Investigating incompatibility: How to reconcile complementarity with EPR

Antonopoulos, C

dc.contributor.author	Antonopoulos, C	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:54:27Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:54:27Z
dc.date.issued	2005	en
dc.identifier.issn	01824295	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/27390
dc.relation.uri	http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-27544453103&partnerID=40&md5=9d611ab06c11799f7d1503701ae8fa74	en
dc.title	Investigating incompatibility: How to reconcile complementarity with EPR	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.publicationDate	2005	en
heal.abstract	Incompatibility is either fact-dependent and therefore conditional or else fact-independent and therefore unconditional. If Complementarity (CTY) is to be reconciled with EPR it must evidently belong to the former kind, for the latter allows of no exceptions. In addition, fact-independent incompatibility (=logical) cannot be the consequence of the quantum. But CTY is a consequence of the quantum. Therefore, CTY does express conditional incompatibility and hence it can be reconciled with EPR. By contrast, Wave-Particle Duality (WPD), by expressing logical incompatibility can do neither of the two. Waves (large) and particles (small) are incompatible also in classical mechanics. And classical mechanics does not contain the quantum. Contrary to common opinion, WPD yields the wrong sort of incompatibility for CTY. The uncertainties (UR) are derived from relations E=hv and p=h/λ, without recourse to Fourier analysis: E can only be defined over a period, p only over a distance (contrary to classical suppositions that it can be done at an instant, at a point). Hence, for E defined over t>0, Et=h; and for p defined over λ, (or q>0), pλ (pq)=h. Then for shorter periods or shorter distances, E and p will be proportionally less accurately defined, yielding (symmetric) ΔEΔt=ΔpΔq≥h. Thus the UR and CTY are dependent upon quantized action and are impossible without it. It is then proven that in an EPR environment the quantum is removed. (Their argument yields h-h=0.) Hence, UR and CTY are not even expected to hold in absence of h. However, WPD, whose incompatibility is unconditional, is expected to hold everywhere, EPR included. Hence, their example, establishing a p, q compatibility, contradicts Duality. But, as shown above, it does not contradict Complementarity. It merely rids CTY of the former's presence (thank you very much!) and thereby forms it into shape.	en
heal.journalName	Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie	en
dc.identifier.volume	30	en
dc.identifier.issue	1	en
dc.identifier.spage	35	en
dc.identifier.epage	62	en