Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Part One Reference Frame Columns, Physics Today 1988–2009
- 1 What's wrong with this Lagrangean, April 1988
- 2 What's wrong with this library, August 1988
- 3 What's wrong with these prizes, January 1989
- 4 What's wrong with this pillow, April 1989
- 5 What's wrong with this prose, May 1989
- 6 What's wrong with these equations, October 1989
- 7 What's wrong with these elements of reality, June 1990
- 8 What's wrong with these reviews, August 1990
- 9 What's wrong with those epochs, November 1990
- 10 Publishing in Computopia, May 1991
- 11 What's wrong with those grants, June 1991
- 12 What's wrong in Computopia, April 1992
- 13 What's wrong with those talks, November 1992
- 14 Two lectures on the wave–particle duality, January 1993
- 15 A quarrel we can settle, December 1993
- 16 What's wrong with this temptation, June 1994
- 17 What's wrong with this sustaining myth, March 1996
- 18 The golemization of relativity, April 1996
- 19 Diary of a Nobel guest, March 1997
- 20 What's wrong with this reading, October 1997
- 21 How not to create tigers, August 1999
- 22 What's wrong with this elegance, March 2000
- 23 The contemplation of quantum computation, July 2000
- 24 What's wrong with these questions, February 2001
- 25 What's wrong with this quantum world, February 2004
- 26 Could Feynman have said this? May 2004
- 27 My life with Einstein, December 2005
- 28 What has quantum mechanics to do with factoring? April 2007
- 29 Some curious facts about quantum factoring, October 2007
- 30 What's bad about this habit, May 2009
- Part Two Shedding Bad Habits
- Part Three More from Professor Mozart
- Part Four More to be Said
- Part Five Some People I've Known
- Part Six Summing it Up
- Index
16 - What's wrong with this temptation, June 1994
from Part One - Reference Frame Columns, Physics Today 1988–2009
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2016
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Part One Reference Frame Columns, Physics Today 1988–2009
- 1 What's wrong with this Lagrangean, April 1988
- 2 What's wrong with this library, August 1988
- 3 What's wrong with these prizes, January 1989
- 4 What's wrong with this pillow, April 1989
- 5 What's wrong with this prose, May 1989
- 6 What's wrong with these equations, October 1989
- 7 What's wrong with these elements of reality, June 1990
- 8 What's wrong with these reviews, August 1990
- 9 What's wrong with those epochs, November 1990
- 10 Publishing in Computopia, May 1991
- 11 What's wrong with those grants, June 1991
- 12 What's wrong in Computopia, April 1992
- 13 What's wrong with those talks, November 1992
- 14 Two lectures on the wave–particle duality, January 1993
- 15 A quarrel we can settle, December 1993
- 16 What's wrong with this temptation, June 1994
- 17 What's wrong with this sustaining myth, March 1996
- 18 The golemization of relativity, April 1996
- 19 Diary of a Nobel guest, March 1997
- 20 What's wrong with this reading, October 1997
- 21 How not to create tigers, August 1999
- 22 What's wrong with this elegance, March 2000
- 23 The contemplation of quantum computation, July 2000
- 24 What's wrong with these questions, February 2001
- 25 What's wrong with this quantum world, February 2004
- 26 Could Feynman have said this? May 2004
- 27 My life with Einstein, December 2005
- 28 What has quantum mechanics to do with factoring? April 2007
- 29 Some curious facts about quantum factoring, October 2007
- 30 What's bad about this habit, May 2009
- Part Two Shedding Bad Habits
- Part Three More from Professor Mozart
- Part Four More to be Said
- Part Five Some People I've Known
- Part Six Summing it Up
- Index
Summary
Once upon a time everybody knew why measurements in quantum mechanics don't reveal pre-existing properties. It was because the act of acquiring knowledge unavoidably messes up the object being studied. What you learn is not intrinsic to the object, but a joint manifestation of the object and how you probe it to get your knowledge.
In 1935 this state of happy innocence was forever dispelled by Einstein, who with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen discovered how to learn about an object by messing up only some stuff it left behind in a faraway place. They concluded that knowledge acquired in this way was indeed about pre-existing properties of the object, revealed—not created—by the act of probing the stuff left behind. Bohr, however, insisted their conclusion was unjustified, and 30 years later John Bell proved that no assignment of such pre-existing properties could agree with the quantitative predictions of quantum mechanics.
A couple of years ago Lucien Hardy [1] gave this tale an unexpected twist, by finding a charming variation of the Bell–EPR argument. Hardy's theorem is even simpler than the argument of Daniel Greenberger, Michael Home, and Anton Zeilinger that I enthused about in this column four years ago. The reason he was able to pull the trick off, and the reason, I suspect, nobody had noticed so neat an argument for so long, is that Hardy's analysis applies to data that are not correlated strongly enough to support the argument of EPR. But they do give rise to an argument every bit as seductive, which Hardy is then able to demolish with surprising ease. Parts of the formulation I give here of Hardy's gedankenexperiment are similar to those of Henry Stapp [2] and Sheldon Goldstein [3].
We consider two particles that originate from a common source and fly apart to stations at the left and right ends of a long laboratory. At the left station we can experimentally determine the answer to one of two yes–no questions, A or B. There is a choice of two other yes–no questions, M or N, to be answered by experiment on the right. Hardy provides questions A, B, M, and N, and a two-particle state |Ψ〉 for which the answers to the questions have the following features: […]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Why Quark Rhymes with PorkAnd Other Scientific Diversions, pp. 109 - 116Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016