What’s Wrong with Einstein’s 1927 Hidden-Variable Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?
Einstein’s unpublished 1927 deterministic trajectory interpretation of quantum mechanics is critically examined, in particular with regard to the reason given by Einstein for rejecting his theory. It is shown that the aspect Einstein found objectionable—the mutual dependence of the motions of particles when the (many-body) wavefunction factorises—is a generic attribute of his theory but that this feature may be removed by modifying Einstein’s method in either of two ways: using a suggestion of Grommer or, in a physically important special case, using a simpler technique. It is emphasized though that the presence or absence of the interdependence property does not determine the acceptability of a trajectory theory. It is shown that there are other grounds for rejecting Einstein’s theory (and the two modified theories), to do with its domain of applicability and compatibility with empirical predictions. That Einstein’s reason for rejection is not a priori grounds for discarding a trajectory theory is demonstrated by reference to an alternative deterministic trajectory theory that displays similar particle interdependence yet is compatible with quantum predictions.
KeywordsEinstein quantum theory interpretation hidden variables particle trajectories entanglement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Cushing, J. T 1994Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen HegemonyUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoChap. 8.Google Scholar
- 2.Pais, A. 1982Subtle is the Lord. . . F The Science and the Life of Albert EinsteinClarendon PressOxfordp. 444.Google Scholar
- 3.Fine, A. 1986The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum TheoryUniversity of Chicago PressChicago9899Google Scholar
- 4.Howard, D. 1990‘‘‘Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf’, or the prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935: Einstein’s early worries about the quantum mechanics of composite systems’‘Miller, A. I. eds. Sixty-Two Years of UncertaintyPlenum PressNew Yorkp. 61Google Scholar
- 5.Belousek, D. W. 1996 ‘‘Einstein’s1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory its background, context and significance’‘Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys27437Google Scholar
- 6.Eisenhart, L. P. 1966Riemannian GeometryPrinceton University PressPrincetonSec. 33.Google Scholar
- 7.Prizbram, K. eds. 1967Letters on Wave MechanicsVision PressLondon 2324Google Scholar
- 8.Debever, R. eds. 1979Elie Cartan–-Albert Einstein: Letters on Absolute ParallelismPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
- 9.Jammer, M. 1974The Philosophy of Quantum MechanicsWileyNew York164165Google Scholar
- 10.Born, M. 1971The Born-Einstein LettersMacmillanLondonGoogle Scholar
- 11.Electrons et Photons. Rapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique, 1927 (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1928), pp. 255–256 (English translation in: Niels Bohr Collected Works, J. Kalckar, ed. Vol 6, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 101–103).Google Scholar
- 12.Holland, P. R. 2000The Quantum Theory of MotionCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 13.Holland, P., Philippidis, C. 2003‘‘Implications of Lorentz covariance for the guidance formula in two-slit quantum interference’‘Phys. Rev. A67062105Google Scholar
- 14.Holland, P. R. 1998‘‘New trajectory interpretation of quantum mechanics’‘Found. Phys.28881Google Scholar
- 15.Holland, P. 2001‘‘Hamiltonian Theory of Wave and Particle in Quantum Mechanics I, II’‘Nuovo Cimento B11610431143Google Scholar
- 16.Einstein, A. 1948‘‘Quantum mechanics and reality’‘Dialectica2320(English translation in Ref. 10, pp. 168–173).Google Scholar