sharp@aquila.UUCP (09/01/84)
>> = me > = him >> 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. My dear boy !! Read what I wrote before castigating me in public. There IS a predicted correlation: this has been (by such as Sarfati) interpreted as communication. If you want to find out how to use it as a message device, go and read such articles (you, of course, read my "usually is not" comment, didn't you ?? :-) ). Personally, I wish you luck - his writing is not clear. Incidentally, I overstated the case: I was under the impression that Aspect himself believed the results favoured the Copenhagen interpretation, whilst not disproving the others (i.e. preference not proof). Supporters of other interpretations, including Graham's many worlds, and other good stuff, have decided that there is, in fact, no favouritism implied. Sorry 'bout that. >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. Yes, after some time of considering their "etc." to be interesting, I learned something about it myself by talking to experts and reading a few books, and discovered this to be the case. Rather like von Daniken, early on: the astronomers found his archaeology etc. impressive and his physics laughable, and apparently the archaeologists etc. had the reverse impression. Now, of course, everyone knows he's a complete lunatic. -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]