Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: Ilja Schmelzer <Ilja.Schmelzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:21:32 +0000 (UTC)
"a student" <of_1001_nights@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
Many people (particularly after the glorious sharpening by Bell, and
subsequent experiments by Aspect), regard the "locality" assumption (i)
above as suspect. However, given that no measurable non-local
influence is detectable (according to quantum mechanics), one can as
well suspect the "reality" assumption (ii).
In the form used by Bell the "reality assumption" is very general, very
weak, does not even refer to spacetime. It may be argued that giving
it up is equivalent to give up parts of the scientific method (the search
for realistic explanations of observable effects.)
Einstein causality (i) is, instead, a quite special assumption about
spacetime. If we give up realism, the realistic version of Einstein
causality becomes meaningless anyway. The weak (probabilitistic)
version survives anyway. Thus, if we compare the two choices,
we only loose if we give up realism.
Some people also note
that the root of the trouble might be the implicit use of a third
"non-conspiracy" assumption, that experimenters have free choice in
what they are going to measure.
If we follow this line, Einstein causality becomes meaningless.
Even a working FTL phone would no longer falsify Einstein
causality, because it could be explained with conspiracy as well.
Ilja
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: a student
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- References:
- Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: Vonny N.
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: a student
- Why does EPR need two observables?
- Prev by Date: Re: Derivation of inertial mass = gravitational mass?
- Next by Date: Lorentz Invariance Questions in the Standard Model
- Previous by thread: Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- Next by thread: Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
