Difference between revisions of "How the Quantum of Action Can Limit Non-Locality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | What I am about to propose is relatively easy to state. I will argue that Bohr's philosophy is perfectly compatible with the case made by EPR. It is, however, just as relatively easy to misunderstand. What I am contending is that it is "Bohr's <em>philosophy</em> which is so compatible. Not that his reply to <em>EPR</em> is. In fact, and despite a considerable bulk of literature floating about, I consider Bohr's Reply to EPR utterly unsuccessful in itself and thoroughly incompatible with the EPR case. It was so designed to be. | + | What I am about to propose is relatively easy to state. I will argue that Bohr's philosophy is perfectly compatible with the case made by EPR. It is, however, just as relatively easy to misunderstand. What I am contending is that it is "Bohr's <em>philosophy</em> which is so compatible. Not that his reply to <em>EPR</em> is. In fact, and despite a considerable bulk of literature floating about, I consider Bohr's Reply to EPR utterly unsuccessful in itself and thoroughly incompatible with the EPR case. It was so designed to be. |
| − | [[Category:Unified Theory]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|quantum action limit non-locality]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Unified Theory|quantum action limit non-locality]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:37, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | How the Quantum of Action Can Limit Non-Locality |
| Author(s) | Constantin Antonopoulos |
| Keywords | action, non-locality, Bohr's philosophy, EPR, quantum philosophy |
| Published | 1994 |
| Pages | 583-589 |
Abstract
What I am about to propose is relatively easy to state. I will argue that Bohr's philosophy is perfectly compatible with the case made by EPR. It is, however, just as relatively easy to misunderstand. What I am contending is that it is "Bohr's philosophy which is so compatible. Not that his reply to EPR is. In fact, and despite a considerable bulk of literature floating about, I consider Bohr's Reply to EPR utterly unsuccessful in itself and thoroughly incompatible with the EPR case. It was so designed to be.
