Science > Physics > by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don Saklad" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2006 06:01:37 PM |
| Object: |
by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism |
Would any of you kind folks have access to
a database with the entire document?... abstracted at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6151963l6342030/
Herbert J. Bernstein
Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument
Against Local Realism
If you would, please send along the entire document... email
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger(GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism |
02 Nov 2006 07:26:25 PM |
|
|
Don Saklad wrote:
Would any of you kind folks have access to
a database with the entire document?... abstracted at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6151963l6342030/
Herbert J. Bernstein
Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument
Against Local Realism
If you would, please send along the entire document... email
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu
Sorry I can't help you with the document, however, I thing
some of the answers are obvious in this very good book:
Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics
Amir D Aczel
2002 John Wiley & Sons/Four Walls Eight
Windows 302pp 16.99/$28.00
There are two kinds of books about quantum
mechanics. There are those in which we learn
about abstract concepts such as Hilbert spaces,
state vectors and density matrixes, but where the
author never addresses - or only pays lip-service
to - the question of what quantum mechanics
actually means. This is the approach often taken in
textbooks. The other, quite opposite, approach
focuses on the interpretative question - drawing all
kinds of conclusions and analogies, talking about
telepathy and other mysteries, and perhaps even
claiming that quantum mechanics transcends
Western philosophy.
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
Anton Zeilinger from the Institute of Experimental
Physics at the University of Vienna reviews the
book in the May issue of Physics World
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger(GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism |
03 Nov 2006 05:18:45 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote (quoting someone's review):
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
I'm afraid I have to very strongly disagree with this, based on reading the
first chapter of the book at amazon.com. Nothing that Aczel says in this
chapter makes any sense except in the undergrad Schroedinger-equation
picture of quantum mechanics. The mathematical structure of quantum
mechanics is far more interesting than the watered-down version you learn in
an introductory course. As far as I can tell from the table of contents, no
other picture of quantum mechanics is ever introduced in the book, and my
guess is that the author never learned any other (he appears to have no
advanced degrees in physics). It's ridiculous to philosophize about quantum
mechanics when you only understand it at that level. It's like writing a
book about the meaning of special relativity which never even mentions
Minkowski space.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: by Herbert J. Bernstein. Simple Version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) Argument Against Local Realism |
08 Nov 2006 03:39:54 PM |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote (quoting someone's review):
Neither approach is very helpful when one wants
to understand what quantum mechanics really
means in a deep philosophical sense. Amir Aczel's
new book on entanglement - falling as it does into
neither category - avoids such pitfalls.
I'm afraid I have to very strongly disagree with this, based on reading the
first chapter of the book at amazon.com. Nothing that Aczel says in this
chapter makes any sense except in the undergrad Schroedinger-equation
picture of quantum mechanics. The mathematical structure of quantum
mechanics is far more interesting than the watered-down version you learn in
an introductory course. As far as I can tell from the table of contents, no
other picture of quantum mechanics is ever introduced in the book, and my
guess is that the author never learned any other (he appears to have no
advanced degrees in physics). It's ridiculous to philosophize about quantum
mechanics when you only understand it at that level. It's like writing a
book about the meaning of special relativity which never even mentions
Minkowski space.
Ah... how did you know about my next project. ;-)
If you had to list one reference which treated quantum mechanics on the
level you think is necessary, what would that book be?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
