(ALPHA) EPR Paradox---SciForums Journal Club

Dammit, just when I found a possibly comprehensible layout of the actual math.

But I admit I'm stuck. What I can't get clear is what exactly the logical influence of the quantum theory is - I can see that the theory predicts that the negatively measured electron spin will correspond to what it would have been if positively measured, rather than what one would expect from classical analysis of an unmeasured spin.

What I can't get clear is what happens to the classical analysis - exactly - when the electron is unmeasured and in all spins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I've read it. Bell published a book (collection) of his papers on the subject, "speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" - an absolute must.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no paradox - really

I see no paradox, only the sadness of Einstein's holding dearly to the claim that what happens at 'a' should not influence what happens at 'b', where a and b are some distant apart.

As I see it, Bell comlpicated the issue somewhat by attempting to fix the short commings of QM from within instead of starting some new or original system external to QM.

There is the must reading of David Bohms paper where he presents an expression that treats all the parameters (in equations of m otion) as real with the somewhat chilling conclusion that the expression requires nonlocal parameters, so "spooly". He does, however, come to the same result as modern QM. The advantage is treatment of parameters as real and not merely "spooly" mathematical wave equations, as opposed to physical wave equations regarding interference, is obvious.

Spooky it isn't when we consider that the nonlocal and the local must have interfaces in order for the nonlocal to have a crucial (existence necessary) effect on the local, or what is sometimes referred to as the "observed" - no nonlocal, no local, it is as simple as that.:shrug:​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.