Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: "I.Vecchi" <vecchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:53:59 +0000 (UTC)
a student ha scritto:
...
(b) "Giving up locality is equivalent to giving up parts of the
scientific method": The main reason that physicists get away with
explaining so many things about the world around us is because we can
ignore so much of the world around us (we are also very good at picking
things that we can explain!). In particular, most interactions between
systems (and indeed most systems) can be ignored in modelling a
particular phenomenon - particularly if they are a long long way away
(eg, in the lab next door). If we suddenly say that there are in fact
nonlocal interactions going on between everything, we put this basic
principle at risk - how can I ever hope to understand the energy levels
of a single hydrogen atom if the electron is interacting with my Aunt
Jemima's hairdryer? Where is the noise?
The argument is not new. Actually Newton had to deal with it. When the
"Principia" came out, mainstream localists-mechanicists yelled (not
without reason) that Newton's action-at-distance smelled of alchemy. He
famously replied "Hypotheses non fingo".
The core issue is still whether the "scientific method" is about
predicting experimental outcomes or fitting explanatory expectations.
Cheers,
IV
.
- References:
- Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: Vonny N.
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: a student
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: Ilja Schmelzer
- Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- From: a student
- Why does EPR need two observables?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why does EPR need two observables?
- Next by Date: Re: Lorentz violation of 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
|
|
