> Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly > program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series > was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final > program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found > that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) > and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and > then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other > particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field > simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that > somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still > communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight > times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do > some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our > understanding of matter and energy.
> It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can > communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer > of energy between the two.
> Are particles psychic?
> Steve
> -- > Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Steve is describing the famous "Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky" experiment, which Einstein devised to argue against quantum mechanics. It's also not a bad description.
A little closer to the point, we have two particles with correlated spin. But, thanks to the Copenhagen Interpretation, we must say that the particles fall into either an 'up' spin or a 'down' spin only when we measure them.
The experiment requires the two particles to be speeding away from each other (at the speed of light, natch); when we measure the spin of one, we therefore cause the other particle to fall into the appropriate eigenstate instantly.
The experiment was proposed by Einstein to Neils Bohr, in an attempt to argue down QM-- that is, if QM was true, then the experiment would result in this absurdity. When they finally DID try the experiment, the above more or less happened.
Now, consider this: this experiment, which confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics, is now being touted by Steve as proof for psi-- and, by extension, disputing the scientific world-view that came up with QM in the first place. Also, in order to make sense of this example of apparent non-causlity, Steve appeals not to a Capra-like 'holism,' but he feels he has to impose a causal, reductionist interpretation onto it!
Steve, if you believe that 'holistic thinking' is preferred over good ol' inference of causality, then WHY are you proposing a supra-light-speed communication? Seems to me you've having trouble getting out of the "if this happens, then this must then happen" anti-holistic mind-set.
"Causing scientists to rethink?" If I know my history of science, an experiment that _confirms_ the reigning scientific models doesn't exactly do that.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In article <91234.145005DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>In response to your request for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen references, I list >some. They may be too technical for your needs. Scientific American and >Discover (RIP) occasionally have articles on the topic, although I haven't >seen any for 2-3 years. Also look at the American Journal of Physics. >[deleted]
The November 1990 issue of Discover magazine has a very readable article called "Weird Science" which discusses EPR experiments. -- * Daniel A. Jimenez * Please excuse my longwindedness. * djime...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu * This Sun terminal makes everything * da...@lonestar.utsa.edu * I write seem important.
I'm no physicist, but based on the accounts I've read the reason most scientists believe that this effect has no implications for paranormal phenomena is that the information which is passed seems to be accessible only to mother nature. Measurements are not able to extract it since each detector gives a random looking sequence of results regardless of whether it is correlated to another detectors results.
An analogy with 100% correlation could be thought up by imagining an experiment involving the flipping of two fair coins which are separated by some distance. You flip each coin, say, a million times. However, assume they are flipped simultaneously and that the result of each pair of flips is identical. If coin A comes up heads, then so does coin B, and the same for tails. If you look at the record of flips for each coin separately they are perfectly random. It's not until you compare each record against the other that you can see the correlation. Similarly, in the Aspect and Clauser experiments the violation of Bell's inequality is only evident later when the results are analyzed. That is, the correlation is transparent for each individual detector.
It's like there is a private communication line that we can't tap into. So, by itself the effect doesn't seem to offer an explanation for paranormal phenomena.
It does seem strange though and it makes you wonder *why* nature should be this way!
>Well, ... I have a theory about that actually. I think that everything is >connected at the particle level of reality and (in my humble opinion) thats >how psi works.
I once was in a discussion program, and the discussion leader asked me (I was supposedly knowledgeable about physics and reincarnation):
"I want your opinion on the modern shoelace physics. I heard that in this physics so to speak if you take a bicycle apart and take one wheel to the railway station and the other wheel to the Dam square, and you turn one wheel, the other will start to turn too, because they have been in the same bicycle. Do you think this might explain the phenomenon of reincarnation?"
Sad comment: there is no limit to which beautiful and intricate physical theories (and I suspect common facts and experiences too) can become garbled in the mind of the New-Agers.
J.W. Nienhuys, Research Group Discrete Mathematics Dept. of Mathematics and Computing Science Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. BOX 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands
In article <1991Aug22.205906....@pmafire.inel.gov> rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
] ]The test had particles ejected in opposite direction, spin measured. ]Then one particle has spin flipped by magnetic field and spin also flips ]in particle going the opposite direction simultaneously. That is what ]was related on the program. Well, this DOESN'T WORK. The conservation laws only apply in an unperturbed system. When you flip the particle (NOT by a magnetic field, but rather by an RF field) it has just ZERO effect on any other particle. If this weren't true, NMR wouldn't work. -Ekr
-- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
In article <truesdel.682906279@sun418> trues...@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes: ]DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: ]Thanks, but I already read quite a bit about EPR. I was asking for references ]to the "experiment" that Steve Reiser was referring to, which seems to violate ]the results of other EPR experiments I have read about. In short EPR can not ]be used to transmit information FTL, the experiment Steve refers to would seem ]to indicate that you can. ] ]So far the only references that have appeared have been to a book by a ]french "physicist/philosopher" (I wonder if "physicist" earned or simply ]claimed) and a conveniently vague ("Last several years") reference to an article ]in Sci Am. Not only does the experiment that Steve describes violate EPR, it also violates basic physical sense. Look at it this way. You have a pair of previously interacted particles with opposite spin. Now, you apply a magnetic field to induce a state splitting(standard NMR so far.) Then you apply an rf field so that only the particle in the low energy state is exposed. The low energy particle thus undergoes a spin transition. However, in order to keep conservation(according to Steve) the particle in the upper state MUST undergo a spontaneous emission. Now, there are two problems with this: 1) You don't get any bulk absorbtion, making NMR impossible. 2) Last time I checked, spontaneous emission was forbidden without stimulation. -Ekr -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
In article <1991Aug23.085226.23...@colorado.edu>, schi...@tigger.Colorado.EDU (David M. Schiff) writes...
>I'm no physicist, but based on the accounts I've read >the reason most scientists believe that this effect has no implications >for paranormal phenomena is that the information which is passed seems >to be accessible only to mother nature
*We* are a part of mother nature, are we not?
>It's like there is a private communication line that we can't tap into. >So, by itself the effect doesn't seem to offer an explanation for >paranormal phenomena.
Maybe some of us can tap into it. Maybe if we could tap into it... then perhaps we could also learn to share or engage in the process ourselves and thereby direct or control it.
--- Mary Stanley "Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world"
In article <9108222318.AA11190@aries> bonga...@aries.intel.com (Ben Bongalon) writes:
>>Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly >>program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series >>was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final
>Is this series ever shown in the San Francisco Bay Area? if so, when >and what channel? thanks.
I get it on the VISION network which is broadcast via satellite, so I'm getting it on a satellite dish.
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
In article <1991Aug23.153104.9...@engage.pko.dec.com> stan...@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
] ]Maybe some of us can tap into it. Maybe if we could tap into it... then ]perhaps we could also learn to share or engage in the process ourselves ]and thereby direct or control it. No, I don't think so. The party line in the physics community is that it cannot be used for communication, because the collapse cannot be dictated. -Ekr
-- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
In article <1991Aug22.205906....@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
|> [...] |> The test had particles ejected in opposite direction, spin measured. |> Then one particle has spin flipped by magnetic field and spin also flips |> in particle going the opposite direction simultaneously. That is what |> was related on the program.
There are three possibilities here:
1) You are misreporting the statements made by the program.
2) The program was in error.
3) The experiments reported contradict all the other experiments relating to the EPR paradox.
The fact is that after the first measurement is made of the spin, the particles are no longer correlated. This has been observed again and again. Not only are you claiming that they remain correlated after measurement, but after a further magnetic interaction as well! Such an anomolous result would surely have made a _big_ splash in the scientific community - especially in a place like Los Alamos (where I'm working). There has been no such splash.
In article <91234.145005DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: |> [...] |> Most people unfortunately don't understand the scientific definition of |> "theory." They use it more or less interchangeably with the |> word "speculation."
Almost. A theory is a general statement about the way things work which has specific testable ramifications. Speculation, on the other hand, may or may not have such ramifications. Fantasy is speculation which does not have testable consequences. On the far end of the spectrum is accepted theory which has been tested repeatedly with all the precision we can achieve, has survived all these challenges and we can't think of any new tests to apply. Accepted theory shades away from being considered to be "just" speculation. From a strict philosophical view I suppose this shouldn't be, but people are creatures of fine distinctions and shades of meaning which is reflected in their use of language.
This doesn't mean that an accepted theory is *THE TRUTH*. Some new test may come along and contradict the theory. Some new theory may come along which fits experiment just as well but is simpler to understand and apply or is applicable to wider range of phenomena. In either case, the accepted theory will lose out. Take Newtonian mechanics for example - both these mechanisms (theoretical and experimental) were in play to replace Newton with Einstein.
In article <Lis479w1...@cellar.UUCP>, re...@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes: |> [...] |> The experiment requires the two particles to be speeding away from |> each other (at the speed of light, natch); when we measure the spin of one, |> we therefore cause the other particle to fall into the appropriate |> eigenstate instantly.
Not quite. My quibble is purely semantic. It is not clear that we _cause_ anything of the sort. What happens is that whenever we measure them, they do turn out to be correlated. The reason this is a paradox is that we can alter the polarity of the measuring equipment so that the two measurements are separated by a timelike interval (ie. the measurements _should_ be independent).
Well the probability that a particle will get through a polarized target and be measured is proportional to cos(a-b) squared (where 'a' is the orientation of the polarized target and 'b' is the orientation of the particle spin). The same goes for the other particle measured: cos(c-d) squared. Now comes the paradox. If the two measurements are really independent, the probability of coincident counts should be the product of the probabilities of the separate counts. But they're _NOT_! The probability of coincident counst from the experiment is proportional to cos(a-c) squared (ie. the cosine of the difference in polarization of the two targets). There is, in fact, no known continuous function of the two independent probability distributions whose product is cos(a-c) squared (so not even hidden variables, etc., can produce the result we see). Since the probabil- ities don't scale according to the product rule, the events are not independent as we expect.
The informal language that some physicists use to describe this phenomenon are that one measurement effects or _causes_ the other particle to conform. However, this is more than the evidence justifies. What is really happening is that the particles react in a non-independent in some way that we don't understand. Period. Language such as 'eigenvector collapse' or some such implies a _reality_ to what is really just a mathematical construct.
J. Giles
P.S. The above description is simplified to a very low level and yet may still not be clear to many readers who are not familiar with the experiment. That's all my fault for not being sufficiently articulate to express the concept both clearly and simply. Look through the popular literature on the subject, but try not to take the "collapse" rhetoric to seriously.
>The November 1990 issue of Discover magazine has a very readable article >called "Weird Science" which discusses EPR experiments.
Yeah, and when I mentioned it on sci.physics, I got a longish E-mail from one of the Berkeley students involved in this work regarding some flaws in the article. Posting a request on sci.physics may elicit a response -- I don't think I kept this message, though there may be a printout at home.
--Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
> schi...@tigger.Colorado.EDU (David M. Schiff) writes... >> I'm no physicist, but based on the accounts I've read >> the reason most scientists believe that this effect has no >> implications for paranormal phenomena is that the information which >> is passed seems to be accessible only to mother nature > *We* are a part of mother nature, are we not? >> It's like there is a private communication line that we can't tap >> into. So, by itself the effect doesn't seem to offer an explanation >> for paranormal phenomena. > Maybe some of us can tap into it. Maybe if we could tap into it... > then perhaps we could also learn to share or engage in the process > ourselves and thereby direct or control it.
This whole discussion belongs more properly in sci.physics, but I will address the issue that is relevant to paranormal phenomena.
Mary Stanley raises a valid objection to David Schiff's description of the quantum mechanical predictions of correlations between separated particles. In fact, if QM is correct the information mentioned above doesn't exist at all; it's not merely inaccessable. QM is sometimes referred to as a nonrealistic (good term, yes?) theory. When a measurement is made, and the wave function collapses, *THEN* the information exists, but only the person who made the measurement has the information, and it must be transmitted by conventional means.
So, this doesn't have any necessary bearing on telepathy or clairvoyance, unless the information transfer is thought to be instantaneous. One could imagine prosaic explanations for an observed paranormal phenomenon, but if it is the one suggested by Mary Stanley, then QM is wrong.
For any would-be flamers: I'm not claiming that this means that these phenomena are impossible, but (IMO) an explanation which requires the overthrow of a rather well tested theory is unlikely to be the correct one.
Oh, I forgot to mention. After the photons have passed through the polarizing filters at A and/or C, they are no longer spin-correlated. The interaction with the filter either absorbs the photon and doesn't pass it through at all or it passes it through with a new polarization (which matches the orientation of the filter itself). There is no continues correlation between the particles.
J. Giles
P.S. I also just noticed that my spelling is getting worse instead of better and I probably spelled 'particle' as 'partical' all the way through the last post. Wish I had the same text editor I had at home with a spell checker built-in.
In article <1991Aug23.191643.14...@engage.pko.dec.com>, stan...@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
|> |> In article <49...@netnews.upenn.edu>, resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu (Rescorla) writes... |> > |> >No, I don't think so. The party line in the physics community is that |> >it cannot be used for communication, because the collapse cannot be dictated. |> > |> |> How do they know that for sure, Eric? I think they are wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "I think they are wrong." Does this mean that you have actually studied the EPR paradox and have found a way of using it to send messages? If not, then your use of the word "think" is contradicts the common definition of the word.
The Aspect experiment goes as follows (I will use photons, an analogous argument would apply to any other QM particle).
Consider the following apparatus:
| * | A B C
At point B, there is a source of photons that were produced by a QM interaction which sends out photons in (almost) opposite directions with (exactly) opposite spins. At points A and C there are polarizing filters and photon detectors. The polarizing filters are built so that they can be rotated quickly. The angle that the filter at A makes with the vertical we'll call 'a', and the angle the filter at C makes with the vertical we'll call 'c'. Those photons which make it through the filter will cause the photon detector to register a "count". The probability that the detector at A will register a count when the source fires is a function of 'a' and of 'b1' (which is the polarization of the spin of the photon which goes left). The probability that the detector at C will register a count when the source fires is a function of 'c' and 'b2' ('b2' is the negative of 'b1' and is the polarity of the photon which goes right).
The probability densities observed at A and C are given by the following expressions: 2 Pa = cos (a-b1)/2
2 Pc = cos (c-b2)/2
However, since the spin orientation of the photons is QM produced, it is _random_. So all the observar at A sees is the _average_ number of events that get through. The average over all possible spins is: __ 2 Pa = integral(cos (a-b1)/2, db1)/2*pi
And this value is 0.5. That is, half the times that the source fires, there is a count at A. The same applies to C, half the times the source fires, there is a count. This is true no matter the observers rotate their polarized filters. The result is a count density of 0.5 independent of 'a' or 'c'. However, _after_ the experiment is done and the two observers get together to compare notes, they will find that the probability density of _coincident_ counts (the times when _both) observers got a count on the same firing of the source) is: 2 P = cos (a-c)/2
That is, the probability density of _coincident_ counts is related only to the orientations of the two filters and not dependent on the photons at all.
This is the EPR paradox (ie. that 'P' is not the product of 'Pa' and 'Pc'). If you can discover a method of transmitting a message using this phenomenon, please tell the rest of us - no one else has done it.
J. Giles
Note that the above description does not say anything about "collapse" or "superposition of states" or "faster than light interaction." None of these concepts are required to describe or understand the phenomenon. None of these exotic things has ever been observed or measured.
In article <1991Aug23.191643.14...@engage.pko.dec.com> stan...@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
] ]In article <49...@netnews.upenn.edu>, resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu (Rescorla) writes... ]>In article <1991Aug23.153104.9...@engage.pko.dec.com> stan...@verga.enet.dec.com writes: ]> ]>No, I don't think so. The party line in the physics community is that ]>it cannot be used for communication, because the collapse cannot be dictated. ]How do they know that for sure, Eric? I think they are wrong. What reasons do you have for thinking that they are wrong? Sure you can MAKE the wavefunction do what you want, but not without breaking the correlation between the particles. In fact, I am told that Aspect's experiments show that the measurement itself breaks said correlation. This question is basically along the lines of "well, if you can't prove it CAN'T be done, it must be true." What I'll say is this: Nobody has yet proposed a mechanism by which EPR type experiments could be used for communication. Propose one, and I'll tell you why it doesn't work. -Ekr -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
> As a general philosophical position, this is untenable. Notwithstanding > claims to the contrary, it is not even true in quantum mechanics. I would > agree that one's _interpretation_ of reality might depend on the nature of > one's consciousness. The conscious inhabitants of another planet might view > reality in a different way.
Jon, as soon as we perceive reality, we involve consciousness. there just ain't no other way to do it. Your paragraph contradicts itself. Even if you used measuring tools, you use consciousness to perceive the results thereof. All we got is our interpretations of reality.
>> A consciousness that does not >> believe in ESP, etc. has already been proven to create interference with >> existing psychic abilities. Go look it up in the Handbook of >> Parapsychology.
> I am perfectly willing to allow the that the presence of a skeptical > observer might interfere with a PSI phenomenon. However, that doesn't > eliminate the need for controls on the quality of the experimental > technique. (Examples: The use of automated data recording should be > OK, and the discarding of 'bad' data is still a bad practice.) It > also doesn't give free license to credulously accept all claims of > paranormal effects. Most commonly the "skeptical interference" > argument is made by people like Uri Geller, whose claims wither > under the light of scrutiny.
And gee, that sure contradicts the slamming I got the other day (from you among others) for saying the same thing. Put some of your own experimental controls on your statements! Skeptics are showing their true colors.
For the record: I believe that there should be good experimental controls on PSI experiments, including having skeptics there and skeptics not there to see what difference it makes (though as Steve has mentioned, that experiment has already been done and shown to have the effect I mentioned.)
There is a difference between giving free license to all paranormal claims and accepting that PSI is possible. I'm sure there's probably an equal number of phony skeptics as there are phony psychics.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * * #2: "What do you mean 'just opinions?' -- that's all anyone has!" * * #3: "'It's not my fault!'" (Quoted from Han Solo, Star Wars Saga) * ***************************************************************************
I showed the first article of this thread to Dr. Richard Shockley (yes, the son of THAT Dr. Shockley). We had discussed this subject in the past and I thought that he would have something interesting to say about it. He agreed to write up a short summary, which follows:
On the EPR Paradox
The spin correlation experiments occasionally discussed in articles for lay readers are rightly known as Einstein- Rosen-Podolsky (EPR) experiments, and the results are the EPR paradox.
Einstein was not enamored of the interpretation of quantum mechanics in which particles were treated as "systems," meaning a particle was held to be associated with a quantum mechanical state which was a sum (superposition) of eigenstates, with each eigenstate being the state which would always give a particular value of a measurement, and the mixture of states meant that a measurement was not perfectly predictable, and would, for iden- tically prepared systems, yield different results with probabil- ities related to how much of each state was present. The key offending word is "probability." "Der Herrgott wurfelt nicht," is German for "God doesn't gamble," and is supposedly Einstein's rejection of the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechan- ics.
If the above is incomprehensible, we can restate it as fol- lows: In quantum mechanics (QM) we regard a particle as being described by a vector. You can think of a vector as having an x-component, a y-component, etc. The state, or vector, associ- ated with a particle is the sum of the component vectors in each basis direction (x, y, etc.). If the state is all in the x-direc- tion, a measurement gives x as a result. If it's all in the y-direction, a measurement gives y as a result. If the particle is a sum of components, the measurement will give different re- sults each time you do it, with probabilities determined by the amplitude in the x-direction, the y-direction, etc.
An electron is supposed to a superposition of states, and you could chose energy eigenstates for the case of the hydrogen atom, for example. Unless the electron is carefully prepared to be in some particular energy eigenstate, it's possible that a measurement on the same system (identically prepared systems) will give different results each time it is made.
Einstein said, "Wrong." Take the case of spin. Spin is quantized. When you measure it along the z-axis, you find it it is either +1 or -1 (more precisely, +/- 0.5 times Planck's constant). If you think an electron is a sum of states, then how could a pair of electrons emitted from a decay-process in which the total angular momentum is conserved, so the electrons must have opposite spins, decide on who had what? You do not determine the spin of an electron until the measurement. Prior to the measurement, it is supposed to be a superposition of states. You make the measurement, the electron must decide which way to go, and for a short time thereafter (until it is perturbed by interaction with some physical entity) it stays in that state. This is absurd, because it means that I could make a measurement on one electron and QM would say the other electron, instantaneously, even if it is 14.23 zillion miles away, knows what state it must be in. That is the Einstein- Rosen-Podolsky experiment. Emit two particles with zero net spin, let them fly well apart, and measure their spins.
On the basis of solid, unquestionable premises (nothing goes faster than light; Boolean logic, e.g., propositional calculus, holds; and reality exists), Bell derived an inequali- ty pertaining to the spin-spin correlation experiments. The inequality referred to probabilities of outcomes of the experi- ment. The inequality was testable experimentally. The ine- quality disagreed with the predictions of QM. Nature obeys the QM result, to the best of our knowledge.
There are articles in Scientific American on the EPR para- dox in which the experimental results, Bell's inequality, and possible resolutions are discussed.
Spin measurements use a Stern-Gerlach device, and are called Stern-Gerlach experiments. It does not flip the spin of the electron, but rather tells you what its spin was. Spin-up electrons get pushed up, and spin-down ones get pushed down. You see the spot the electron makes on the screen at the output of the Stern-Gerlach device.
The EPR paradox is not the only paradox in QM. Others are equally resistant to analysis. The extended (to relativistic electrons) version of QM, the Dirac equation, also called quan- tum electrodynamics, or QCD, predicts spin, which is stunning. In nonrelativistic QM, spin is put in ad-hoc. QCD is the most accurately tested theory in physics. No violations from the predictions of Dirac's equation have been observed. The Dirac equation also predicts anti-matter and vacuum breakdown, or pair-production, in agreement with experiment. The Dirac equa- treats the electron as a point. How can something with no ra- dial extent spin? And how does vacuum know to quantize itself always into electrons and positrons, instead of some fraction of an electron, when it breaks down? "The bodies of many good physicists lie wrecked on the shores of the Dirac equation." (J.H. Marburger III)
Dr. Richard C. Shockley
Me again. If anyone feels driven to contact us by E-mail, don't use the return address in the header, it may be wrong. I will try to get Dick personally involved with Usenet, but 'till then I will serve as a point-of-contact.
Lewie Wolfgang Use this address.. wolfg...@nosc.mil
> >No, I don't think so. The party line in the physics community is that > >it cannot be used for communication, because the collapse cannot be dictated
> How do they know that for sure, Eric? I think they are wrong.
> ---
Well, that settles THAT.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In article <1991Aug23.191643.14...@engage.pko.dec.com>, stanley (s) writes: In article <49...@netnews.upenn.edu>, resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu (Rescorla) writes...
r> The party line in the physics community is that it cannot be used r> for communication, because the collapse cannot be dictated.
s> How do they know that for sure, Eric? I think they are wrong.
So, we are to presume that you are in secret negotiations with a major telecmunications multinational to have them market your amazing discoverry? When is the paper coming out and in which journal?
In article <91234.003805DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
> In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>>DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >>>> ... >>>>I have not seen any statements for six months that I've been >>>>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>>>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>>>Does he have a need to feel persecuted?
>>Oh yes, whip me, beat me. >>Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like >>this self-proclaimed doctor does....
> I challenge you to show me how I am taking you out of context. > Unfortunately, I'm not.
Yes. I said in my original post, "So, is there anyone out there who says we shouldn't research PSI?"
You can go back to the original post and check it yourself. Plus it doesn't appear in half my posts (yawn, this is getting BORING!). What you wrote was that I was inferring that someone was saying that PSI shouldn't be researched. Not at all what I said.
> By the way, it has been about four months now since several of us > requested information from you about your claimed persecution (by the > Bay Area Skeptics) of someone who wanted to teach about the paranormal > at the U of Hawaii. Are you planning to respond? Or is this just another > one or your "you skeptics are persecuting us" smokescreens?
I have attempted to get information, but have been blocked on several fronts since releasing the information is a violation of privacy. Another source promised to release some of it that it public, but has not dropped everything to do it. Plus, I work for a living, and don't have as much time to follow up as some of you evidently do.
I did get one name, however, of one of the persecuters: Victor Stenger, who allegedly has some UH ties, and who was the invoker of names that I was quoting (or possibly mis-quoting, I have already admitted).
In any case, so many skeptics seem to know so much more about it than I; why don't those who know provide the info? Instead of saying "prove it" why don't you tell it like it is? If it wasn't the BAS, then what skeptics group _did_ V.S. invoke? Or is it too much to expect that skeptics can deal in truth?
Prove me wrong, and your apology will be forthcoming. I'm reasonable.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * * #2: "What do you mean 'just opinions?' -- that's all anyone has!" * * Quote of the Eon: "It's not my fault!" (Han Solo, Star Wars Saga) * ***************************************************************************
From article <1991Aug23.191643.14...@engage.pko.dec.com>, by stan...@verga.enet.dec.com:
> How do they know that for sure, Eric? I think they are wrong.
(Mary thinks that the EPR paradox can be used to transmit information faster than light)
Why do you think this??? Have you talked to, or heard of, anybody who has used QM to transmit information FTL? Can you or anybody else duplicate the results? If somebody has done this, why do I have to suffer the annoying propogation delays in circuits I build and phone calls I make to Europe?
Get REAL
-- gra...@hydro.rosemount.com Oh I used to be disgusted, And now I try to be amused. Rosemount Inc, CB7 But since their wings have gotten rusty, 12001 Technology Drive You know the angels want to wear my red shoes. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 - Elvis Costello
|
