Quick question on the EPR paper

[Neo_Anderson]

In the following link below, consider page 2, paragraph 2 ("To illustrate the ideas involved..."). The author Podolsky considers a particle with a 'single degree of freedom.' Then in eq. (6), he shows a true cartesian coordinate system.

Isn't this an inconsistency with the paper?

And as you can see from the link, there's a speedy answer to the question...

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf

 

[alxm]

In the following link below, consider page 2, paragraph 2 ("To illustrate the ideas involved..."). The author Podolsky considers a particle with a 'single degree of freedom.' Then in eq. (6), he shows a true cartesian coordinate system.

Isn't this an inconsistency with the paper?

If so, I don't see it. Equation (6) is:
P(a,b) = \int^b_a\psi^*\psi dx
That's a single spatial dimension there, x. A single degree of freedom. If it'd been a three dimensional space, you'd have had a volume integral.

x is a scalar quantity here, not a vector. Perhaps that's what has you confused?

 

[Neo_Anderson]

If so, I don't see it. Equation (6) is:
P(a,b) = \int^b_a\psi^*\psi dx
That's a single spatial dimension there, x. A single degree of freedom. If it'd been a three dimensional space, you'd have had a volume integral.

x is a scalar quantity here, not a vector. Perhaps that's what has you confused?

Well polosky was using the word 'coordinate' quite frequently in and around eq. (6), so I am guessing he was referring to the cartesian coordinate, no?

 

[alxm]

Well polosky was using the word 'coordinate' quite frequently in and around eq. (6), so I am guessing he was referring to the cartesian coordinate, no?

What do you mean 'Cartesian coordinate'? It's one-dimensional.