Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrba!cepu!hao!hull
From: hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics paradoxes again (Aspect, EPR, etc.)
Message-ID: <1242@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 12:23:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1242
Posted: Wed Oct 31 12:23:27 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 05:45:34 EST
References: <369@petsd.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 36

In a recent posting, Chris Henrich replied to an earlier subjective posting
of mine.  In order to advance the EPR (Aspect) discussion efficiently, I
wish to "tie off some of the loose ends" I seem to have produced.

I plead guilty to diverting the discussion from "bilocality" to photons.
Sorry folks, I just happen to like photons and use a lot of them in my
favorite recipes.  I have to admit that even to my own definition, they
possess something more akin to "multilocality" than bilocality.  I will
agree with Chris; if you don't need photons to discuss bilocality, then
don't use them.  So I will select the option of losing this argument.

However, I wish to register a subjective complaint.  If the form of the
wave equation you are dealing with allows linear superimposition, (and I
believe that it does), then I claim that the property of "correlation" is
a property of the observer [and the observer's processing of the observed
information] and not fairly a property of the observed phenomenon.  To my
notion, two entities themselves posess the property of correlation only if
they are bound together by the elements of a non-separable expression (i.e.
a non-linear expression).  Maybe I shouldn't use the word "correlation",
but if that isn't the word I should use, then I do not know what the correct
word is.  The only thing I can think of that might serve as a "correlation
binder" in this case is the Pauli exclusion requirement - and that applies
only if the test objects are co-located particles of the same description,
but differing by one quantum number, and only for the space-time in which
they are co-located.  Perhaps what you need to contain this problem is a
"dual test particle" with a single non-separable QM descriptor.

At least, the notion you propose - that one of the objects is a test for the
other - has a greater propensity to survive my particular conception of what
is going on than does a sense of linear equality for the objects.  However, I
would be very careful concerning the way in which this notion enters into the
mathematical description.  The remaining comments of your issue seem to be
very constructive, and will (fortunately for the net) keep me busy for some
time.
							     Howard Hull
 	{ihnp4!stcvax | decvax!stcvax | seismo} !hao!hull