论战愈演愈烈。过了三十年，约翰·S·贝尔给出了一个确凿的证明，表明EPR的论点存在致命缺陷。我们这篇论文的适度目的是对原始的EPR论文进行批判性分析，并指出其逻辑缺陷，而这些本可以在70年前就做到，无需等待贝尔定理。我们还概述了玻尔的回应，目的是展示它如何未能触及EPR论点的要点。
In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.