Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site aquila.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!noao!aquila!sharp
From: sharp@aquila.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Dancing Wu Li Masters
Message-ID: <371@aquila.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 17:17:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: aquila.371
Posted: Wed Aug 29 17:17:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 10:35:55 EDT
References: <387@ism780.UUCP>
Organization: Natl. Optical Astronomy Observatories   Tucson AZ  USA
Lines: 44

The Aspect experiment was designed to test what is known as Bell's theorem,
which is a very basic result relevant to the "hidden variables" idea.
This latter is the argument that quantum mechanics is only uncertain
because of underlying exact quantities which we cannot/do not now know
(rather like statistical mechanics, where the very large number of exactly
known particles of classical theory are replaced by macroscopic quantities).

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).

The results were completely in accord with the Copenhagen interpretation,
and confirm that Einstein's famous remarks about not believing that God
plays dice with the Universe must remain as one of the few errors of intuition
by a genius famed for said intuition.

>The book also talks about a theory put forth by Jack Sarfati,
>which he called "superluminal transfer of negentropy without
>signals."  (Negentropy is another word for order).  Sarfati
>postulates that the connections being tested for by Aspect can be
>controlled and used to communicate.

>Is the idea of faster-than-light communication being
>scoffed at by mainstream physicists?  Or is there some real
>research being done here?

Dear old Jack ! Haven't heard from him in quite a while - when I was at
Cambridge we got a lot of his "papers", I think mostly because of the fame
of Martin Rees (attracts a lot of people, does fame).
Jack and his "Physics of Consciousness Research Group", as it was then called,
ARE a joke: he attempts to take many things which no-one understands and use
them as a justification for ESP etc. (phenomena not shown to exist).
HE is scoffed at: the ideas are generally ignored, but the really useful and
possibly relevant work is that done by such as John Wheeler and Wojtcek Zurek,
who recently edited a collection of classic papers on the quantum theory
of measurement.  This is where such matters are treated by careful and sensible
physicists who wish they had the funding of (California-based) Scarfatti
(oops, mustn't be libellous, must have been a mis-type).
Other relevant work is that done on the singularity and causal structure of
general relativity and its (currently rather ailing) rivals.
-- 
	Nigel Sharp   [noao!sharp  National Optical Astronomy Observatories]