Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 03:44:01 +0100
Anders wrote:
> Well to be perfectly honest, Im sort of confused about what to make of
> EPR paradox, and delayed choice experiment results. When I say there are
> no macroworld consequences of EPR (because the macroworld is too far
> from plancks constant), Im just trying not to say anything wrong, and
> buy time to figure it all out :-)...But I'll try to share more openly.
>
Bodvar comments: May I present my view of the EPR issue. What you
further
write in your letter show impressive insight in this stuff, and as far
as I
can judge: compatible with the MOQ:
My text:
Anders and Jason have touched upon the so-called EPR paradox. I would
say
that it is NOT a proof or disproof of our - uh - sensitive 'additional
levels issue; It concerns the old controversy between Subject/Object
PHYSICS (or Substance metaphysics as P sometimes calls it) and the
"strong
interpretation of quantum mech.
It was originally a thought experiment proposed by Einstein Rosen and
Podolsky back in the twenties as a conclusive test of which was correct:
the Copenhagen Interpretation or Einstein's 'Hidden Parameters'
proposal).
At that time it could not be performed practically, nor were the
theoretics
behind it ready. The latter were provided by the Bell Theorem in 1964,
and
to my nonmathematical brain it looks as if saying that parts of a whole
-
cannot be greater than the whole itself (do we need a theorem for that?)
and quantum theory obviously contradicts this.
In the early eighties the first result of a practical experiment set up
after the Bell prescriptions, was awaited with great anxiety. It was
conducted with proton pairs and some tests affirmed the quantum
assertions
and other not. Later in the decade it was repeated by Alan Aspect, this
time with photon pairs considered so reliable and conclusive that it is
now
accepted that Einstein's hope of disproving the Bohr-Heisenberg school
was
in vain. Quantum theory's in spite of its weirdness is the better
description of reality.
I could provide more details of the setup and performance of the
experiment, but - again - it does not concern the MOQ as I see it,
otherwise than affirming the dynamism at the root of it all! Do you -
Anders or Jason - know the Schrödinger Cat analogue? It demonstrates the
weirdness very well.
Bodvar
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST