Subject: Physics - History and Philosophy of Physics
arxiv: Physics::History of Physics | Quantum Physics
A new formulation of the EPR argument is presented, one which uses John Bell's mathematically precise local causality condition in place of the looser locality assumption which was used in the original EPR paper and on which Niels Bohr seems to have based his objection ... View more
 John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2004.
 Eugene P. Wigner, “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, 1976, reprinted in “Quantum Theory and Measurement”, John A. Wheeler and Wojciech H. Zurek, editors, Princeton University Press, 1983.
 N. David Mermin, “Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 65, No. 3, July 1993, pp. 803-815.
 Albert Einstein, “Reply to Criticisms” in “Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist”, P.A. Schilpp, ed., Harper and Row, 1959, pg 681.
 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Phys. Rev. 47, pp. 777-80 (1935). Also reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek, op cit.
 Niels Bohr, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Phys. Rev. 48, pp. 696-702; reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek, op cit. (Emphasis in original)
 David Bohm, “Quantum Theory”, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951, pages 611-23.
 Travis Norsen, “Einstein's Boxes”, Am. J. Phys. 73 (2), February 2005, pp. 164-176.
 Abner Shimony, “Our Worldview and Microphysics” in “Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory”, James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin, editors, University of Notre Dame Press, 1989
 Jon Jarrett, “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, Nous, 18, pp. 569-89 (1984)