Share This Article:

Einstein Dilemma and Two-State Vector Formalism

Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:236KB) PP. 41-46
DOI: 10.4236/jqis.2015.52006    3,219 Downloads   3,775 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

In the famous EPR paper published in 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen suggested a thought experiment, which later became known as the “EPR experiment”. Using the EPR experiment, they posited that quantum mechanics was incomplete. Einstein, however, was dissatisfied with the EPR paper and published a second work on the EPR experiment, in which he discussed the dilemma of choosing whether quantum mechanics was incomplete or nonlocal. Currently, most physicists choose the nonlocality of quantum mechanics over Einstein’s choice of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. However, with an appropriate alternate hypothesis, both of these choices can be rejected. Herein, I demonstrate an approach to overcome the Einstein Dilemma by proposing a new interpretation invoked by a new formalism of quantum mechanics known as two-state vector formalism.

Cite this paper

Morita, K. (2015) Einstein Dilemma and Two-State Vector Formalism. Journal of Quantum Information Science, 5, 41-46. doi: 10.4236/jqis.2015.52006.

References

[1] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 47, 777-780.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
[2] Fine, A. (1986) The Shaky Game. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[3] Einstein, A. (1948) Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit. Dialectica, 2, 320-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00704.x
[4] Redhead, M. (1987) Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
[5] Einstein, A. (1949) Autobiographical Notes. In: Schilp, P.A., Ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court, New York, 1-94.
[6] Bohr, N. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical Review, 48, 696-702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.696
[7] Beller, M. and Fine, A. (1993) Bohr’s Response to EPR. In: Faye, J. and Folse, H.J., Eds., Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, 1-31.
[8] Fine, A. (2007) Bohr’s Response to EPR: Criticism and Defense. Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 1-26.
[9] Howard, D. (1994) What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? In: Faye, J. and Folse, H.., Eds., Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, 201-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8106-6_9
[10] Halvorson, H. and Clifton, R. (2002) Reconsidering Bohr’s Reply to EPR. In: Butterfield, J. and Placek, T., Eds., Modality, Probability and Bell’s Theorems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 3-18.
[11] Ozawa, M. and Kitajima, Y. (2012) Reconstructing Bohr’s Reply to EPR in Algebraic Quantum Theory. Foundations of Physics, 42, 475-487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9615-7
[12] Bohm, D.J. (1951) Quantum Theory. Dover Publications, New York.
[13] Howard, D. (1989) Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implication of the Bell Experiment. In: Cushing, J.T. and McMullin, E., Eds., Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflection on Bell’s Theorem, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 224-253.
[14] Vaidman, L. (2002) Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N., Ed., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu
[15] Aharonov, Y., Bergmann, P.G. and Lebowitz, J.L. (1964) Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement. Physical Review B, 134, 1410-1416.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.134.B1410
[16] Aharonov, Y., Albert, D.Z. and Vaidman, L. (1988) How the Result of a Measurement of a Component of the Spin-1/2 Particle Turn Out to Be 100. Physical Review Letters, 60, 1351-1354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1351
[17] Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1990) Properties of a Quantum System during the Time Interval between Two Measurements. Physical Review A, 41, 11-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.41.11
[18] Yokota, K., Yamamoto, T., Koashi, M. and Imoto, N. (2009) Direct Observation of Hardy’s Paradox by Joint Weak Measurement with an Entangled Photon Pair. New Journal of Physics, 11, Article ID: 033011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/3/033011
[19] Aharonov, Y., Popescu, S. and Tollaksen, J. (2010) A Time-Symmetric Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Physics Today, 63, 27-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3518209
[20] Kochen, S.B. and Specker, E.P. (1967) The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1968.17.17004
[21] Mermin, N.D. (1993) Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell. Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 803-815.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.65.803
[22] Tollaksen, J. (2007) Pre- and Post-Selection, Weak Values and Contextuality. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40, 9033-9066.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/30/025

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.