scholarly journals Two Strategies to Infinity: Completeness and Incompleteness. The Completeness of Quantum Mechanics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Penchev

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-63
Author(s):  
Kunihisa Morita

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.



2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev

Two strategies to infinity are equally relevant for it is as universal and thus complete as open and thus incomplete. Quantum mechanics is forced to introduce infinity implicitly by Hilbert space, on which is founded its formalism. One can demonstrate that essential properties of quantum information, entanglement, and quantum computer originate directly from infinity once it is involved in quantum mechanics. Thus, thеse phenomena can be elucidated as both complete and incomplete, after which choice is the border between them. A special kind of invariance to the axiom of choice shared by quantum mechanics is discussed to be involved that border between the completeness and incompleteness of infinity in a consistent way. The so-called paradox of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen is interpreted entirely in the same terms only of set theory. Quantum computer can demonstrate especially clearly the privilege of the internal position, or “observer”, or “user” to infinity implied by Henkin’s proposition as the only consistent ones as to infinity.



Author(s):  
Nino Zanghì

The question of realism in physics is addressed by following the path laid out by Einstein and Bell. After an exposition of the problem of the completeness of quantum mechanics and a discussion of some aspects of the debate between Einstein and Bohr, we outline what are the requirements of a formulation of quantum mechanics that is not based on such vague and imprecise notions as “ measurement” or “ observer.” Finally , we show that a physical theory that describes “stuff” in the space that evolves over time makes transparent the relationship between theory and empirical reality. The conclusion has a Kantian flavor.



1986 ◽  
Vol 116 (9) ◽  
pp. 417-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kupczyński


2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (06) ◽  
pp. 799-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALI ESKANDARIAN

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen raised foundational questions about the completeness of quantum mechanics, if certain intuitive logical statements regarding the nature of reality were assumed to be true. These questions are ultimately of significance to the information content of the theory, which is currently the focus of intense research. In this presentation, selected investigations that have made progress in addressing the EPR concerns and that shed light on the nature of quantum states are surveyed. The implications for intuitive classical logic are speculated in the concluding remarks.





2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev

Two strategies to infinity are equally relevant for it is as universal and thus complete as open and thus incomplete. Quantum mechanics is forced to introduce infinity implicitly by Hilbert space, on which is founded its formalism. One can demonstrate that essential properties of quantum information, entanglement, and quantum computer originate directly from infinity once it is involved in quantum mechanics. Thus, thеse phenomena can be elucidated as both complete and incomplete, after which choice is the border between them. A special kind of invariance to the axiom of choice shared by quantum mechanics is discussed to be involved that border between the completeness and incompleteness of infinity in a consistent way. The so-called paradox of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen is interpreted entirely in the same terms only of set theory. Quantum computer can demonstrate especially clearly the privilege of the internal position, or “observer”, or “user” to infinity implied by Henkin’s proposition as the only consistent ones as to infinity.



2006 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
GILLES BRASSARD ◽  
ANDRÉ ALLAN MÉTHOT

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.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document