An experiment proposed by Karl Popper is considered by many to be a crucial test of quantum mechanics. Although many loopholes in the original proposal have been pointed out, they are not crucial to the test. We use only the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics to point out what is fundamentally wrong with the proposal, and demonstrate that Popper’s basic premise was faulty.
Topics
Educational assessment
REFERENCES
1.
K. R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (Hutchinson, London, 1982), pp. 27–29.
2.
K. R. Popper, “Realism in quantum mechanics and a new version of the EPR experiment,” in Open Questions in Quantum Physics, edited by G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merwe (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985)
3.
A.
Sudbery
, “Popper’s variant of the EPR experiment does not test the Copenhagen interpretation
,” Philos. Sci.
52
, 470
–476
(1985
).4.
A. Sudbery, “Testing interpretations of quantum mechanics,” in Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism, edited by G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merwe. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1988), pp. 267–277.
5.
H.
Krips
, “Popper, propensities, and the quantum theory
,” Br. J. Philos. Sci.
35
, 253
–274
(1984
).6.
M. J.
Collet
and R.
Loudon
, “Analysis of a proposed crucial test of quantum mechanics
,” Nature (London)
326
, 671
–672
(1987
).7.
P.
Storey
, M. J.
Collet
, and D. F.
Walls
, “Measurement-induced diffraction and interference of atoms
,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
68
, 472
–475
(1992
).8.
M. Redhead, “Popper and the quantum theory,” in Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems, edited by A. O’Hear (Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 1996), pp. 163–176.
9.
R.
Plaga
, “An extension of ‘Popper’s experiment’ can test interpretations of quantum mechanics
,” Found. Phys. Lett.
13
, 461
–476
(2000
).10.
A. J.
Short
, “Popper’s experiment and conditional uncertainty relations
,” Found. Phys. Lett.
14
, 275
–284
(2001
).11.
H.
Nha
, J.-H.
Lee
, J.-S.
Chang
, and K.
An
, “Atomic position localization via dual measurement
,” Phys. Rev. A
65
, 033827
-1
(2002
).12.
A.
Peres
, “Karl Popper and the Copenhagen interpretation
,” Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci.
33
, 23
–24
(2002
).13.
G.
Hunter
, “Realism in the realized Popper’s experiment
,” AIP Conf. Proc.
646
(1
), 243
–248
(2002
).14.
Y.-H.
Kim
and Y.
Shih
, “Experimental realization of Popper’s experiment: Violation of the uncertainty principle?
” Found. Phys.
29
, 1849
–1861
(1999
).15.
C. S.
Unnikrishnan
, “Is the quantum mechanical description of physical reality complete? Proposed resolution of the EPR puzzle
,” Found. Phys. Lett.
15
, 1
–25
(2002
).16.
A.
Einstein
, B.
Podolsky
, and N.
Rosen
, “Can the quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?
” Phys. Rev.
47
, 777
–780
(1935
).17.
T. B.
Pittman
, Y. H.
Shih
, D. V.
Strekalov
, and A. V.
Sergienko
, “Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement
,” Phys. Rev. A
52
, R3429
–R3432
(1995
).18.
T.
Qureshi
, “Popper’s experiment, Copenhagen interpretation and nonlocality
,” Int. J. Quantum Inf.
2
, 407
–418
(2004
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2005 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2005
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
