giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (05/19/84)
<Must we go through this every four months?> >> What Einstein discovered, is a new (UNBREAKABLE) law: much like >> the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And ALL THE FUTURE SCIENCE IN >> THE WORLD, will not change it, or allow one to get around it >> somehow. > I thought that one of the basics of the scientific method was that > theories can (and must) be changed to fit newly discovered facts. > If something is discovered that contradict the THEORY, the theory > must be changed to cover the fact. ALL you can say is that the > theory appears to describe reality fairly well. I *KNOW* one of the fundamentals of the scientific method is that you do not go around adding theories when you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM!! How much evidence is there for FTL <matter transport>? NONE !!! ZILCH !!! ZERO !!! The only experimental evidence for FTL communication (by Aspect) is very adequetely (and embarrassingly) explained by Quantum Mechanics. (At least, that is what the people with the BACKGROUND to understand the EXPERIMENT say...) And if you don't have any experimental evidence to back up your theory, then all you're generating is a means of travel through the air. Enough hot air to fill a balloon. ave discordia going bump in the night ... bruce giles decvax!ucf-cs!giles university of central florida giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay orlando, florida 32816
giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (05/19/84)
I hear the mobs shouting, so here it is.... In the journal Applied Physical Review Letters, in August 1982 or so, there appeared a letter by Aspect et al regarding an experiment they had performed with a pair of particles produced as a result of nuclear decay in a certain element. (I'm not being vague on purpose -- I have not read the article in a while, and am too lazy to look it up right now!) In the experiment, a pair of randomly oriented polarizers are set up a *very* large distance apart (for Q.M.) and detectors placed behind them. See below. | radiation | detector =< | ---------- * ---------- | >= detector | source | polarizer polarizer According to classical SR, there should be no correlation between the received signals because the particles are too far apart, and events occur too fast. According to QM, there should be a very high correlation between the two particles, and the information should pass between them `instantaneously'. The experiment supported the QM hyposthesis. NOW -- before you run out and celibrate a FTL party, several things should be mentioned. First and foremost, this experiment has several possible explanations. Anything which anyone without a doctorate in physics can understand is probably wrong (including what I understand). Some of the things I saw referenced in a literature search were alternate universe theories, Bell's theorem, etc. And almost every researcher stated that they were still highly unlikely, in spite of the experiment. (I.e., other, simplier explanations still exist). Also, if this actually could be used in a FTL drive, here's how you do it: place you transmitter and receiver where you desire them. Put a star equidistant between them (exactly collinear, by the way). Cause the star to go super-nova. Ensure the radiation traveling to your transmitter is coherent. When you, your transmitter, and every- thing else in the system are destroyed by the radiation from the nova, `simultanously' (undefined in relativity, which still holds!) turn the receiver on, and the phase change in the radiation at the transmitter end will be duplicated at the receiver. Of course, if you receiver can interact with the radiation field to receive you, it too will be vaporized. If it cannot interact in order to continue to exist, the altered photons/particles cannot be used to reconstrut you. And of course, everything you wanted to see in that star system has been destroyed. Score: at least 3 star systems destroyed. far more made uninhabitable (due to the supernova) one dead sf-lover. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, if anyone wants to seriously discuss this, several ground rules: (1): Get the article by Aspect, the experimental proposal, and the subsequent articles (longer baselines, etc). (2): Read them. (3): Read them again. (4): Do a literature search to research Bell's theorem, the EPR Paradox, the multiple universe theory, etc. DO NOT use Robert Anton Wilsons' *Schroendinger's Cat* series for your introduction to quantum mechanics and expect to be understand anything. (although they are good books). (5): Finally, if you have a serious question, ask net.physics. But do not ask "Why is not FTL possible," rather ask "What is the relationship between Aspect's experiment, Bell's theorem, and `FTL' theories." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know I sound like a reactionary scientist, but there comes a point where the theory/experimental evidence is so new that you *must* have the background in advanced mathematics and physics to understand it. Relativity is fairly `old' now, and can be explained with simple concepts. This experiment is paving ground so new that most (if not all) undergraduate texts ignore it, and probabily more than a few graduate ones also! Here there can be no substitute for digging into the math/physics. ave discordia going bump in the night ... bruce giles decvax!ucf-cs!giles university of central florida giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay orlando, florida 32816