Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:17:07.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlations and Physical Locality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

Arthur Fine
Arthur Fine*
Affiliation:
University of Illinoisat Chicago Circle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Correlations between the behavior of pairs of particles are generated in the following experimental situation. An on-line source emits a stream of two-particle systems, where each system is in one and the same quantum state. After emission, the particles – call then (I) and (II) – move off in opposite directions. Each particle then encounters one of several possible barriers that either it passes or doesn't. A short distance behind each barrier is a detector set to register the presence of the particle, should it get that far. Finally, the detectors are connected by a timed relay and counter that registers a “coincidence count” should the two detectors fire within a set, brief time interval. When the experiment is run with various different barriers, detection rates accumulate for each barrier singly, and coincidence rates (the correlations) for the various pairs of barriers.

Type
Part X. Locality and Hidden Variables
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 535 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Work on this project was supported, in part, by National Science Foundation Grant SES 79-25917. I owe thanks to many people whose responses and criticism have influenced the development of the themes of this essay (and probably to others whose devastating criticism I never received); groups at Indiana University, Stanford and Chicago Circle have been particularly helpful, flbner Shimony has been a powerful and useful critic, Paul Teller a ready, if skeptical, ear, and Dana Fine has been my mainstay as assistant and counselor. Thanks to you all! (You too, M.)

References

Bell, J.S. (1964). “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” Physics 1: 196-200.Google Scholar
Clauser, J. and Horne, M. (1974). “Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories.” Physical Review D 10: 526-535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauser, J. and Shimony, A. (1978). “Bell's Theorem: Experimental Tests and Implications.” Reports on Progress in Physics 41: 1882-1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1968). “Logic, Probability, and Quantum Theory.” Philosophy of Science 35: 101-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A.. (1973). “Probability and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” British Journal for The Philosophy of Science 24: 1-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1974). “On The Completeness of Quantum Theory.” Synthese 29: 257-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A.. (1980). “Models for the Quantum Correlation Experiments.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Fine, A.. (1981). “Einstein's Critique of Quantum Theory: The Roots and Significance of EPR.” In After Einstein: Proceedings of the Einstein Centenary Conference. Edited by Barker, P. and Shugart, C.G.. Memphis: Memphis State University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. and Teller, R. (1978). “Algebraic Constraints on Hidden Variables.” Foundations of Physics 8: 629-636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menger, K. (1960). “A Counterpart of Occam's Razor in Pure and Applied Mathematics.” Synthese 12: 415-428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. (1967). Dynamical Theories of Brownian Motion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilpp, P., (ed). (1949). Albert Ein3teln: Philosopher-Scientist. LaSalle, Illinois : Open Court.Google Scholar