[net.physics] The New Physics

unix@ames-vmsb@sri-unix.UUCP (09/19/83)

Some minor corrrections to "the New Physics" message about superluminary
information transfer using correlated quantum states:

1) the equation

                          1
                       ------- (cos(x) + cos(x + 2y))
                          ___
                        \/ 2

should instead read:



                         1
                     --------- (cos(x) + cos(x + 2y))
                           ___
                      2  \/ 2


and the equation

                          1
                       ------- (cos(x) + cos(x + 2y))
                          ___
                        \/ 2


should read:

                         1
                     --------- (sin(x) + sin(x + 2y))
                          ___
                      2 \/ 2


2) the line which reads:

"using the data from only one and of the system"

should read:

"using the data from only one end of the system"

3) The sentence:

"...to a detect a photon and for the other photon to be absorbed is in
its..."

should read:

"...to detect a photon and for the other photon to be absored in its ..."

4) The book Davies called "accidental Universe" is really called "The
Accidental Universe".

5) detailed derivations of the modified (x + 2y) equations are available upon
request.

6) The address *and phone number* to get further information is:

POB 26548
SF, CA 94126

(415)-392-6144

lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (10/19/83)

The orginal article didn't make it to my site (I did see
a followup correction which indicated the gist of the original)

The correlation of measurements at distant locations CANNOT be used
to send information between them. The distribution of measurements
at either location is the same, regardless of the state of the other
measuring device. It is only after the fact, when the measurements are
compared, that a correlation between them can be observed. Of course,
this correlation can be inferred - "I measured 'up', therefore he measured
'down', IF HE IS MEASURING ALONG THIS AXIS", but there is no way to know
whether he is making this measurement or not. Maybe he went home!

This is really no different than synchronizing clocks from a common
source. It's the philosophy that's befuddling, not the physics.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

dnc@dartvax.UUCP (11/07/83)

If i am not mistaken one knows more than just hte measurement at some specific
angle of measurent (IF he nmeasured it) but at any, GIVEN that he measured it.
in other words if he takes a reading, and i am given the angle, i can retrn him the reading
...so, if he hasn't gone home, then i do know what went on. knowing the result of
his experient is now equiv to knowing he did it, isince iI measured up (heehee),
and my theory tells me so. Though of course, following the wimps at (ahem)
Copenhagen  I only know for certain any particular state afetr the measureement
before it, it is in all of them (how do you like them quantum appples?),
 
of course, i am open to correction, it has been a while....

Shinbrot.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (11/09/83)

A couple of days ago, someone, I recall not who, asked for info. about
photo-chemical fuel production.  There's an article in this September 30
issue of Science that discusses (p. 1358) just this.  Good luck.

- Troy