Advertisement

Verschränkung und Nicht-Lokalität: EPR, Bell und die Folgen

  • Paul NägerEmail author
  • Manfred Stöckler
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die Probleme, die wir in diesem Kapitel diskutieren, haben ihren formalen Ursprung in der Art und Weise, wie in der Quantentheorie zusammengesetzte Systeme beschrieben werden (vgl. Abschn. 3.1.2).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur zu Kapitel 4

  1. Arntzenius, Frank (1994). Space-like connections. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45(1), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzenius, Frank (2010). Reichenbach’s common cause principle. In: E. N. Zalta (Hg.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-rpcc/
  3. Aspect, Alain, Jean Dalibard und Gérard Roger (1982). Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters 49, 1804–1807.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, Jürgen (2005). Verschränkte Systeme. Die Quantenphysik auf neuen Wegen. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann, Kurt und Roman U. Sexl (1987). Die Deutungen der Quantentheorie. 3. Aufl. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, John S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1(3), 195–200.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, John S. (1971). Introduction to the hidden-variable question. In: B. d’Espagnat (Hg.). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’, Course XLIX, 171–181. New York: Academic Press. (Wiederabgedruckt in: Bell 1987)Google Scholar
  8. Bell, John S. (1975). The theory of local beables. TH –2053-CERN. (Wiederabgedruckt in: Bell 1987, 52–62)Google Scholar
  9. Bell, John S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bohm, David (1951). Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Bohr, Niels (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 48, 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butterfield, Jeremy (1989). A space-time approach to the Bell inequality. In: J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, 114–144. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cartwright, Nancy (1988). How to tell a common cause. In: J. H. Fetzer (Hg.). Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon, 181–188. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clauser, John F., Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony und Richard A. Holt (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23, 880–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cleland, Carol (1984). Space: An abstract system of non-supervenient relations. Philosophical Studies 46, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cramer, John G. (1980). Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physical Review D 22, 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cramer, John G. (1986). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Einstein, Albert (1948). Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit. Dialectica 2, 320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky und Nathan Rosen (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esfeld, Michael (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(4), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. d’Espagnat, Bernard (1979). The quantum theory and reality. Scientific American 241(5), 128–141.Google Scholar
  22. Fine, Arthur (1989). Do correlations need to be explained? In: J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, 175–194. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fine, Arthur (2013). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument in quantum theory. In: E. N. Zalta (Hg.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/
  24. Fleming, Gordon N. (1986). On a Lorentz invariant quantum theory of measurement. In: D. M. Greenberger (Hg.). New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory, 574–575. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  25. Fleming, Gordon N. und Harry Bennett (1989). Hyperplane dependence in relativistic quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 19, 231–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Fraassen, Bas C. (1982). Rational belief and the common cause principle. In: R. McLaughlin (Hg.). What? Where? When? Why? Essays on Induction, Space and Time, Explanation, 193–209. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. French, Steven (1989). Individuality, supervenience and Bell’s theorem. Philosophical Studies 55, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friebe, Cord (2004). Teilen, Trennen und Vereinen: EPR ohne Holismus. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35(2), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghirardi, GianCarlo, Luca Marinatto und Tullio Weber (2002). Entanglement and properties of composite quantum systems: A conceptual and mathematical analysis. Journal of Statistical Physics 108, 49–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glymour, Clark (2006). Markov properties and quantum experiments. In: W. Demopoulos und I. Pitowsky (Hg.). Physical Theory and Its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, 117–125. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gröblacher, Simon, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer und Anton Zeilinger (2007). An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, 871–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Healey, Richard A. (1991). Holism and nonseparability. Journal of Philosophy 88, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hooker, Cliff A. (1972). The nature of quantum mechanical reality: Einstein versus Bohr. In: R. G. Colodny and A. Fine (Hg.). Paradigms & Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, 67–302. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  34. Howard, Don (1985). Einstein on locality and separability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Howard, Don (1989). Holism, separability, and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. In: J. T. Cushing und E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, 224–253. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hüttemann, Andreas (2005). Explanation, emergence, and quantum entanglement. Philosophy of Science 72, 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jammer, Max (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  38. Jarrett, Jon P. (1984). On the physical signifance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments. Noûs 18, 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, Martin R. und Robert K. Clifton (1993). Against experimental metaphysics. In: P. A. French, T. E. Uehling und H. K. Wettstein (Hg.). Philosophy of Science, 295–316. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ladyman, James, Øystein Linnebo und Tomasz F. Bigaj (2013). Entanglement and nonfactorizability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44(3), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, David (1986). Philosophical Papers: Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ludwig, Günther (1971). The measuring process and an axiomatic foundation of quantum mechanics. In: B. d’Espagnat (Hg.). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 287–315. Menlo Park CA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
  43. Machamer, Peter, Lindley Darden und Carl F. Craver (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maudlin, Tim (2011). Quantum Non-locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. 3. Aufl. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (1. Aufl. 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mellor, D. Hugh (1981). Real Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Näger, Paul M. (2013). A stronger Bell argument for quantum non-locality. Preprint. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9932/
  47. Näger, Paul M. (2013). Causal graphs for EPR experiments. Preprint. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9915/
  48. Paterek, Tomasz, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Simon Gröblacher, Thomas Jennewein, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer und Anton Zeilinger (2007). Experimental test of nonlocal realistic theories without the rotational symmetry assumption. Physical Review Letters 99, 210406.Google Scholar
  49. Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Popper, Karl R. (1971). Logik der Forschung. 4. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck.Google Scholar
  51. Price, Huw (1994). A neglected route to realism about quantum mechanics. Mind 103, 303–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Price, Huw (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Price, Huw (2008). Toy models for retrocausality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 39(4), 752–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Price, Huw (2012). Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “maybe”? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43(2), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Redhead, Michael L. G. (1983). Relativity, causality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: Nonlocality and peaceful coexistence. In: R. Swinburne (Hg.). Space, Time and Causality, 151–189. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Redhead, Michael L. G. (1986). Relativity and quantum mechanics—conflict or peaceful coexistence? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 480(1), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Redhead, Michael L. G. (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  58. Redhead, Michael L. G. (1989). Nonfactorizability, stochastic causality, and passion-ata- distance. In: J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, 145–153. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  59. Reichenbach, Hans (1956). The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schrödinger, Erwin (1935a). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schrödinger, Erwin (1935b). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31(04), 555–563.Google Scholar
  62. Shimony, Abner (1984). Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality. In: S. Kamefuchi (Hg.). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, 225–230. Tokyo: The Physical Society of Japan.Google Scholar
  63. Shimony, Abner (1989). Search for a worldview which can accommodate our knowledge of microphysics. In: J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, 25–37. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shimony, Abner (1990). An exposition of Bell’s theorem. In: A. I. Miller (Hg.). Sixtytwo Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries Into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 33–43. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spirtes, Peter, Clark Glymour und Richard Scheines (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search. 2. Aufl. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. (1. Aufl. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993)Google Scholar
  66. Stöckler, Manfred (1984). Philosophische Probleme der relativistischen Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  67. Suppes, Patrick and Mario Zanotti (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible? Synthese 48, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teller, Paul (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 71–81.Google Scholar
  69. Teller, Paul (1989). Relativity, relational holism and the Bell inequalities. In: J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (Hg.). Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, 208–223. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  70. Tumulka, Roderich (2006a). Collapse and relativity. In: A. Bassi, D. Dürr, T. Weber und N. Zanghì (Hg.). Quantum Mechanics: Are There Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, 340–352. Berlin: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  71. Tumulka, Roderich (2006b). A relativistic version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber model. Journal of Statistical Physics 125(4), 821–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ursin, Rupert et al. (2007). Entanglement-based quantum communication over 144 km. Nature Physics 3(7), 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walther, Philip, Kevin J. Resch, Caslav Brukner und Anton Zeilinger (2006). Experimental entangled entanglement. Physical Review Letters 97, 020501.Google Scholar
  74. Weihs, Gregor, Thomas Jennewein, Christoph Simon, Harald Weinfurter und Anton Zeilinger (1998). Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions. Physical Review Letters 81(23), 5039–5043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wood, Christopher J. und Robert W. Spekkens (2012). The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning. Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4119

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarWestfälische Wilhelms-UniversitätMünsterDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für PhilosophieUniversität BremenBremenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations