jimh@ism780c.UUCP (09/30/87)
There's been some discussion of faster-than-light (FTL) on the net; here are the first two paragraphs from an article in the September 22 Village Voice titled "The Universe As Hologram" written by Michael Talbot. Any response about these experiments, (further details, test conditions, test environment) and their implications would be appreciated. It may be popular press hokum with no scientific basis, or it could be something legit, with revolutionary implications, as the article claims. ........................................................ THE UNIVERSE AS HOLOGRAM Does Objective Reality Exist, or Is the Universe a Phantasm? In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. ................................................................. The article goes on to explain holograms, and their unified aspect, making the parallel of a universe where everything, including past, present and future, are connected seamlessly, each sub-division containing the whole, that is the whole of reality. Tying this together with recent brain research, which show the brain to also use holographic principles in perception, leads to the holographic paradigm: a model of reality which can explain many puzzling phenomena. If the brain is part of the holographic whole, religious and paranormal experiences, can be seen as tapping into this universal oneness, and FTL travel means simply accessing the right frequency to reach other solar systems, which may actually, be at your elbow. Any responses? jimh ...yeah you right .................................................................
masticol@clash.rutgers.edu.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: > here are the first two paragraphs from an article > in the September 22 Village Voice titled "The Universe As Hologram" > written by Michael Talbot. > ........................................................ > THE UNIVERSE AS HOLOGRAM > > Does Objective Reality Exist, or Is the Universe a Phantasm? > > In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris > a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may > turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th > century. [ Verbiage deleted ] > Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances > subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously > communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating > them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion > miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the > other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates > Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster > than the speed of light. > Any responses? I'd like to hear about a reference to this, and would especially like to know whether anyone has confirmed Aspect's results. Also whether Talbot interpreted them correctly. (The _Village Voice_ doesn't usually make it to the top of the journal pile in most physicists' libraries, but since I'm not an expert, I'm willing to listen to those who do know.) There are certain phenomena that propogate faster than light - travelling waves in a waveguide are one of them, I believe. But you can't transmit information over them. My guess is that Aspect might really have been reporting something along these lines. Or his results might be screwy. In any case, Michael Talbot has leapt to some really grandiose conclusions, which might go over big with the harmonic convergence crowd, but not with a properly skeptical researcher. Such conclusions (as is proper in French justice) stand suspect until proven true. And I don't see any proof. If anyone out in sci.research has heard of Aspect's result, and interprets it as giving someone the ability to instantaneously transmit energy or information, please let us know. - Steve
chuck@amdahl.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: >In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris >a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may >turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th >century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, >unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you >probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are >some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. > >Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances >subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously >communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating >them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion >miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the >other is doing. > >jimh ...yeah you right Actually, this stuff has been popularized in a few books that are quite accessible to those of us who aren't physicists. I recommend "Quantum Realities", "In Search of Shroedinger's Cat", "In Search of the Big Bang", and "The Tao of Physics". I don't remember the authors of these books, but you should be able to find them in the Science or Nature section of a good bookstore (no, not Crown). -- Chuck
aalanm@phoenix.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <1441@clash.rutgers.edu> masticol@clash.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: > >> in the September 22 Village Voice titled "The Universe As Hologram" >> [Stuff...] >> Any responses? > >I'd like to hear about a reference to this, and would especially like > [Stuff...] >There are certain phenomena that propogate faster than light - >travelling waves in a waveguide are one of them, I believe. But you >can't transmit information over them. My guess is that Aspect might I don't have time to give a complete answer (mine and, I believe, that of most physicists) to this, so I'll give a super quick incomplete contribution that will add to the immense piles of verbiage on all of this - 1) Aspect's results are believed. The experiment was the culmination of a whole bunch of similar experiments to test QM. 2) The results CONFIRM quantum mechanics and rule out most any hidden variable theory that is local (i.e., no faster than light). As most people other than Bohm expected. 3) You MAY NOT send signals faster than light using this method. No way. I repeat, no information is sent faster than the speed of light (as far as anyone knows, of course, as always; maybe wrong someday -the point is as it is understood consistently: no way). If you like the Copenhagen interpretation (I don't), the wave function "collapses" instantaneously over all space, but it doesn't mean anything (like waveguides, or swinging flashlights at Andromeda). 4) The Village Voice is fun to read (my opinion only) and this article was a blast to read. Great laughs. (One example: holograms are in the whole plate, sure, but they get fuzzier images if you chop them up.) Aspect's results are in some boring journal; I forget which one. -- "Thinking to break the spell, he boldly said to her, `Aren't you in my class in elementary topology?' She licked the raspberry cone she was holding and said, without a trace of a smile, `You must be mad'" -H.H. Hollis, "Sword Game"
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <1441@clash.rutgers.edu> masticol@clash.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >If anyone out in sci.research has heard of Aspect's result, and interprets >it as giving someone the ability to instantaneously transmit energy or >information, please let us know. The Aspect experiment was discussed at length in sci.physics some time ago. Two particles can align themselves as if they were connected by a faster-than-light communications path, but the end result is that there is no actual FTL transfer of information from one end to the other. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
masticol@trex.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) (10/06/87)
I'm posting the following on behalf of Michael Paddon in Australia,
who doesn't have post access to sci.space. Thanks for the
contribution (and hopefully the clarification), Michael!
- Steve Masticola.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspect experiment consisted of measuring the polarization of
photons that had previously interacted. He found that the polarization
of the quanta were linked no matter what the distance was between them.
The interesting aspect (:-)) was that this interaction manifested itself
in a instantaneous fashion (or as closely as could be measured). The
interaction was definitely faster than a signal could travel between
the particles at light speed.
The thing to note is that no information transfer is implied in these
results. If you could measure the polarization on one of the photons
(without affecting it -- Heisenberg's theory raises its ugly head here)
while the other photon was having its polarization manipulated,
all you would see is a different RANDOM pattern of polarization than
what would have happened otherwise!
If you could predict what the polarization would be on the photon,
then you could transfer information by this means. Unfortunately
the word RANDOM is the cornerstone of quantum interactions and
unless this element can be removed from the theory then faster than
light communication/travel is still an open question.
The Aspect experiment used light polarization as a convenient measure.
If I remember rightly, this result has been confirmed by a few other
researchers though I'd have to look up references to find the details.
Theoretically, this effect should manifest itself on other measurable
quanitities of various quanta. The important conclusions to be drawn
relate to the nature of reality particularily in the light of these
FTL interactions between quanta with no obvious means to interact.
Some of the opinions which have been aired on the net seem a bit light
on justification, however. It seems it takes more than the "Village
Voice" to sucessfully challenge Einstein's relativity :-).
If you are interested I can post to you some references and more details
which I don't have at hand just now.
Caveat Netperson:
=================
Please take my ramblings as those of a computer scientist with a casual
interest in physics.
Michael Paddon
==============
===========================
UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!munnari!mwp
ARPA: mwp%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov
CSNET: mwp%munnari.oz@australiajru@etn-rad.UUCP (10/13/87)
In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: >There's been some discussion of faster-than-light (FTL) >on the net; here are the first two paragraphs from an article >in the September 22 Village Voice titled "The Universe As Hologram" >written by Michael Talbot. Any response about these experiments, >...... >In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris >a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may >..... >Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances >subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously >communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating ..... This is a common misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. There are are number of experiments which create a pair of particles with complementary properties. Lets say that particle X decays and produces 2 Y particles, one of which is red, and the other blue. We can't tell which is which without looking at them, and they are so small that looking at them will destroy them. We must assume that each has an equal probability of being red or blue until such time as they react with something else. Suppose that the particles get separated by a distance of several miles. Then we look at one particle and find it to be blue. This means that the other particle, miles away, instantaneously TURNS RED. How did it know to do this? There must be some magical means of communication, right? That means Einstein was wrong and we can go faster than light, and maybe ESP exists, and this explains the Bermuda Triangle too? WRONG. Nothing is actually communicated between the particles, it is simply a misconception on the part of us humans that makes us think that finding out what one particle is causes the other one to change. I suspect that the reason that we have never heard of Dr. Aspect is that he is a RANK AMATEUR who is (hopelessly by accident) deceiving the public into thinking that his repetition of years-old quantum expirements has allowed him to discover some new principle.
jru@etn-rad.UUCP (10/13/87)
Oops......pardon me while I remove my foot from my mouth. I see from other postings that my comment about Dr. Aspect was way out of line, the fault is apparently in the channels through which his results were dissemninated. Sorry.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (10/14/87)
In article <295@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) writes: >This is a common misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. There are are >number of experiments which create a pair of particles with complementary >properties. Lets say that particle X decays and produces 2 Y particles, >one of which is red, and the other blue. We can't tell which is which >without looking at them, and they are so small that looking at them >will destroy them. We must assume that each has an equal probability of >being red or blue until such time as they react with something else. The "common misunderstanding" you describe is indeed common; in fact, is is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and is the standard view taught in physics classes and accepted (tentatively, of course) by most physicists. You seem to prefer what is known as a "hidden variable" theory; that is, the particles in question had a value that was unknown prior to measurement, but nevertheless was fixed. If you make this assumption (as Einstein et al did) it turns out you can make some testable statements about the statistical distribution of the measurements (a result due to Bell and, qualitatively, von Neumann). The Aspect experiment was intended to test just that. Aspect's results support the Copenhagen view (and numerous others that make equivalent predictions, such as Everett's Many-Worlds) and call most hidden-variable theories into question. It is possible to have a hidden-variable theory that survives the Aspect results, but such a theory must adopt other weird features that most people are reluctant to accept. >. . . I suspect that the reason that >we have never heard of Dr. Aspect is that he is a RANK AMATEUR who >is (hopelessly by accident) deceiving the public into thinking that his >repetition of years-old quantum expirements has allowed him to discover >some new principle. There is, of course, no shame in being an amateur. The gravitational constant was first accurately measured by Cavendish, who was I believe an amateur. As everyone knows, Einstein was working in the patent office at the time of his most famous publications, so he was not a professional theoretician himself. A list of astronomical discoveries by amateurs would fill megabytes. In any case, to my knowledge Alain Aspect is a professional physicist working in France. Curiously, he might not be "Dr" Aspect, though. I read recently (in Science?) that French universities do not award PhDs. Can anyone confirm this? -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet
mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) (10/15/87)
In article <295@etn-rad.UUCP>, jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis) writes: > I suspect that the reason that > we have never heard of Dr. Aspect is that he is a RANK AMATEUR who > is (hopelessly by accident) deceiving the public into thinking that his > repetition of years-old quantum expirements has allowed him to discover > some new principle. Actually, The Aspect experiment was a well-designed experiment which, like many other experiments, confirmed a widely-held theory (non-"hidden variable" QM). Just because some bozoi misinterpret it is no reason to impugn the experimentor. I suspect the reason we never heard of him is that we haven't heard of everyone yet. (someone you never heard of either)
alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) (10/19/87)
I was reading "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" recently and came across
a reference to an experiment conducted by a Terry Clark at U of Sussex
around 1983. It involved a superconducting ring about 5mm diameter with
a very narrow constriction at one point, creating a standing wave
around the ring.
Apparently this standing wave allowed the whole ring to be treated
(even to act) as a single quantum 'particle'. A detector set up
on one side of the ring detected changes in quantum states caused by
a stimulus on the other side. What caught my attention was the remark
that the change in quantum state was _not_ observed to start at the
stimulus and propagate at C around the ring, rather it occurred
simultaneously around the whole ring at once.
Now, that sounds like FTL to me, but perhaps that was phase velocity?
Does anyone have more knowledge (NOT wild-assed speculation, please)
about this experiment or followups to it? (The Clark team apparently
had planned a meter-long setup next - did it ever get built? What
results?) Has the experiment been repeated? Etc, etc...
--
Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al
UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair
"What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle."