RP@MIT-MC (01/21/83)
From: Richard Pavelle <RP @ MIT-MC> Please add STULL@SCRC to the mailing list.
gdw (03/07/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-55000:harpo:19300005:000:361 harpo!gdw Mar 7 12:39:00 1983 According to a Cable TV trade magazine, about the only people who get caught for stealing signals are those that use 300 ohm twinlead since it radiates so well. The other significant group are those that leave their antenna bridged on. The investigation is generally initiated by non-cable users because of the interference to normal signals caused by leakage.
KFL@MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (08/30/83)
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Date: 27 August 1983 10:27 EDT
From: David C Plummer <DCP@Mit-Mc>
How many people believe in the Nyquist theory when applied to
music? Example: is 44.1 Ksamples per second really sufficient
for digital audio disks? (I say no. This gives a Nyquist
frequency of 22K and with filters the upper range is diminished
to around 20K. People will say that you can't hear above 20K
anyway. So what? You can't hear below 16Hz either. You can
FEEL below 16Hz, so there is no reason there are not some subtle
interactions above 20K.)
I can hear up to 23K, and I know people who can hear up to 25.
How good do we want our music to sound? If we really want it to be
indistinguishable from real life, then we will have to record 50 or 60
Ksamples per second.
Ultrasonics, like subsonics, can be felt (it feels just like a loud
noise, only without any sound).
Why all this attention to audio? What's good for the ear is good for
the eye. How much longer will we be stuck with a 50 year old video
standard with a few 30 year old patches? What resolution must a TV
have to be indistinuishable from reality? How many frames per second?
Are three colors really enough? What about reproducing UV and
infrared?
If we want many really good digitial video and audio channels we are
going to rapidly run out of bandwidth. We need realtime compression/
decompression to make things managable. Is anyone working on this?BILLW@SRI-KL@sri-unix.UUCP (08/30/83)
PLEASE PLEASE DONT!!!!! Most of us have seen all the arguments for and against digital music at various sampling rates and bits per sample, and never never never reach any concrete conclusions. Id prefer NOT to see PHYSICS go this way.... Thanks Bill W
JMSK%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/05/84)
From: Jacob Moskowitz <JMSK @ MIT-MC> is there a mailing list by this name ? Where do I sign up ??
Alpern.Ibm-Sj%Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (01/17/84)
From: David Alpern <Alpern.Ibm-Sj@Rand-Relay> Ok, I stand corrected. The question of the relative densities of air and water vapor still feels funny to me, although on thinking about things obviously water vapor can't be denser at ground level pressure -- or we wouldn't have clouds. But we do, at times, have fog that sits rather than rises. Does anyone have the numbers at hand for the density of air and of water vapor under various near normal (atmospheric) temperature and pressure conditions? I wonder if the relationship between the densities doesn't "alternate" under various conditions.
KFL%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/20/84)
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Water does not 'dissolve' in air. This is a common misconception,
that water vapor is in the air because the air has some 'carrying
capacity' for water, and that the relative humidity is the proportion
of that capacity that the water vapor is currently filling.
Water (like all substances) has a 'vapor pressure'. Water's vapor
pressure varies greatly with temperature. Water boils when it becomes
hot enough that its vapor pressure exceeds the pressure of the air (or
whatever) that is around it. This explains why water boils at a lower
temperature at high altitudes, and will boil at any temperature in a
vacuum.
Thus the 'carrying capacity of the air' depends strongly on temerature
but not at all on the pressure or on the composition of the air (excluding
gasses which chemically react with water, such as chlorine) and would be
excatly the same even if there was no air!
Temp (C) Vapor pressure (mm of Mercury)
-20 0.8
0 4.6
20 17.5
40 55.3
60 149.3
80 355.1
100 760.0 (1 atmosphere)
120 1489.1
140 2710.9
Note how rapidly the vapor pressure changes. Also note that the vapor
pressure of ice is NOT zero (i.e. ice can and does evaporate (slowly)).
...Keithrpw3@fortune.UUCP (01/25/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1567000:fortune:8600009:000:777
fortune!rpw3 Jan 24 19:48:00 1984
Fog and clouds are NOT water vapor! Water vapor is CLEAR at all reasonable
temperatures and pressures. Just ask anyone who has burned themselves badly
on steam (vapor) they could not see! Look closely (from the side, please)
at the spout of a fiercely boiling tea kettle and you will see that the
first few centimeters of flow are clear.
Fog/clouds are condensed water droplets (liquid) in colloidal suspension in
water-vapor-saturated air (100% humidity). Therefore, depending on the density
of that suspension, the cloud/fog mass could be either lighter or heavier
than an equivalent volume of dry air.
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065MER.CREON%Ames-VMSB@sri-unix.UUCP (05/24/84)
Letter from Dr. Peter Bussy to Dr. Jack Sarfatti - 10 May 1984
[in this typescript, S == PSI, T == THETA, P == PHI]
Department of Natural Philosophy
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, G12 8QQ.
Tel. 041-339-8855
10 May 1984
Dr. J Sarfatti
PO Box 26584
San Francisco
California, USA.
Dear Dr Sarfatti,
Thank you for your letter of May 3. OK - now I
think I see the problem!
Let us start with a single beam of photons in a
general state |S> = a|U> + b|D>, where |U> and |D>
represent the two possible polarisation states. We will
not bother about having correlated photons on the other
side of the apparatus just yet. This beam now passes into
a beam splitter, and the resulting beams will pass through
arms 1 and 2 of your apparatus. They can be represented by
-1/2
the wave functions |S >, where |S > = 2 |S> as in your (i=1,2)
i i
equation (3).
Now each beam passes through a polariser. Let the
polariser in arm i allow photons polarised in a plane at
angle T (realtive to the direction of polarization of |U>)
i
to pass. Let the phase of each beam be P at this point.
i
This lets us introduce time delays into one arm if we wish.
The transmitted beam is now in a state
-1/2
|S'> = 2 [ a|U> cos(T /2) + b|D> sin(T /2) ] exp(iP ) (i=1,2)
i i i i
At this point we have a problem, which you have
obviously faced. It would appear at first sight that we
can just add the amplitudes to get a recombined beam, as
you indicate at the right of your figure 1, and if T and
1
T are both zero and P =P we would obviously expect to
2 1 2
regenerate the original beam precisely (if a=1 and b=0).
But it doesn't work! We find a factor of 2/sqrt(2) instead
of 1 multiplying |S>. You have got around this by
replacing the factor of 1/sqrt(2) with 1/2 in equation (4).
This is certainly a departure from normal quantum mechanics
and it is no wonder that your transformations end up being
non-unitary.
The source of the trouble here is fairly subtle and
rather interesting, it seems to me. In basic terms, it is
impossible to combine the two beams in the simple way that
you propose! No piece of apparatus will do it.
To illustrate this point, consider figure 1 of
Greenberger's review article on the neutron interferometer.
(Rev. Mod. Phys., Oct 1983). His apparatus has two
counters behind the beam recombiner. If he could make do
with one, no doubt he would use only one! You cannot have
any piece of apparatus that will make two different
arbitrary states A and B of a system both end up in the
same state C with probability 1. If you could, then
time-reversal invariance that in the inverse process, C
will have probability 1 of turning into A and also
probability 1 of turning into B. Clearly this is
logically impossible.
Perhaps you may think that one should not invoke
time reversal invariance. Nevertheless, the physical
consequences of being able to combine arbitrary beams in
the way you suggest would be very remarkable. By combining
two beams that are out of phase you could make them both
dissappear! By combining them in phase you could double
the overall intensity. Needless to say, both of these
phenomena would violate conservation of energy and just
about everything else! All indications are that the
universe does not work this way.
I don't know whether this convinces you, but it
would seem clear now that the critical component in you
apparatus is the beam recombiner and that you must propose
a specific piece of physical apparatus that will do the
job. Having a second correlated photon in the opposite half
of the overall system cannot affect the above line of
argument as far as I can see, moreover.
Do write again if the above is unclear or if you
disagree with it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Bussey
------dsteven%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (08/14/84)
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: Martin Smith, INTERACTIVE Systems
re: Quantum logic texts
I am looking for a good text or two myself. I'm a
numerical analyst and computer science type and am
interested in QL as a modeling tool.
So far, I have found two that seem to be useful with
my particular background:
Beltrametti and Cassinelli, The Logic of Quantum
--------------------
Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, 1981.
---------
Mittelstaedt, Quantum Logic, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978.
-------------
Would appreciate any other titles you have.
Steve Stevenson
(803) 656-3444mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (06/26/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
et
In reference to the topic raised by:
Sender: "John A. McNelly.OsbuSouth"@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Things that move faster than the speed of light
To: physics@sri-unix.ARPA
In-Reply-To: physics-request%SRI-UNIX:ARPA's message of 22 Jun 85
Message-Id: <850625-101837-1146@Xerox>
>I just read "In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat," a book by John Gribbin,
>intended to introduce laymen to the subject of quantum mechanics. Does
>anybody have any comments on the following excerpt, with respect to
>info. travelling faster than the speed of light? The first (long)
>paragraph gives technical details on how the experiment works, the
>second (short) paragraph gives the results of the experiment: that
>information was transmitted instantaneously, faster than the speed
>of light.
[pp. 231-232]
>>"The Sussex team, headed by Terry Clark, has tacked the problem of
>>making measurements of quantum reality the other way around. Instead of
The device being described looks like SQID = Superconductive Quantum
Interference Device - however the topic you have introduced - namely the
superluminal communication by means of quantum transition across macrosco-
pic distances is more general - quite controversial, related to EPR and
probably closely related to the 'future of QM'.
I will give two references - both fairly accessible but more exact
and technical than a popular book:
1) A.J.Legget: Schrodinger's cat and her Laboratory cousins.
Contemporary Physics. Vol 25, No6, Nov/Dec 1984 pp583..598.
( The journal, by the way is a very readable review journal ppubli-
shed in Europe - more oriented to application thNEn Rev.Mod.Phys.)
2)H.P.Stapp: Bell's theorem and the foundation of Quantum Mechanics.
Am.J.Phys . April 1985. ( I do not have the pages on the preprint).
Important fact about both is (and a ton of other papers over last 50 years) is that SLC ( SuperLuminalCommunication ) was not demonstrated in the labo-
ratory - even though many ingenious experiments were proposed ( and at least
on such tele-super-communicator is patented )
Some belive that it never will be demonstrated and the reason is that
it is not clear what is collapsing when vawe function is measured ( a special
case of the Quantum transition) : A quote from paper 2) above :
According to Heisenberg, the probability function .. :"represents mixture
of two things, partly a fact and partly our knowledge of a faCT: ...'
It is in this aspect - interpretation of 'psi' where the foundations come
in and make the whole issue very interesting.: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (07/16/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
I am certainly not griping about the succes story of the QM.
If you want to calculate UV spectrum of C - etc etc go ahead
and do not tell us about it - It as become too mundane and boring by now.
I am interested in the frontier.
I do object to a strait-jacket called Copenhagen Interpretation ( and
I do not see Many-Worlds as significantly different (I am willing to
expand that)) which may have had some function during the time of con-
solidation of QM but which is getting less and less comfortable as new
facts are coming in. Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) solved the existing
persistent mismatch between the concept of space and dynamics (which
the theory uses and needs) and experiments by series of tabu's and pro-
hibitions: Consider the double slit experiment: There was one electron who
got from source S to detector D and as I am asking :" OK which slit A or B
it went thru?" there is a ghost of Bohr slapping my wrist saying "You are
not supposed to ask that!" and my former professor and bunch of the net
replys are screaming:" Haven't you read Faynman's lectures? Dont you know
that if you try to detect that - the interference goes away?" But I am
not rearanging the experiment - I am looking at the interference pattern
and assume that the electron is real and it did not break in tousand pie-
ces and reconstituted itself just before hitting the detector - and if that is
so - I would like to know how it got from S to D. I do not accept the dictum
that 'only phototubes and their cliks are real' and I do not think this is
question of PR or futile philosophy.
I appreciate Mark's bringing in the articles on Bell's inequality -
they are highly relevant - I suspect I interpret their implications diffe-
rently. It seems to me that until Aspect's experiment it was possible to
ignore the problem presented by EPR ( remember that we did bring in the
question of the collapse of PSI just as a short preview of what EPR is about)
- so it was possible to sweep the question of the QM reality under the rug
and just going on with calculating your spectrum of C or whatever are you
are doing. The Bell inequality and excellent article in Phys.Today ( I suggest
that somebody writes a computer model of the experiment (any volunteers??)
and Stapp's analysis in Am.J.Phys and EPR all form a circle which seems to
me to lead to inescapable conclusion " It just does not makes sense - ergo
something must give". I am simply curious what that 'something' could be.
In brief - I see Aspect's experiments as historical analogy of Michelson's
experiment and the question ' why do you gripe (about the Maxwell equations)
it just so happens that Ether moves with Earth and does not moves with Earth
so grind your teeth and bear it' as expression of fear of what we can find
if we really look.: Of course, If there is no interest in discussing this -
I will sure drop this or send it to dev/null but to me this seems to be a
fascinating question : Are we sure there is no alternative? Stapp lists about
5 assumptions - all quite reasonable - Are they really inevitable ?? What's
wrong with talking about that? ( if one can tolerate red wrist?).
To be more specific - I want to suggest an interesting article a friend just
passed on me:
D.J.Bohm,C.Dewdney & B.H. Hiley: A quantum potential approach to the
Wheeler delayed-choice experiment. NATURE. Vol 315 pp 294-297 ( May 85)
It talks about future choice of measurement affecting 'past state' of the
system.
It bothers me. How do you feel about that?mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (07/21/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
The origins of the prefix META where aptly described on this net. I will use
the modern meaning here as it occurs in metamathematics. In general, the
metastatement is a statement about the statement and this use goes back
to Russel's theory of types exposed in his Principia (For further adven-
tures of these beginnings of metamath see book: Godel-Escher-Bach).
So - in this sense the postings about the way the discussion on the
net.physics is conducted and what should be on it, is a metaposting and this
is one of those. ( Of course, the previous paragraph, describing what a
metaposting is, was a meta-meta-posting -- I hope you do not mind too much).
There seems to be four categories of posting on the net:
EF: Experimental Facts such as wondering about why lightning comes in bursts
and how to magnetize one's oil plug. Both data and offered explanation
are sought in generaly accepted manner - the encyclopedia aspect of the net.
TF: Theoretical Facts involve more or less professional discussion within the
framework of currently accepted theories. This is what Mayank expressed in-
terest in - but I have seen few of those so far.
TS: Theoretical Speculations are about things which you do not find in the
(current) textbooks. That's what makes them interesting to me. They deal
with undefined and nebulous concept such as 'grainy gravity' and
possible resurrection of ether and (of course) unorthodox interpretations
of QM and many more. These topics apparently irritate many EF and TF peo-
ple and I really wonder if anybody else, out there, wants to read those.
( this is a real question - please comment to net or directly to me)
ES: Experimental Speculations includes issues, such as fork bending, where the
existence of the effect is an issue. (Don't forget that this is a meta-
statement - it says nothing about Geller). It sometimes includes some
pretense of theory ( As an example I will quote a famous 'psychic
healer' who said:" ..during the 'whatever psychic effect' the emg and gra-
vitational forces are suspended so that weak and strong forces can 'do
the job'..." end of quote.) but 'theory' is so far remote from usual method
of physics that it should be classified as para-physics or pata-physics
(if accepted as theory at all).
Now - if you read so far, you find that this is really a flame in disguise:
Somebody said that ES should be kept here to prevent excessive rigidity.
History of science (another category I would love to see more of) records
many cases of excessive rigidity ( e.g. plate tectonics, jumping genes,
Languimier(?) isotherm for adsorbtion of gases (which was rejected partly
becouse Einstein&co could not imagine QM basis of Van der Walls forces,
cataclysmic theory of evolution (yes - I mean some Velikovsky's ideas) and
many more were rejected by majority and eventually resurrected (sometimes
with apology, sometimes quietly). However, I do not recall a single case
in which ES ever lead to a positive development in science. Is there any?
So - please- DO NOT put together ES and TS - they do differ. End of flame.
I will prefix my eventual future postings in the TS category by the TS
(e.g. re: TS: FTL...) to spare those souls, who believe that physical theo-
ries are created and delivered by storks, the mental anquish of reading and
thinking about problems with no preaproved answer. It may reduce the calls
for splitting the net. I like the disorganized and uneven mix of the net -
it is a refreshing antidote to a specialized journal or a conference. gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/23/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> Theoretical speculation is fine -- but it should be to the point and provide at least some reason to believe that it can eventually be tested. As an example, here is my contribution; discussion welcomed: Speculation: In a closed cosmology, the solutions to continuous field equations a la Einstein will have quantized solutions, and this quantization will be of interesting dimensions so that this model may illuminate quantum aspects of reality from a different perspective than that generally accepted. This speculation is specific enough, I think, to be completely shot down by reasonable argumentation or to lead to interesting development of fresh ideas in fundamental physical theory. The specific cosmology and field equations are left deliberately vague, since I don't think the acceptability of this approach depends on the details. If you need a specific model, take the Einstein-Schrodinger theory (general relativity with cosmological term and no symmetry constraints, with the connection the primary field rather than the metric) and a DeSitter cosmology. I really hope we don't hear "this is wrong because it is not what I learned in school".
SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA (08/02/85)
#
mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (08/30/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
Subject: QM, Many-Worlds, and holes in the argument
response to: rimey@ucbmiro.ARPA (Ken Rimey)
Article-I.D.: <117@ucbmiro.ARPA>
Ken: You people don't know the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics from a hole in the ground.
Consider the apparatus used for this two-outcome experiment, and
consider the experimenter. The two, together with the rest of the
universe, constitute a single closed system that, according to quantum
mechanics, evolves completely deterministically. For simplicity,
imagine that the universe consists solely of the apparatus and the
experimenter. Furthermore, imagine that the apparatus has only three
possible states, A, B, and P, where P will be its state before the
experiment; and imagine that the experimenter has only three possible
states:
p - where he sees the apparatus in state P
a - where he continuously thinks "Aha! The outcome was A"
and b - where he continuously thinks "Aha! The outcome was B"
The universe starts out in state Pp, and eventually evolves into
(Aa+Bb)/1.4..
..probability ideas are involved only in the interpretation
of the mathematical object that represents the state of the universe.
They don't clutter up the theory of how to calculate that object.
In particular, in the Many-Worlds view, wave functions don't "collapse".
Comment: Actually, in QM THEORY the wave functions do not "collapse".
(The solutions of Schrodinger eq. are not only continuous but even
smooth..) The collapse is part of the interpretation, which is a
necessary step in applying the theory to real world. In Copenhagen
interpretation we discard the part of the solution which does not
fit our new image of the universe(=collapse). In Many-World we
delegate it to a 'land of shadows' (= an alternative not chosen for us)
In both cases we violate the Schrodinger equation, which does not allow ANY
deletion of 'unneeded states'.
( By 'new' we mean here 'post measurement' - when P evolved into either A or B ( or (A+B)/1.4.. ??)).
[ The real issue is the evolution semigroup: The theory itself pictures
the evolution as (loosely) a rotation (in the Hilbert space). That (I think) is
what 'deterministic evolution' term used above means. Once you admit the
existence of branches, selective collapsing etc - you change that group into
a semigroup (such as involved in the difussion process.) In this sense the
Many-World is a nice visualisation of the basic problem of the orthodox
interpretation: The theory dictates a group - but when you learn something
( when YOU - the observer get information ) - is that described by such a
'rotation' - or is it 'irreversible'?. Considering how old this issue is,
there is a surprising amount of ill-defined fuzzy concepts involved..) ]
The connection with information (and so with measurement) is a necessary
consequence of interpreting the wave function as (related to) a probability.
[ Probability implies lack of information. It actually implies the 'state'
(what QM would call a classical state) which is not fully known]. The ortho-
dox interpretation is using these concepts and definitions ( you actually
SOMETIME talk about WHERE the particle landed) but obfuscates everything
by defining the wave function as a 'state' of the system and than denying
that the original (classical) state exists. Would it not simplify discussion
if we would decouple the concept of probability/information from the concept
of the wave_function/state_of_the_system? (i.e. if we would discard the
Copenhagen interpretation and it's Many_World dramatisation??).
Ken:
On the other hand, it is often suggested that quantum mechanics is
incomplete. The problem is that the rules for how a system changes
state when it is measured seem to be central features of quantum
mechanics, and yet these rules make explicit reference to measurement,
as if the observer played a distinguished role in the universe. This
difficulty motivates much crackpot physics. If you believe the
Many-Worlds idea, then this is not a problem, and rather than waste
time on crackpot physics, you can get back to working on faster
integrated circuits for SDI.
Comment: This is a cheap shot: While the role of an (conscious) observer
does open the door for many crackpot ideas - the conclusion that
spending time thinking about unresolved problems in the the founda-
tions of the QM is a waste of time does not follow!
(At least such conclusion uses "guilt by association" reasoning).
This looks like classical example of the 'practical' vs 'theoretical'
approach to physical research: As usual - the brokers lead the heard
astray - so that Zarathustras can work in uncrowded mountain resorts.
The right solution is not to slam the door but to examine the ideas
coming in to see if they relate to crack in pot or in the foundations.mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (08/31/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
RE: Many Worlds and other Interpretations of QM
Status: R
in reply to: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!davidson@UCB-Vax.ARPA (Greg Davidson)
Hi Greg,
I am atempting to understand what you are saying - and am
not sure how well I did so far. So I would send this directly but I have
problem with your address.
I am seriously interested in alternate interpretations of the QM - and I
would really like to get your view. I am not on level of agreeing/disagreeing
yet - just attempting to align the terminology.
Greg:
First suppose that every elementary event occurs in all possible ways by
forking off a whole universe for each possible outcome of the event. For
``observers'' along any world-line, it is irrelevant (because unobservable)
whether some outcomes are more probable, or whether all are equally likely.
It is also irrelevant whether outcomes are constrained by some ``laws of
physics'' or whether all conceivable outcomes generate universes. Note
that the latter is a simpler theory, hence preferable by Occam's razor.
POM:
First - it seems that what you are describing is not (what is usually
called) MW (Many Worlds int) - I would suggest to call it
AW ( All Worlds). [ I did not read Everett (either?) ]
- but let's take his book as definition of MW. In MW (I think)
not all possible ways are assumed - it just considers outcomes
which are compatible with QM.
Greg:
Now in such a system, the notion of observer is rather bizarre (hence
my earlier quotes). Particle configurations identical to what we think
TRUE. ( for AW)
So to summarize, MWTs do violence to the notion of observers, and thus
to the practice of physics. To belive in a MWT is to believe ourselves
TRUE. ( for AW )
> [1] Not all the alternate worlds are equiprobable! [2] There is no
> observable difference between the alternate-worlds QM and the
> Copenhagen QM.
[1] Maybe, ....., Occam's razor would suggest
abandoning any theory of structure in the generation of successor worlds.
NOT clear why - pls explain.
Thomas M. Breuel wrote:
> [1] The 'multiple worlds interpretation' of QM is not a physical theory:
> you cannot design an experiment to disprove it, since it postulates that
> there is not interaction between its different worlds.
[1] Many physical theories give the same results. Ptolemaic epicycles
POM: It is not a theory! (most believe it is 'only' an interpre-
tation of QM. I consider it a mere rephrasing of CI ).
Are there other interpretations?
Yes. I have mentioned at least three other interpretations which are
significantly different ( Pilot wave, Q. potential and 'subvac' )
Didn't you noticed?leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (09/27/85)
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
I have volunteered to organize an electronic mechanism for the distribution
of technical report lists from Universities and R&D labs. Some (and
hopefully all) of the people producing technical reports would send a copy
of the list to me. I would then send these to a moderated group on USENET
as well as a mailing list for those sites on the INTERNET who do not get
news (ARPANET, CSNET, etc.).
I need two things from you:
1) if your organization prepares technical reports and sends them
out to interested parties (perhaps for a fee), please arrange
to have electronically readable copy of your lists sent
to trlist%smu@csnet-relay.
2) if people at your organization would like to receive lists
of tech reports produced by universities and R&D labs, please
provide me an electronic address to send them to (if you are not
on USENET). Send such administrative mail to trlist-request%smu@
csnet-relay.
Some frequently asked questions:
1. What are the advantages of sending my lists to you?
a. Most of the people to whom you are sending printed lists will
be receiving this list, either through the INTERNET as a mailing list
or as a moderated news group on the USENET distributed bulletin board
system. Thus you can save the postage and printing costs in mailing
these lists. I would be happy to provide you with a list of institutions
receiving this list as a mailing list as well as those institutions
on USENET who would be receiving it that way. You can use this to
prune the mailing list you use to send out printed copies of your
technical report lists.
b. Many people at the Universities are not aware of technical
report lists. I have been sending out lists of AI tech reports
to the AIList, an electronic newsletter on AI, for some time.
Every time I do so, my electronic mailbox fills up with requests on
how to obtain the tech reports. Many of these requests come from
the most prestigious AI organizations in the country.
c. Many companies, particularly those on the USENET, would not
otherwise be aware of your research. There are hundreds of small
companies on USENET who have no other access to the wealth of
information represented by University and other tech reports.
2. What is a technical report?
Most universities and big company R&D labs publish reports about their
research. Some are higly research oriented (like new results in automata
theory). Others are manuals for their public domain software or tutorials.
For example NASA/Ames published a tutorial on SETUID programs under UNIX.
These lists are currently sent out by mail to other schools and R&D labs.
Some of the technical reports will later get turned into journal articles
while other items will never be more formally published. Thus looking at
these lists would give you information on new research results before they
would appear in journals or would let you know of material you would not
otherwise be aware of.
3. What format should the tech report lists be in?
Please see to it that there is some info indicating how people
can order the tech reports (whether sending you a check to
cover costs, requests via electronic mail or the reports can
be electronically available for Arpanet FTP transfer).
If you are already producing the list in some format, feel free to use that
format. If you are preparing the list just for this purpose, I would prefer
that you use the input format for bib/refer, a common bibliography tool.
This way people can dump the lists into a file on their machine and be able
to do keyword searches. Also bib/refer will automatically include and
format references in documents to be formatted or typeset. However, I would
prefer the material in some weird format than not to have it at all!
For those not familiar with bib/refer, here is a brief tutorial.
Each report or other item should be a sequence of records which
are not separated by blank lines. Each report should be separated
by the others by one or more blank lines. Each report entry
consists of a label consisting of a % followed by a capital
letter and then a space. Then include the information. If the
information for a field (such as an abstract) requires more than one line,
just continue the field on a new line with no initial space.
The labels needed for tech reports are:
%A Author's name (this field should be repeated for each author).
%T Title of report
%R report number
%I issuer, this will be the name of your institution. This may
be ommited if implied by the report number
%C City where published (not essential)
%D Date of publication
%X Abstract
Here is an example of some tech report listings in the appropriate
format:
%A D. Rozenshtein
%A J. Chomicki
%T Unifying the Use and Evolution of Database Systems: A Case Study in
PROLOG
%R LCSR-TR-68
%I Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University
%K frame control
%A C. V. Srinivasan
%T CK-LOG, A Calculus for Knowledge Processing in Logic
%R DCS-TR-153
%I Laboratory for Computer Research, Rutgers University
%K MDS
4. I already have exchange agreements with other Universities.
How does this affect them?
The only change would be how the information on what technical reports you
have for them to request gets transferred. Instead of them receiving a
piece of paper by U. S. Mail, they would look at the appropriate notes group
(if this is a USENET site) or at the item received in the mail, request the
reports they want and send the request to you. You would probably request
that the free technical report order came from a specific person or account
in case some student seeing the list decided to order the tech reports. You
should do that with the printed lists anyway since at some schools,
technical report lists are frequently left around for graduate students and
faculty to look at and check the ones they want. Any person could send in
the form themselves if they chose.
5. I need to charge for my tech reports to cover costs.
Fine. Just include the prices for your reports next to each report (you can
use the %X field for that too). At the beginning of the list you send me,
state where checks should be sent and to whom they should be made payable.
6. What about non-CS reports?
I am happy to handle reports for other departments. If the volume of non-CS
reports becomes significant, I will split the list into tr-cs, tr-math,
tr-ee etc. I would suspect that the majority of the people receiving this
list would be CS researchers since CS departments are quick to join
networks, etc. However, some CS researchers (myself included) are working
in applications of computers and would like to receive information in
those areas as well.
7. I am already on USENET. What should I do?
I anticipate a USENET moderated group in a time frame of one to
two weeks which will contain the same information as the
technical report lists. If you indicate that you will get the
information via USENET, I will remove your name when the
list is established. If you want to wait a week or two to
see if the list comes up, that is OK too. I can send back
copies of the TR Lists that get sent out in the first few
batches of the mailing. I will also send out on the USENET group,
everything that got sent out in the mailing list so you won't
miss anything either way.
8. I am on Arpanet, BITNET, etc.
I can get to Arpanet sites through csnet-relay so there is no problem there.
Otherwise, send me your address as best you know it. I will
get through to you if at all possible.mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (11/01/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
re: Quantum Reality
I want to comment on the book: Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert (Doubleday 85)
[ ISBN 0-385-18704-1 $19...] which covers in detail some topics touched
upon in past discussions of this group - such as EPR, Bells theorem, collapse
of wave function and in general interpretation of the QM and its Measurement
Problem...
Herbert describes three interpretations of the measurement in QM (p146)
a) Copenhagen int - There is no 'deep reality'. This includes original Bohrs
' only the clics of the Geiger counters are 'real'..' and
Wheelers "Austin interpretation" of the 'observer created
reality' related to 'Delayed Choice exp' (pp164-166).
b) All-Quantum int - based on Von Neumann's Grundlagen.. offers a unified
view, in which the QM is 'the deep reality' underlying
Classical phenomena just as Relativity offers deeper
explanation for e.g. Maxwell eq. and of Newtons laws..
c) Neorealist int - which inherited all former 'hidden parameters theories'
and Stochastic Mechanics attempts starting with Fenyes
and includes Bohm's Quantum potential as a Pilot Wave.
This is the dissident view, which most people seem to
believe was killed by the experiment and Bells theorem.
I want - first of all - to recommend the book. If I recall correctly, I am so
far only one who confessed on net.physics to the heresy of neorealism and so
by this 'endorsement' I want to say that the 'minority view' is fairly presentedin the book (while apparently not professed by the author).
A short biased comment on the merit of the three interpretations: All three
appear to have problems: c) requires FTL interactions which are unobserved.
I want to stress: so far not observed directly. Compare that with ortho-
dox views a) and b) which are inherently non-local and so include "actions"
which are instant distant and un-observable. They may appear less offensive
as they seem to be more ghostlike, less real..
- a collapsing psi? So what? What is psi anyway..
Herbert treats well the issue of 'perturbation by measurement' as underlying
cause of quantum phenomena. This is a halftruth and cliche propagated by most
if not all textbooks. One of the results EPR achieved was to discredit that.
If you are still captive of that essentialy classic paradigm read page 110:
" Heisenberg principle follows from .. and has nothing to do with the
'unavoidable disturbance of the system by measurement'."
Also valuable is discussion on pp150-152: Is it measurement (by conscious
observer?) or is it just an natural process (of amplification?) which is
responsible for 'collapses' and how to 'revive a dead Shrodinger cat' by
performing a conjugate measurement. (This is the 'irreversibility connection'
of the QM Measurement problem upon which we have touched lightly in the past).
The book is written for a layman, assumes nothing, and so by necessity
contains (still another) non-mathematical exposure of QM. There are occasional
weaknesses - e.g. on page 35 statement : " Planck's assumption (of E=n*h*f)
was not justified by any physical reasoning.." is most unfair. However, the
book goes further then other exposures in explaining Bell theorem and EPR
arguments (BEPRA?) - which
as >I hope we all know< are the crucible from which the Phoenix of the new
theory will arise...
and so provides an valuable contribution. Dont miss it.