Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the formal connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument to quantum mechanics and reality

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is argued that formal reconstructions of the EPR-argument do not only show semantical incompleteness, but also incorrectness of quantum mechanics together with the projection postulate. The latter has to be rejected because it contradicts Schrödinger's equation. A logical analogon to the problem is given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: 1935, ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’, Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. McGrath, James: 1978, ‘A Formal Statement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument’, Int. Journal Theoret. Phys. 17, 557.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wessels, Linda: 1981, ‘The ‘EPR’ Argument: A Post-Mortem’, Philosophical Studies 40, 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Halpin, John F.: 1983, ‘EPR Resuscitated: A Reply to Wessels’, Philosophical Studies 44, 111–114.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Einstein, Albert: 1968, ‘Letter to Karl Popper’, in: Karl Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, Appendix XII, p. 412.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wessels, Linda: 1985, ‘EPR Resuscitated? A Reply to Halpin’, Philosophical Studies 47, 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Margenau, Henry: 1935, ‘Quantum-Mechanical-Description’, Phys. Rev. 49, 240–242.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schroedinger, Erwin: 1935, ‘Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems’, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 31, 225.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jammer, Max: 1974, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, New York. (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ludwig, G.: 1985, ‘Das EPR-Paradoxon als makroskopisches Experiment und seine Auswirkungen auf unsere Vorstellung von Physik’, Annalen der Physik 42, 150.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aerts, Dirk: 1984, ‘The Missing Element of Reality in the Description of Quantum Mechanics of the E.P.R. Paradox Situation’, Helvetia Physica 57, 421.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen, Nathan: 1985, ‘Quantum Mechanics and Reality’, in Lathi, P. (ed.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, pp. 17–33, World Scientific Publishing Co., Joensuu, Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adolf-Miersch-Strasse 36, D-6000, Frankfurt 71, West Germany

    Daniel Schoch

Authors
  1. Daniel Schoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoch, D. On the formal connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument to quantum mechanics and reality. Erkenntnis 29, 269–278 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00227856

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00227856

Keywords

Search

Navigation