- #1
- 1,453
- 495
Huw Price is speaking tomorrow (9 Nov) at the Univ of Maryland on his recent paper, "New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment," co-authored with Peter Evans and Ken Wharton (arXiv: 1001.5057v3 [quant-ph] 20 Jun 2010).
In this paper, they argue that the ontological use of action-at-a-distance (AAD) to explain the standard EPR-Bell experiment (two photons each passing through one polarizer) must be defended in light of the fact that the same correlation probability exists for a single photon passing through two polarizers ("Sideways EPR-Bell") because of S, spatial and temporal symmetries. So, if one invokes AAD in EPR-Bell, then why doesn't one invoke AAD in SEPR-Bell?
Of course, no one would use AAD to account for time-like correlations with one photon! That's ridiculous! Right?
But, anyway, maybe someone already started a discussion of this paper and I missed it. If so, please point me in the right direction. If not, I'd like to start a discussion now.
In this paper, they argue that the ontological use of action-at-a-distance (AAD) to explain the standard EPR-Bell experiment (two photons each passing through one polarizer) must be defended in light of the fact that the same correlation probability exists for a single photon passing through two polarizers ("Sideways EPR-Bell") because of S, spatial and temporal symmetries. So, if one invokes AAD in EPR-Bell, then why doesn't one invoke AAD in SEPR-Bell?
Of course, no one would use AAD to account for time-like correlations with one photon! That's ridiculous! Right?
But, anyway, maybe someone already started a discussion of this paper and I missed it. If so, please point me in the right direction. If not, I'd like to start a discussion now.