Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?
"It is shown that a certain 'criterion of physical reality' formulated in a recent article with the above title by A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen contains an essential ambiguity when it is applied to quantum phenomena..."
FIRST EDITION of Bohr's famous reply to the landmark EPR paper.
“In 1935 Einstein made what may be called a counter-proposal to complementarity. His alternative, which he named objective reality, was presented in a joint paper with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (the EPR paper) … Three months later Bohr submitted his reply to EPR … Bohr did not believe that the EPR paper called for any change in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.”
Regarding Bohr’s reply, Einstein remarked, “Of the the ‘orthodox’ quantum theoreticians whose position I know, Niels Bohr’s seems to me to come nearest to doing justice to the [EPR] problem."
Einstein remained "forever opposed, however, to ‘Bohr’s principle of complementarity,’” stating that “I have been unable to achieve [its sharp formulation] despite much effort I have expended on it” (Pais, 429-31).
IN: The Physical Review, Vol. 48, No. 8, October 1935, pp. 696–702. Lancaster and New York: American Institute of Physics, 1935. Quarto, original wrappers. Slight toning to edges (as usual). A FINE COPY.
Check Availability:
P: 212.326.8907
E: michael@manhattanrarebooks.com