- #1
Varon
- 548
- 1
In the book "Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality", the EPR was told in somewhat different way than other sources I have read. I don't know if it is the original views. The arguments goes like this and very simple.
In Copenhagen, In the absense of a measurement to determine its position, the electron has no position. Einstein didn't believe this. So he proposed the EPR thought experiment to show you can measure the position or momentum of A. Since the pair is entangled. B should have the same position or momentum. This, Einstein argued, means B has position or momentum before measurement. This is all Einstein wanted to argue. The book says it was not being argued that both B position and momentum can be known simultaneously because Einstein knew that it was not possible to simultaneously measure its position and momentum. He is only concern about the element of reality which is the position or mometum being definite before measurement.
Bohr countered that before measurement to determine its position or momentum, there is no position or momentum even in principle. It is in the measurement setup that stored that information.
Are the above arguments the real essence of it all? There are many different versions now that are added by different authors and people which made it complicated. I wanted to know the original arguments. Is the book correct that the above arguments I mentioned were the original ones?
In Copenhagen, In the absense of a measurement to determine its position, the electron has no position. Einstein didn't believe this. So he proposed the EPR thought experiment to show you can measure the position or momentum of A. Since the pair is entangled. B should have the same position or momentum. This, Einstein argued, means B has position or momentum before measurement. This is all Einstein wanted to argue. The book says it was not being argued that both B position and momentum can be known simultaneously because Einstein knew that it was not possible to simultaneously measure its position and momentum. He is only concern about the element of reality which is the position or mometum being definite before measurement.
Bohr countered that before measurement to determine its position or momentum, there is no position or momentum even in principle. It is in the measurement setup that stored that information.
Are the above arguments the real essence of it all? There are many different versions now that are added by different authors and people which made it complicated. I wanted to know the original arguments. Is the book correct that the above arguments I mentioned were the original ones?