|Abstract||"Indeed I have very little idea of what this means. I do not understand in what sense the word `mechanical' is used, in characterizing the disturbances that Bohr does not contemplate, as distinct from those he does. I do not know what the italicized passage means--- `an influence on the very conditions...' . Could it mean just that different experiments on the first system give different kinds of information about the second? But this was one of the main points of EPR, who observed that one could learn *either* the position *or* the momentum of the second system..... Is Bohr just rejecting the premise--- `no action at a distance'---rather than refuting the argument?"|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Iñaki San Pedro, Measurement Dependence is Not Conspiracy: A Common Cause Model of Epr Correlations.
Constantin Antonopoulos (1997). Bohr's Reply to EPR. Idealistic Studies 27 (3):165-192.
Richard Healey (1997). Nonlocality and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. Philosophy of Science 64 (1):18-41.
Michael Dickson (2004). Quantum Reference Frames in the Context of EPR. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):655-668.
Ravi Gomatam (2007). Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation—Are the Two Incompatible? Philosophy of Science 74 (5):736-748.
Hans Halvorson & Rob Clifton (2002). Reconsidering Bohr's Reply to EPR. In T. Placek & J. Butterfield (eds.), Non-locality and Modality. Kluwer.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #114,188 of 549,252 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,252 )
How can I increase my downloads?