Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered incomplete?

TL;DR

This paper critically analyzes the original 1935 EPR paper questioning quantum mechanics' completeness, highlighting its logical flaws and reviewing Bohr's response, without relying on Bell's theorem.

Contribution

It offers a detailed critique of the EPR argument and Bohr's response, revealing logical shortcomings that could have been identified earlier.

Findings

Identifies logical flaws in the EPR argument

Shows Bohr's response failed to address key issues

Provides historical perspective on quantum foundations

Abstract

In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and mentor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr intensified following the latter's response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell's theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr's response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument.