Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-hdw28 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T08:25:40.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Reference Frames in the Context of EPR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Michael Dickson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taking a cue from Bohr's use of the notion of a reference frame in his reply to EPR's argument against the completeness (and consistency) of standard quantum theory, this paper presents an analysis ofthe role of reference frames in the situation considered by EPR, using a quantum-theoretical account of physical reference frames based on the work of Mackey, and Aharonov and Kaufherr. That analysis appears to justify at least some crucial aspects of a Bohrian reply to EPR.

Type
Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Theory: A New Look
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 655 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

My thinking about the reply to EPR (and especially possible connections with the historical Bohr, which are not considered here) has benefited enormously from the historical and philosophical work of Tanona (2002). A helpful discussion with Harvey Brown cleared up some points about reference frames. Thanks also to audiences at Indiana, Vienna, Krakow, Utrecht, London, and Oxford, for their patience and helpful comments on half-baked versions of these ideas.

References

Aharonov, Yakir, and Kaufherr, M. (1988), “Quantum Frames of Reference”, Quantum Frames of Reference D 30:111–112.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? 48:696–702.Google Scholar
Busch, Paul, Grabowski, Marian, and Lahti, Pekka J. (1995), Operational Quantum Physics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Michael (2002), “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr’s Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, M. and Stadler, F. (eds.), History of Philosophy of Science: New Trends and Perspectives, Institute Vienna Circle Yearbook, Vol. 9. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert, Podolsky, Boris, and Rosen, Nathan (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47:777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1986), The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Folse, Henry (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Howard, Don. (1999), A Brief on Behalf of Bohr, unpublished.Google Scholar
Mackey, George (1978), The Theory of Unitary Group Representations in Physics, Probability, and Number Theory. Reading, MA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Tanona, Scott (2002) From Correspondence to Complementarity. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Varadarajan, Veeravalli S. (1985), The Geometry of Quantum Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar