Re: Why does EPR need two observables?

Vonny N. wrote:

...

Now, carrying on from this single-observable experiment we can
introduce a second, non-commuting, observable to show how the locality
assumption would lead to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle being
violated; but surely this is redundant since we have already shown that
Bohr's interpretation entails non-locality. We could also take
advantage of entanglement (which we haven't yet!) by establishing
Bell-type inequalities. But again, that is not my or Einstein's
intention at all.

In fact Einstein's aim of showing that Bohr's interpretation was
non-local doesn't even need EPR. Einstein had already, back in 1927,
argued that the appearance of a mark on a screen due the detection of
an electron already requires a kind of non-locality under Bohr's way of
thinking. I believe Einstein was using EPR as a more transparent and
convincing demonstration of the non-locality entailed in Bohr's view;
and for this, we appear to only need a single observable.

...

Yours is a remarkable argument. For reasons that should be clear to
anyone who bothers to read my recent posts (e.g. [1]), I stand by the
two-observables interpretation (we are talking about two measurements
here) , but your point highlights the basic issue.

IV

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/ae1f348208b8206c

.

Loading