Autcsrgv.331
net.misc
utzoo!utcsrgv!donald
Tue May 4 14:14:54 1982
quantum cats
Amazing! I expected the psi discussion to generate flames, but not a
discussion on a physical theory whose basic foundations date back to
the early part of this century!
First, I apologize for the typos. Yes, the product in the uncertainty relation
should have been position and momentum, and the distributive law in the boolean
expression yields P^(QvR) = (P^Q)v(P^R). The point of the latter is the rather
disturbing fact that quantum logic is not distributive, so if "John is dead and
Mary or Jane did it" is not equivalent to "John is dead and Mary did it, or
John is dead and Jane did it".
I do not see the "grave error" alleged by L. H. Hammel. I stated at the very
beginning that the electron in my thought experiment conveys no information
from point A to B. It merely seems to exceed the speed of light.
I don't believe the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect has too much to do with my
experiment, since the EPR paradox arises with pairs of spin-coupled particles.
The original EPR thought experiment seemed to show two space-like observations
could affect each other, violating the principle of local causes, from which the
authors of the EPR paper tried to argue the incompleteness of quantum theory.
d'Espagnat's article just describes how Bell's inequality is derived assuming
3 principles (the last of which is the principle of locality) and how actual
experiments seem to violate Bell's inequality. Given this reductio ad absurdum,
locality seems to be the best of the 3 principles to throw out.
In other words, L. H. Hammel, what exactly are you trying to say?
Good try Charles, but my argument is that after A observes the electron at his
location and then goes for coffee, the electron's wave function reverts back to
what it was before. Since the wave function has no physical reality, it can
pop back all across the universe without being constrained by lightspeed.
Your argument is that after A observes the electron and goes for coffee, the
nonzero part of the wave function propagates at the speed of light outward
from location A, so B must wait a year before he can detect the electron.
This is not the case since after A goes for coffee the electron may be detected
anywhere else in the universe!
I merely state that it is possible (but not probable) that it is possible
for two observations of the same electron to be space-like. (To forestall
protests, notice I said that there was one electron in the thought universe!)
The uncertainty principle (I think) has nothing to do with the argument, as
long as it permits us determine the location of the electron to any precision
we desire, which is the case.
Don Chan (utcsrgv!donald)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
