Abstract
Although Bohr’s reply to the EPR argument is supposed to be a watershed moment in the development of his philosophy of quantum theory, it is difficult to find a clear statement of the reply’s philosophical point. Moreover, some have claimed that the point is simply that Bohr is a radical positivist. In this paper, we show that such claims are unfounded. In particular, we give a mathematically rigorous reconstruction of Bohr’s reply to the original EPR argument that clarifies its logical structure, and which shows that it does not rest on questionable philosophical assumptions. Rather, Bohr’s reply is dictated by his commitment to provide “classical” and “objective” descriptions of experimental phenomena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Araki, H. (1976) Review #12601 of [14], Mathematical Reviews 52, 1778.
Beller, M. (1999) Quantum Dialogue, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bohr, N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 48, 696–702.
Bohr, N. (1935) Quantum mechanics and physical reality, Nature 136, 65.
Bohr, N. (1949) Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in P. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Tudor, New York, pp. 201–241.
Bub, J. (1995) Complementarity and the orthodox (Dirac-von Neumann) interpretation of quantum mechanics, in R. Clifton (ed.). Perspectives on Quantum Reality, Kluwer, New York, pp. 211–226.
Bub, J. (1997) Interpreting the Quantum World, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bub, J. and Clifton, R. (1996) Uniqueness theorem for “no-collapse” interpretations of quantum mechanics, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 181–219.
Caves, C, Fuchs, C, and Schack, R. (2002) Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities, Physical Review A 65, 022305.
Clifton, R. (1995) Independently motivating the Kochen-Dieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 33–57.
Clifton, R. (1996) The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 371–398.
Clifton, R. and Halvorson, H. (2001) Are Rindler quanta real? Inequivalent particle concepts in quantum field theory, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52,417–470.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–780.
Fannes, M., Verbeure, A., and Weder, R. (1974) On momentum states in quantum mechanics, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré 20, 291–296.
Fine, A. and Beller, M. (1994) Bohr’s response to EPR, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer, New York, pp. 1–31.
Halvorson, H. (2000) The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state maximally violates Bell’s inequalities, Letters in Mathematical Physics 53, 321–329.
Halvorson, H. and Clifton, R. (1999) Maximal beable subalgebras of quantum mechanical observables, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38, 2441–2484.
Howard, D. (1979) Complementarity and Ontology: Niels Bohr and the Problem of Scientific Realism in Quantum Physics, PhD Dissertation, Boston University.
Howard, D. (1994) What makes a classical concept classical?, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer, New York, pp. 201–229.
Howard, D. (2000) A brief on behalf of Bohr, University of Notre Dame, manuscript.
Kadison, R. and Ringrose, J. (1997) Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
Malament, D. (1977) Causal theories of time and the conventionality of simultaneity, Noûs 11, 293–300.
N. Bohr quoted in A. Petersen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 19, 8–14.
Redhead, M. (1989) Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ruark, A. (1935) Is the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality complete? Physical Review 48, 466–467.
Sakai, S. (1971) C*-Algebras and W*-Algebras, Springer, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halvorson, H., Clifton, R. (2002). Reconsidering Bohr’s Reply to EPR. In: Placek, T., Butterfield, J. (eds) Non-locality and Modality. NATO Science Series, vol 64. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0385-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0385-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0662-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0385-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive