gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (08/29/84)
The Aspect experiment was performed and agreed with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. There was no faster-than-light information transfer involved in this experiment, however. What was shown is that something equivalent to the EPR paradox really occurs.
sharp@aquila.UUCP (08/30/84)
The Aspect experiment was designed to test what is known as Bell's theorem, which is a very basic result relevant to the "hidden variables" idea. This latter is the argument that quantum mechanics is only uncertain because of underlying exact quantities which we cannot/do not now know (rather like statistical mechanics, where the very large number of exactly known particles of classical theory are replaced by macroscopic quantities). The confusion with faster-than-light connections is rampant, simply because the prediction implies a correlation between events not causally related - i.e. outside each other's light cone. This can be, but usually is not, interpreted as faster-than-light transmission of information (note: NOT of mass-energy). The results were completely in accord with the Copenhagen interpretation, and confirm that Einstein's famous remarks about not believing that God plays dice with the Universe must remain as one of the few errors of intuition by a genius famed for said intuition. >The book also talks about a theory put forth by Jack Sarfati, >which he called "superluminal transfer of negentropy without >signals." (Negentropy is another word for order). Sarfati >postulates that the connections being tested for by Aspect can be >controlled and used to communicate. >Is the idea of faster-than-light communication being >scoffed at by mainstream physicists? Or is there some real >research being done here? Dear old Jack ! Haven't heard from him in quite a while - when I was at Cambridge we got a lot of his "papers", I think mostly because of the fame of Martin Rees (attracts a lot of people, does fame). Jack and his "Physics of Consciousness Research Group", as it was then called, ARE a joke: he attempts to take many things which no-one understands and use them as a justification for ESP etc. (phenomena not shown to exist). HE is scoffed at: the ideas are generally ignored, but the really useful and possibly relevant work is that done by such as John Wheeler and Wojtcek Zurek, who recently edited a collection of classic papers on the quantum theory of measurement. This is where such matters are treated by careful and sensible physicists who wish they had the funding of (California-based) Scarfatti (oops, mustn't be libellous, must have been a mis-type). Other relevant work is that done on the singularity and causal structure of general relativity and its (currently rather ailing) rivals. -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (08/30/84)
Actually, the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics
was not what was confirmed by the experiments mentioned in the
WuLi masters book. What was confirmed was the calculational
apparatus of quantum mechanics. What was disproved was the
existence of any strictly local, strictly causal theory.
There are alternate interpretations of quantum mechanics which
are as valid now as they were before.
I might mention I'm not particularly wedded to any of them,
including the Copenhagen interpretation.
Ethan Vishniaccarlc@teklabs.UUCP (08/30/84)
> The confusion with faster-than-light connections is rampant, simply because > the prediction implies a correlation between events not causally related - > i.e. outside each other's light cone. This can be, but usually is not, > interpreted as faster-than-light transmission of information (note: NOT of > mass-energy). Bullsnort. I have never seen a scheme whereby the non-causal correlations leading to the EPR paradox can be used to communicate between the two "detectors" of correlated particles. Sure, if detector "A" sees a certain polarization then he can be sure what polarization detector "B" got. How can "A" send a message (e.g. "Help, my phototubes are overheating!") to "B" using this fact? He can't. The only "information" carried is carried from the SOURCE of the correlated particles to EACH of the detectors. This occurs at or below the speed of light. Editorial aside - With regard to the Dancing Tao of Vagueness, I understand that the mysticism, Buddhism, etc. published by these authors is every bit as flaky as their physics. Crotchety Carl, the non-believer. Replies to net.flame or /dev/null.
martin@ism780.UUCP (08/31/84)
I read in a book by Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Bantam 1979, about an experiment being prepared in France to test for the existence of faster-than-light connections between space-like separated events. (One event is space-like separated from another event if there is insufficient time for a light signal to connect them). The person preparing the experiment was Alain Aspect, a physicist at the Institute of Optics, U. of Paris in Orsay. Does anybody know what the results of the experiment were? Or if it hasn't been performed yet, is it still in the works? The book also talks about a theory put forth by Jack Sarfati, which he called "superluminal transfer of negentropy without signals." (Negentropy is another word for order). Sarfati postulates that the connections being tested for by Aspect can be controlled and used to communicate. I'm not a physicist so I have no idea what the current state of physics is. Is the idea of faster-than-light communication being scoffed at by mainstream physicists? Or is there some real research being done here? It would sure be nice to be able to beam up someday. martin smith, INTERACTIVE Systems
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (09/01/84)
I was about to write you a careful explanation of your misunderstanding
of the EPR paradox, but your last line:
Crotchety Carl, the non-believer. Replies to net.flame or /dev/null.
made me realize that you must already understand it completely and that you
must just be spreading the mistaken ideas in your article as a joke on
those who are less enlightened. Please disregard this reply.
___________________________________________________________
Matt University ARPA: crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
Crawford of Chicago UUCP: ihnp4!oddjob!matt