Did Bohr succeed in defending the completeness of quantum mechanics?
This study posits that Bohr failed to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality against Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) paper. Although there are many papers in the literature that focus on Bohr’s argument in his reply to the EPR paper, the purpose of the current paper is not to clarify Bohr’s argument. Instead, I contend that regardless of which interpretation of Bohr’s argument is correct, his defense of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality remained incomplete. For example, a recent trend in studies of Bohr’s work is to suggest he considered the wave-function description to be epistemic. However, such an interpretation cannot be used to defend the completeness of the quantum mechanical description.
Bacciagaluppi, Guido. 2012. The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato. stanford.edu/.
Bacciagaluppi, Guido and Antony Valentini. 2009. Guido Bacciagaluppi and Antony Valentini (eds.) Quantum Theory at the Crossroads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beller, Mara and Arthur Fine. 1994. Bohr’s Response to EPR. In: Jan Faye and Henry Folse (eds.) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 1–31. New York: Kluwer.
Bohm, David. 1951. Quantum theory. New York: Dover Publication.
Bohr, Niels. 1927. The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory. In: The Philosophical Writing of Niels Bohr Volume 1, pp. 52–91. Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.
Bohr, Niels. 1929. The Quantum Action and the Description of Nature. In: The Philosophical Writing of Niels Bohr Volume 1, pp. 92–119. Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.
Bohr, Niels. 1935. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review 48: 696–702.
Brown, James Robert. 1985. Von Neumann and the Anti-Realists. Erkenntnis 23: 149–59.
Camilleri, Kristian. 2009. Constructing the Myth of Copenhagen Interpretation. Perspective on Science 17, 26–57.
Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. 1935. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review 47: 777–80.
Faye, Jan. 2008. Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato. stanford.edu/.
Gomatam, Ravi. 2007. Niels Bohr’s Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation–Are the Two Incompatible? Philosophy of Science 74, 736–48.
Halvorson, Hans and Rob Clifton. 2001. Reconsidering Bohr’s Reply to EPR. In: Tomasz Pacek and Jeremy Butterfield (eds.) Non-Locality and Modality, pp. 3–18. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Howard, Don. 1994. What makes a classical concept classical? In: Jan Faye and Henry Folse (eds.) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 201–29. New York: Kluwer.
Kupcznski, Marian. 2017. Can We Close the Bohr-Einstein Quantum Debate? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 375, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0392
Zinkernagel, Henrik. 2016. Niels Bohr on the Wave-function and the Classical/Quantum Divide. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 53, 9–19.
Principia http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/index is licenced under a Creative Commons - Atribuição-Uso Não-Comercial-Não a obras derivadas 3.0 Unported.
Base available in www.periodicos.ufsc.br.