donald (05/09/82)
Back into the fray... I'm still wondering what Lew Mammel's objection is! The thought experiment has nothing to do with whether the observations of the electrons are anti- correlated or not (I think Lew mistakes it for an EPR-like argument). I never require A and B to "simultaneously" observe the electron; in fact, since A and B's observations are space-like, the term "simultaneous" is meaningless ac- cording to relativity. The question is basically this: before A observes the electron, its wave function yields a nonzero probability of it being anywhere. Now, suppose that when A makes his observation the electron happens to appear at location A. At that moment the wave function collapses to become 1 at location A and 0 everywhere else. The crucial question is: *after* A makes his observation, what does the wave function of the electron look like? I merely state (without being absolutely certain of my stand) that the wave function once again becomes nonzero all over, in particular, nonzero at B, so that B has some probability of observing it at his location. Charles seems to agree that this is where we disagree. Now, as he so eloquently puts it, will someone who is well-versed in the navigating the jungles of quantum mechanics please shut us up? Don Chan (utcsrgv!donald)