한컴오피스 
목차
1. Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?1.1 Setting and prehistory
1.2 The argument in the text
1.3 Einstein`s versions of the argument
2. A popular form of the argument: Bohr`s response
3. Development of EPR
3.1 Spin and the Bohm version
3.2 Bell and beyond
본문내용
First published Mon May 10, 2004; substantive revision Wed Aug 5, 2009In the May 15, 1935 issue of Physical Review Albert Einstein co-authored a paper with his two postdoctoral research associates at the Institute for Advanced Study, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. The article was entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” (Einstein et al. 1935). Generally referred to as “EPR”, this paper quickly became a centerpiece in the debate over the interpretation of the quantum theory,
<중 략>
That was to remain the situation for almost another fifteen years, until John Bell utilized the EPRB set-up to construct a stunning argument, at least as challenging as EPR, but to a different conclusion (Bell 1964). Bell shows that, under a given set of assumptions, certain of the correlations that can be measured in runs of an EPRB experiment satisfy a particular set of constraints, known as the Bell inequalities. In these EPRB experiments, however, quantum theory predicts that the measured correlations violate the Bell inequalities, and by an experimentally significant amount.
참고 자료
Bacciagaluppi, G. and A. Valentini, 2009, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Baggott, J., 2004, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, J.S., 1964, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics, 1:195-200, reprinted in Bell 1987.
, 1987, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beller, M., 1999, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bohm, D., 1951, Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall.
Bohm, D., and Y. Aharonov, 1957, “Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen and Podolski”, Physical Review, 108:1070-1076.
Bohr, N., 1935a, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 48: 696-702.
, 1935b, “Space and Time in Nuclear Physics”, Mss 14, March 21, Manuscript Collection, Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
, 1939, “The causality problem in atomic physics” in Bohr, 1996, pp. 303-322.
, 1996, Collected Works, Vol. 7, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Born, M., (ed.), 1971, The Born-Einstein Letters, New York; Walker.
De Raedt, K. et al, 2007, “A Computer Program to Simulate EinsteinPodolskyRosenBohm Experiments with Photons”, Computer Physics Communications, 176: 642-651.
Dickson, M., 2004, “Quantum Refer
