Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!giles
From: giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Relativity Ignorance: The Final Battle
Message-ID: <1268@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-May-84 10:33:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1268
Posted: Sat May 19 10:33:41 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 22-May-84 08:25:21 EDT
References: <1872@pur-ee.UUCP>, <1267@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 90

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