Philosophy Quantum Reality

of And
Determinism
Physics
  Written by Shahbaz Nihal
 
Shahbaz.nihalalvi@gmail.com
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem
to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting
myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell
than ordinary, whilst the great ocean truth lay all undiscovered
before me”

I believe this statement by Sir Isaac Newton reflects, or should reflect, the
sentiments or every scientist of present and future.

Acknowledgement

This report is dedicated to my family (especially to my parents) and to my

friends for finding the patience and courage to listen to, despite of much
interest, my philosophical interpretations on this subject. I would also like
to thank my teachers and a very special thanks to my online forum
friends for providing useful discussion on this subject.
 Index

Introduction 1

Philosophy of Physics
Introduction 2
Subjects of discussion in physical
2
philosophy
• Philosophy of time 2
• Philosophy of space 3
• Philosophy of atomism
3
(Fundamentalism)
General ideas about philosophy of physics 4

Realism and Determinism

Realism and Anti-Realism
• Realism 6
• Anti-Realism 6
Determinism 7

Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Quantum mechanical description of nature 9
(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) EPR Paradox 10

Hidden Variable Theory and Bell’s

Theorem
Hidden Variable Theory 12
Bell’s In-equality 13

Is Quantum Mechanics Really Violating

Locality? 17

Conclusion 18

References 19
 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to introduce the reader to the subject of Philosophy of
Physics and it’s in Physics.

I will start with a general description of the subject and a brief description of various
issues that are discussed within it and the general ideas about it. As we move along, I
will focus the discussion on towards one particular area of Physical Philosophy, namely
Reality and Determinism. Starting with the philosophical description of Reality and the
different point of views that exist regarding its nature, I will move on to the root of debate
on it and describe the physical point of view of the subject.

1 
 
 Philosophy of Physics

Introduction

Philosophy of Physics (also known as Physical Philosophy) is the study of the

fundamentality, generality and philosophical reasoning of principles of Physics. In
Physical Philosophy the integrity of principles of Physics, grounds of their validity are
discussed and the understanding of the physical world and/or reality, based on these
principles, is debated through logical (defined in philosophy as the study of valid
inference and demonstration) reasoning.

Physical Philosophy is quite different from other areas of Physics, in that it has no
defined premises. In Physical Philosophy there are various subjects/issues, belonging
to different areas of Physics, which are discussed and their Physical understanding is
debated.

Subjects of Discussion in Physical Philosophy

Some of the issues discussed under the domain of Physical Philosophy are as follows.
However, since these subjects are not the main focus of this report therefore I shall not
be discuss them in much depth, rather give a brief overview of them.

Philosophy of time

Time is a fundamental quantity in Physics. A fundamental quantity is defined as one the

idea of which cannot be derived from some more fundamental quantity. Rather the
quantity must be specified in terms of some standard for example time can be described
with the help of some recurrent event. The interval after which the event recurs defines
a single unit of time. Currently the standard of time is the Cs-133 Atomic Clock. A
second is defined as the time period in which 9192631770 radiation are emitted by Cs-
133 atom.

The question that arises in Philosophy regarding the physical definition of time is that if
is defined by a standard, set by us then, “Is there anything physical about time?
Whether there really is something called “time”, apart from the counting activity just
mentioned, that flows and that can be measured?”

2 
 
Philosophy of Space

Like time, space is also a fundamental quantity, in that it cannot be defined in terms of a
more fundamental entity as there nothing more fundamental presently known. The
philosophical debate on the nature of space is pretty much similar to that of time:
whether space is a real physical entity itself or simply a conceptual framework that
humans need to think (and talk) about the world.

Philosophy of Atomism (Fundamentalism)

The issue of Atomism is discussed under the domain of Fundamentalism. It is well

known that originally matter was thought to be composed of discreet packets (called
atoms), which are thought to be infinitesimal and indivisible. However, it was later found
that atoms are not really indivisible but have a very organized and structured internal
system composed of electron(s) and a nucleus. Later on the nucleus of the atom was
also found to be further decomposable into protons and neutrons, which are further
divisible, although under certain high energy conditions, into quarks, gluons etc.

Following the same scheme, one would be temped to think that may be quarks and
electrons also have a more fundamental internal system. However, so far, despite of
many experiments, no such internal structure has been found for electron or quarks;
even when they are subjected to conditions of extreme energy and pressure.

Since “absence of evidence” does not imply “evidence of absence”, the debate mainly is
based on whether the fundamental building blocks are truly fundamental or not.

These were some of the issues that are discussed under the domain of Physical
Philosophy. Among these the oldest dilemma in Physical Philosophy is that of Reality
and Determinism, more appropriately, the effect of Quantum Mechanics on Reality and
Determinism. The philosophical idea of Determinism and Realism will be explained in
the coming sections.

3 
 
 General Ideas about Physical Philosophy

Many Physicists do not consider that physical philosophical reasoning should have any
place in Physics at all. Among such people, include the famous Prof. Dr. Stephen
Hawking. As per Dr. Hawking’s belief, a physical theory is just a mathematical model
and it is pointless to argue over its physical (and philosophical) interpretations. All one
should be concerned with is how much the mathematical model is successful in
explaining the physical world. However, there are and have been people, like Prof. Dr.
Albert Einstein, Sir Gottfried Leibniz etc. including myself, who disagree with such views
and belief that it is important to have physical and philosophical interpretation of the
mathematical models used to describe nature. After all

Albert Einstein’s following dialogue with Robert A. Thornton clearly reflects his ideas on
this issue:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of
methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many
people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like
somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a
forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives
that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which
most scientists are suffering. This independence created by
philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between
a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

The reason for this belief is very obvious: Mathematics is a tool which when propelled
by proper assumptions can be used to describe and convey physical phenomena. If this
is correct then it means that an invalid assumption can lead to incorrect interpretation of
Reality. Consider the following case for instance:

(a – b)2 = a2– 2ab +b2 = (b – a)2

As you can see, the result of the above equation is invariant whether you choose to set
a>b or b>a. Therefore it is up to ones assumption whether to assume a>b or b>a. It is
obvious that making a wrong decision about the relationship between the two variables
can lead to incorrect interpretation of Nature. Although this is a very simple scenario but
more complex situations can be encountered.

It is evident from the above example that it is equally important to examine the Physical
meaning of the mathematical models, along with their experimental validity.

4 
 
Furthermore, the Physical description must be verified logically (in the philosophical
sense) for a more conceptually complete description of Nature.

5 
 
 Realism and Determinism

Realism and Anti-Realism

Realism

Realism refers to the belief that reality is independent of observation and/or our
perception. This means that realism implied that properties of any system should exist
independent of who is measuring them or whether they are being observed at all.

For example, if I a measure certain property of a physical system (say, its momentum)
then Realism implies that the system had that value for momentum even before I made
the measurement; even if I had not measured it at all.

Einstein explains Realism in the following statement:

“Moon is out there, even if you don’t see it!”

People who practice Realism are called Realist.

From everyday experience, Realism seems so obvious that it is very difficult to think of
a situation where you might not be able to observe it. That is why almost all of Classical
Mechanics is based on the Realist assumption of the universe. However, be patient, for
in the coming sections you will see that the most accurate theory ever devised by
humans clearly goes against something as obvious as Realism.

Anti-Realism

In contrast with Realism, Anti-Realism denies the existence of an “observation

independent” reality. This means, according to Anti-Realism, it is not valid to talk about
any property of any system prior to making a measurement on the system for that
property. In terms of the example used previously, Anti-Realist would say that the
system did not have any value of momentum unless the measurement was made.

If at this point you are wondering, “This is rubbish! How is this possible?” then believe
me I can understand, I have had arguments with different people on this (I was once a
critic as well!). The main reason one is reluctant to accept the concepts of Anti-Realism,
like I mentioned earlier, is simply because from our usual experience we hardly ever
think that a thing such as Anti-Realism may even exist. Erwin Schrodinger explains Anti-

6 
 
Realist point of view through his famous thought experiment called Schrodinger’s Cat.
Many versions of Schrodinger’s Cat currently exist, however we shall stick with the
simplest one:

A cat is placed inside a box along with a bottle of Cyanide and the lid of the box is
closed. Now, during the course of its stay inside the box, it is possible that the cat broke
the bottle of Cyanide and died. However, it is also equally possible that it did not and is
still alive.

How would you know, prior to making an observation (i.e. opening the box), whether it is
alive or not...Confused? This is exactly the type dilemma that Anti-Realism addresses.

Determinism

Determinism, as defined in Philosophy, describes the belief that past, present and future
states form a chain of events where one acts as the effect caused by the previous.
From a physical point of view, Determinism reflects the belief that the past, present and
future state of a system are connected to each other through an underlying principle. If
this underlying principle is known then given the initial (present) state of the system, its
state at any future or past time can be determined with certainity. As an example,
consider the motion of an object. If the forces on the object, it’s mass are its initial
velocity are known at any one time then I could use Newtonian Mechanics to predict the
state of the object at any future time.

7 
 
The idea of Determinism is stretched as far to assume, at least theoretically, that if the
underlying principle that connects our past, present and future state is known then the
future state of the Universe could be predicted at any future time. There are also other
definition and sub-classes of determinism but they do not concern us here.

8 
 
 Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Quantum Mechanical Description of Nature

Quantum Mechanics was developed in response to the inadequacies in the

Classical/Newtonian formulation of Physics, majorly, through the work of Werner
Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Neil Bohr and Paul Schwinger. Ever since the
formulation of Heisenberg’s Uncertainity Principle and the establishment of the four
fundamental postulates (which have slightly evolved over time, however their
fundamental idea remains same), QM has attacked even the most dilemmatic and
complicated problems in Physics and has proved itself to be the most accurate theory
every devised by humans. Although quite successful, QM has also been the centre of
debate between philosophers of Physics (Realists Vs Anti-Realist) because of the rather
new and different picture it paints of the Nature and/or Reality.

The postulates of Quantum Mechanics imply that it is not possible to know the state of a
system unless a measurement is made on it. This is because the state of any system,
except that of a free particle, is a mixture of all the possible states (technically speaking,
a superposition of all possible states) that the system can exist in (think about the
particle in a box problem). When a measurement is made on the system, it acquires one
of the possible states available to it. After the measurement is made, the system moves
back into its original condition i.e. as a superposition of the possible states and nothing
can be said about its state. Unless, however, the second measurement is made fast
enough so that the system does not have enough time to “reset” itself. Before a
measurement, the only thing one can say about the system is the individual probability
of the possible states in which the system can exist but nothing can be said with 100%
surety. The postulates of QM and their consequences have been rigorously confirmed
by countless number of experiments performed up to date and not even a single one
differs from the predictions of QM.

From the above quantum mechanical

1) It is not valid to speak of the state of a system unless a measurement is made on

it.

2) Universe is fundamentally probabilistic in nature i.e. one can only speak of

probability associated with the possible outcomes of an experiment and nothing
more.

9 
 
It is obvious from the QM description of Nature that it supports the Anti-Realist point of
view of reality as there is no meaning to it (since you don’t know in which state a system
is in) unless a measurement is made on it. Furthermore, QM also forces us to renounce
the idea of Determinism (refer to the previous section) for even if the underlying law
connecting the past, present and future states of a system is known, one cannot use it
to predict the future of the system as the present state of the system cannot be defined
any more than the individual probability of various possible states. On macroscopic
scales, the uncertainity in the state of the system is extremely small (the probability of a
single state is so enormous that it essentially washes out the other possible states for
the system). However, no matter how small it may be, it still exists and cannot be
eliminated from the system.

The probabilistic picture of the Universe rather than the deterministic one and the
inability to predict the state of system upset the Realist community and the theory of
Quantum Mechanics faced heavy criticism. Albert Einstein was a strong supporter of
Realism and objected to the “probabilistic” nature of the Universe presented by QM. His
sentiments about the newly developed theory are clearly reflected in the following
dialogue:

“God does not play dice with the Universe”

To which Neil Bohr replied:

“Quit telling God what to do!!”

Unable to account for the immediate empirical and theoretical success of the theory,
Realists found another way of coming around the probabilistic description implied by
QM: Maybe the system does exists in one state, independent of observation, it is just
that the current formulation of QM restricts us from knowing what it is. In other words,
although apparently it may seem that the system is in a super-position (mixed) state
whereas in reality it exists in one unique state. However, it has been proved by the work
of John. S. Bell, as will be shown later, that even this Realist picture is incorrect and
cannot account for the predictions of QM.

(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) EPR Paradox

In order to prove that QM provides an incomplete description of Nature and is

incompatible with Special Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein, and two of his
colleagues, Doris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published a paper titled “Can Quantum
Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”. The paper
describes a thought experiment now known as the EPR Paradox. We shall consider

10 
 
here a simplified, but equivalent, description of the paradox which was introduced by
David Bohm. The description of the experiment is as follows:

Consider the spontaneous decay of a neutral pion (π0) into a pair of a positron and the
electron. Since the spin of a neutral pion is zero therefore the law of conservation of
angular momentum requires that the spin of the two product particles must be opposite
to each other at all times.

Quantum Mechanics implies that unless a measurement is made on either of the

particle can be either of the following two states.

1. Electron spinning up and the positron spinning down

2. Positron spinning down and electron spinning up

Again, both particles cannot spin in the same direction as that is against the law of
conservation of energy.

Let’s say that the spin of the two particles is measured at two remote locations (call
them A and B) so far away that the procedure of measurement used for one particle
does not influence the other. If as a result of one particular measurement the electron is
found to be spinning up then it can be said with certainty that the positron (which can, in
principle, be light years away from the electron measuring apparatus) would be spinning
down (as it is required by the conservation of angular momentum). Or in the language of
Quantum Mechanics, collapse of the wave function of the electron (between spin up
and spin down) would cause instantaneous collapse of the wave function of the
positron, regardless of how far apart the two systems are.

Einstein argued that such “action-at-a-distance” (so this instantaneous collapse is

called) implies super-luminal (faster than light) propagation of information between the
particles and is thus violating the Special Theory Relativity (particularly the Principle of
Locality which states that signals cannot propagate faster than light). As a consequence
of this, he said, this also implies that the current formulation of QM is an incomplete
description of nature. The EPR paper concluded by saying,

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a
complete description of physical reality, we left open the question of
whether or not such description of exists. We believe, however, that
such a theory is possible.

He asserted that the only way to avoid this problem is to assume that both the particles
had their spin orientation defined prior to making measurements. The later part of the
conclusion of the paper refers to the Hidden Variable Theory, which is the subject of the
next section.

11 
 
 Hidden Variable Theory and Bell’s Theorem

Hidden Variable Theory

One of the most fundamental and contrasting characteristic of Quantum Mechanics is

the lack of determinism in it. Although there are situations in which Classical
(macroscopic) systems also exhibit indeterminism such as the case of motion of
molecules which can only be described on the average (Statistical Mechanics) or
inherently chaotic systems like weather patterns. But classical indeterminism usually
arises as a result of the lack of detailed knowledge of the system. For example, it is
believed that a classical molecule has a well defined position and momentum at all
times, although unknown, which makes the system deterministic, at least in principle.

Similar considerations about quantum systems have led people to believe that quantum
systems are not inherently in-deterministic, rather it is just a result of the fact that QM
provides incomplete description of systems. In other words, quantum mechanical
systems in reality do exist in a single state, independent of observation (Realism), it’s
just that QM does not know about it. However, when supplemented with the certain
hidden variables, the in-deterministic nature of QM would vanish.

The idea of the Hidden Variable theory (the name given to this idea) is the existence of
certain variable(s) associated with every quantum system, which, if found, would
dissolve the anti-realist and in-deterministic (and hence non-local as mentioned in the
EPR Paradox) picture of Universe that QM paints. These variable are called hidden
because neither are we directly aware of the nature of these variables nor can we
control them. It can be a single number or it can be a collection of numbers or some
other complicated function; we do not know. It was hoped, at the time of this proposal
and still hoped by some people, that some further experiment or may be some future
theory would be able to determine the nature of these variables.

This is exactly the type of theory of which Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen spoke in the
EPR paper.

Over the years various types of Hidden Variable Theories have been proposed. They
tend to be cumbersome and mathematically very complicated but Physics community
has been unable to find any compelling reason to add them into the framework of QM.
Until 1964, the idea of hidden variable at least seemed convincing enough to be
pursued but in that year John. S. Bell proved a very powerful in-equality known as the
Bell In-equality Theorem which applies to every Hidden Variable theory subjected to the

12 
 
Principle of Locality. Using his In-equality theorem Bell showed that any version of HV
Theory cannot compete with the predictions of QM.

Bell’s In-equality

In order to explain the Bell In-equality theorem we consider the EPR-Bohm thought
experiment. However this time, we shall not measure the spin of both the particles along
the same unit vector like we did last time. Instead, Bell proposed to measure the spin of
the two particles at two remote locations (eliminating any possibility of interaction
between the measuring apparatus), along different unit vectors (we will call them a and
b) independently.

** [Note: Those of you wish to skip all this, rather heavy, mathematics can directly jump
to page number 15] **

According to Quantum Mechanics, if a system (Ψ) is composed of two entangled

components (electron and positron in our case) then the spin operator for the entire
system is the product of the spin operator (along the respective direction of
measurement) for the individual systems i.e.

(σ1.a).(σ2.b)

Where σ1, σ2 are the Pauli’s spin matrices for the electron and the positron respectively.

If P(a, b) is the quantum mechanical expectation value of the above operator, then by the
postulates of QM, it is given as

P(a, b) = <Ψ|(σ1.a).(σ2.b)|Ψ>=-(a.b) = -cos ф

where ф is the angle between unit vectors a and b. This gives you the expectation
value as per the formulation of QM. In the next part Bell considered the situation from
the point of view of the HV theory.

Let A (a, λ) and B (b, λ) be the functions defining the spin orientation of the electron and
the positron respectively. The variable λ is the proposed hidden variable. Further, ρ(λ) is
the probability density of the hidden variable, λ, and like every probability density it is
subjected to the condition, ∫ρ(λ) dλ =1

Under the assumption of the Hidden Variable Theory, the expectation value of the
product of the spin state is given as,

P(a, b) = ∫ρ(λ) A (a, λ) B (b, λ) dλ -----------------(i)

13 
 
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum requires that spin of the particle along the
direction of the same unit vector must be opposite i.e.

A (a, λ) = -B (a, λ) --------------------- (ii)

Putting (iI) in (I),

P(a, b) = -∫ρ(λ) A(a, λ) A(b, λ) dλ---------------(iii)

Along any other unit vector c (located in the plane of a and b), similarly we get:

P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) A(a, λ) A(c, λ) dλ --------------(iv)

Subtracting, (iv) from (iii)

P(a, b) - P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) [A (a, λ) A (b, λ) dλ - A (a, λ) A (c, λ)]dλ

Since the value of A(a, λ) and B(b, λ) can either be +1 or -1 (as it can either spinning up
or down) we get

[A(b, λ)]2 = 1----------------------------(v)

Above equation becomes,

P(a, b) - P(a, c) = -∫ρ(λ) [1- A (b, λ) A (c, λ)] A (a, λ) A (b, λ)dλ

Furthermore, from eq.(v) we can see that the maximum value for the product, A (a, λ)
A (b, λ) can be +1, while the least value can be -1. This means that,

|P(a, b) - P(a, c)| ≤ -∫ρ(λ) [1- A (b, λ) A (c, λ)] dλ

Where the in-equality holds when the positive value of A (a, λ) A (b, λ) is chosen while
the equality holds when the negative value is chosen.

P(a, b) - P(a, c) ≤ ∫(ρ(λ) dλ) ∫ρ(λ)A (b, λ) A (c, λ) dλ

By normalization condition of hidden variable, λ,

∫ρ(λ) dλ = 1

And noticing that,

∫ρ(λ)A (b, λ) A (c, λ) dλ = P(b, c)

We get the following in-equality:

14 
 
 |P(a, b) - P(a, c)| ≤ 1 + P(b, c)

This equation is called the Bell’s Inequality and holds for any Hidden Variable Theory
subjected to the minimum requirement of being local (i.e. it should not include faster
than light communication or, consequently, in other words the properties of any system,
spin in our case, must be defined independent of measurement). What makes this
theorem really powerful is, as you might have noticed, that no specific assumptions
were made regarding the nature of the hidden variable or its distribution, ρ(λ). If there is
any place for a hidden variable in the Quantum Theory then averages (expectation
value) calculated from the quantum mechanical calculation (P(a,b) = -(a.b) = -cos ф)
should satisfy Bell’s in-equality. It can be easily proved that spin measurement along
any other vector c (take it to 45o; figure below), located in the plane formed by vectors a
and b, would go against Bell’s In-equality.

a 
c

45o

So, what does all this show? All of this calculation Bell did leave one with two choices:

1) Either one can go with the HV theory and the Realist point of view (that systems
have their properties independent of measurement) one must renounce, despite
of heavy empirical success, the QM formulation of nature, as an HV theory
cannot account for the QM results (as shown above that averages calculated
from QM do not satisfy the inequality derived from hidden variable assumption),
suggesting search for an alternative explanation.

Or

2) If one wishes to keep his (or her) faith in QM as it is, then it is not possible to
design a HV theory which can save QM from in-deterministic and apparent non-
local behavior.

15 
 
Since 1972 a large number of experiments, with ever increasing accuracy, have been
performed on variety of entangled systems and the results have found to be completely
compatible with the QM prediction and violation of the Bell’s inequality.

16 
 
 Is Quantum Mechanics Really Violating Locality?

Success of Bell’s theorem had severe effects on the Physics and Realists community.
Not only because it supported the QM formulation of nature and thus implied that
Nature is fundamentally in-deterministic. But because it implied that QM systems
behave non-locally.

By now you must be pretty tempted to ask, “What exactly is wrong if QM system can
communicate faster than light, isn’t it a good thing that one can communicate so
rapidly?” The problem is the Principle of Causality. It states that causes cannot precede
effects or in other words, “something” is caused by “something-else” and if this
“something-else” does not cause anything then “something” will not happen. If
information can travel faster than light then causality is violated and the only way
explain the violation of causality is to assert that time is flowing backwards, as that is the
only way effect can precede its cause. This cannot be a possibility as time flows only in
one direction (you may say that may be it is time travel but that is not possible as it has
its own issues which are not directly relevant to our discussion here).

Although one would be easily convinced from the EPR experiment that instantaneous
collapse of wave function within entangled systems implies that information travels
instantaneously within such systems. However, a more careful inspection of the
situation will lead you to conclude that in reality no actual (or “useful”) information is
being transmitted at super-luminal speed; or transmitted at all.

Let:

A person A stand at the electron detector and a person B at the positron detector. Let’s,
for clarity, assume that the detectors are arranged so that the electron reaches A before
the positron reaches B. In order to predict the state of the positron, B needs to know the
state of the electron at A which can only be done if a sub-luminal (slower than light)
signal is sent from A to B after A has performed its spin measurement through some
conventional method.

As far as A is concerned, it takes only as much time as his “Quantum sense” to predict
that the positron will be spinning in the opposite direction, which is of course sub-
luminal. So over all there is no information transfer faster than light and hence no
violation of special theory of relativity.

17 
 
 Conclusion
In this report we considered different philosophical ideas about the nature of Reality and
described the concept of Determinism in philosophy and Physics. It was shown that
while the Classical/Newtonian formulation of Physics assumes that nature is realistic
and deterministic by default, advance formulation of Physics supports neither Realism
nor Determinism.

Although, like any other topic in Philosophy, it is more of a matter of opinion whether
one believes in Anti-Realism or a Realism, all empirical and theoretical progress in the
field of Physics so far implies that Anti-Realism is the only tenable point of view of the
physical world. In other words, Nature is inherently in-deterministic. This means that the
future state of any system (including the universe itself!) cannot be defined any more
than the probability of various outcomes. This can have consequences for the Theory of
Everything (ToE). Theory of Everything, for Philosophers, means a complete description
of the Universe. For Physicist the equivalent meaning is the unification of all
fundamental forces (Strong Force, Electroweak force and Gravity).

I would also like to empathize on the importance of conceptual reasoning in Physics. IN

the previous discussion, one would be easily convinced, following the EPR paradox,
that the formulation and postulates of QM imply that information is propagating faster
then light and thus the Principle of Locality and Special Theory of Relativity is being
violated. However through a closer inspection of the situation it became obvious that in
reality neither the Principle of Locality nor the Special Theory of Relativity is being
violated in their correct context. It is obvious that such deep insight about Nature cannot
be obtained from the Mathematical formulation alone and must be supplemented with
Physical and Philosophical reasoning and discussion.

Like I mentioned in the beginning, similar cases can arise where because of incorrect
assumptions can lead to invalid deductions about Reality

18 
 
 References
• Introductory Quantum Mechanics, Richard L. Liboff
• Quantum Mechanics (Second Edition), B.H. Bransden & C.J. Joachain
• Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Second Edition), David. J. Grifiths
• John Bell and Bell’s Theorem, Detlef Durr, Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich
Tumulka and Nino Zanghi (December 27, 2004)
• Causality in Physics, A.M. Fox, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University Sheffield.
• On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, John. S. Bell, Physics I, 195-200
(1964)
• Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered
Complete?, A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Institute of for Advanced
Studies, Princeton, New Jersey (Physics Review 47, 777, March 25, 1935)
• Against ‘Realism’, Travis Norsen, Marlboro College
• The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Roger
Penrose
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

19