We can look at the quantum non-locality
from two *very* different points of view.
>From the *abstract* point of view many authors have
pointed out that the quantum non-locality (EPR problem, etc.)
does not exist or that it is not a weird phenomenon.
Accardi i.e. shows that quantum non-locality, EPR, Bell's
conditions are easily intelligible, in classical terms.
It is well known his classical, Bell-type, real experiment.
Adami and Cerf i.e. have shown that quantum measurement
and non-locality are easily intelligible by means of
information theory. Heisenberg and J.Rothstein (and
now Zeilinger) had the same idea.
quant-ph/9806047, quant-ph/9605039, quant-ph/9605002,
Rovelli i.e. suggested that the notion of observer-independent state
was non correct andI reformulated the problem of the interpretation
of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory.
All systems are assumed to be equivalent, there is no observer-observed
distinction, and the theory describes only the information
that systems have about each other.
The same thing did Mermin, in his Ithaca Interpretation.
quant-ph/9807055, quant-ph/9801057, quant-ph/9711052,
The M.W.I. is useful too, as John Bell pointed out
(this interpretation was dead at that time!). But this
interpretation has lots of problems: no collapse means no
entropy?; solipsism or worse; inner or radical non-locality.
But from the *physical* point of view nobody (!)
is able to *explain* those quantum non-locality experiments
or those quantum non-separability experiments,
i.e. the identical behaviour of those entangled particles
inside those Franson-type interferometers,
or the weird quantum-eraser exp., or the ghost interference exp.,
etc. etc. etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:43 MDT