Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research
Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram
Message-ID: <4023@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 11:15:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.4023
Posted: Wed Oct 14 11:15:05 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Oct-87 00:57:59 EDT
References: <7402@ism780c.UUCP> <295@etn-rad.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Datalytics, Inc.
Lines: 49
Keywords: quantum mechanics, hidden-variable theories, EPR, Aspect
Summary: Aspect no amateur; hidden-variable theories doubted
Xref: mnetor sci.space:3433 sci.research:270

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