Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site teklabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekchips!teklabs!carlc
From: carlc@teklabs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Dancing Wu Li Masters
Message-ID: <2918@teklabs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 13:57:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: teklabs.2918
Posted: Thu Aug 30 13:57:58 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 11:47:39 EDT
References: <387@ism780.UUCP>, <371@aquila.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 21

> 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).

Bullsnort.  I have never seen a scheme whereby the non-causal correlations
leading to the EPR paradox can be used to communicate between the two
"detectors" of correlated particles.  Sure, if detector "A" sees a certain
polarization then he can be sure what polarization detector "B" got.
How can "A" send a message (e.g. "Help, my phototubes are overheating!")
to "B" using this fact?  He can't.  The only "information" carried is carried
from the SOURCE of the correlated particles to EACH of the detectors.  This
occurs at or below the speed of light.

Editorial aside -
With regard to the Dancing Tao of Vagueness, I understand that the mysticism,
Buddhism, etc. published by these authors is every bit as flaky as
their physics.

Crotchety Carl, the non-believer.  Replies to net.flame or /dev/null.