Abstract
Bohr’s (1935) reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s (EPR’s) (1935) 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 (1986), Beller and Fine (1994), and Beller (1999) 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.
Thanks to audiences at Indiana University and HOPOS 2000 for comments on related talks. Thanks to Arthur Fine for alerting me to some secondary literature. Thanks to Michael Friedman and Scott Tanona for helpful discussions.
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
Beller, M. (1999). Quantum Dialogue. University of Chicago Press.
Beller, M. and Fine, A. (1994). ‘Rohr’s Response to EPR“. In Faye, J. and Folse, H., editors, Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy,pages 1–31. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bohr, N. (1929). “Wirkungsquantum und Naturbeschreibung”. Naturwissenschaften, 17: 483–486.
Bohr, N. (1934). “The Quantum of Action and the Description of Nature”. In Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature,pages 92–101. Cambridge University Press.
Bohr, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review,48:696–702.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review, 47: 777–780.
Fine, A. (1986). The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. University of Chicago Press.
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
Dickson, M. (2002). The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr’s Reply to EPR. In: Heidelberger, M., Stadler, F. (eds) History of Philosophy of Science. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook [2001], vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1785-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1785-4_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5976-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1785-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive