Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Phaedrus
Thank you for your post!

Alamo-Girl, please correct me if any of the substance of this story is incomplete or incorrect.

That explanation is my understanding as well. For lurkers, I offer these two articles to help explain the issue of Bell’s Inequalities:

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 399 October 26, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

NONLOCALITY GETS MORE REAL. "Bell's Inequalities," the set of mathematical relations that would rule out the notion that distant quantum particles exert influences on each other at seemingly instantaneous rates, have now been violated over record large distances, with record high certainty, and with the elimination of an important loophole in three recent experiments, further solidifying the notion of "spooky action at a distance" in quantum particles. At the Optical Society of America meeting in Baltimore earlier this month, Paul Kwiat (kwiat@lanl.gov) of Los Alamos and his colleagues announced that they produced an ultrabright source of photon pairs for Bell's inequality experiments; they went on to verify the violation of Bell's inequalities to a record degree of certainty (preprint at p23.lanl.gov/agw/2crystal.pdf). Splitting a single photon of well-defined energy into a pair of photons with initially undefined energies, and sending each photon through a fiber-optic network to detectors 10 km apart, researchers in Switzerland (Wolfgang Tittel, Univ. Geneva, wolfgang.tittel@physics.unige.ch) showed that determining the energy for one photon by measuring it had instantaneously determined the energy of its neighbor 10 km away--a record set by the researchers last year but now demonstrated in an improved version of the original experiment. (Tittel et al., Physical Review Letters, 26 October 1998.) A University of Innsbruck group performed Bell measurements with detectors that randomly switched between settings rapidly enough to eliminate the "locality loophole," which posited that one detector might somehow send a signal to the other detector at light or sub-light speeds to affect its reading. (Weihs et al., upcoming paper in Phys. Rev. Lett., website at http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/photon/_bellexp/)

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 414 February 11, 1999 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

THE FIRST ENTANGLEMENT OF THREE PHOTONS has been experimentally demonstrated by researchers at the University of Innsbruck (contact Harald Weinfurter, harald.weinfurter@uibk.ac.at, 011-43-512-507-6316). Individually, an entangled particle has properties (such as momentum) that are indeterminate and undefined until the particle is measured or otherwise disturbed. Measuring one entangled particle, however, defines its properties and seems to influence the properties of its partner or partners instantaneously, even if they are light years apart. In the present experiment, sending individual photons through a special crystal sometimes converted a photon into two pairs of entangled photons. After detecting a "trigger" photon, and interfering two of the three others in a beamsplitter, it became impossible to determine which photon came from which entangled pair. As a result, the respective properties of the three remaining photons were indeterminate, which is one way of saying that they were entangled (the first such observation for three physically separated particles). The researchers deduced that this entangled state is the long-coveted GHZ state proposed by physicists Daniel Greenberger, Michael Horne, and Anton Zeilinger in the late 1980s. In addition to facilitating more advanced forms of quantum cryptography, the GHZ state will help provide a nonstatistical test of the foundations of quantum mechanics. Albert Einstein, troubled by some implications of quantum science, believed that any rational description of nature is incomplete unless it is both a local and realistic theory: "realism" refers to the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured, and "locality" means that measuring one particle cannot affect the properties of another, physically separated particle faster than the speed of light. But quantum mechanics states that realism, locality--or both--must be violated. Previous experiments have provided highly convincing evidence against local realism, but these "Bell's inequalities" tests require the measurement of many pairs of entangled photons to build up a body of statistical evidence against the idea. In contrast, studying a single set of properties in the GHZ particles (not yet reported) could verify the predictions of quantum mechanics while contradicting those of local realism. (Bouwmeester et al., Physical Review Letters, 15 Feb.)

After all this time, the physics community cannot get its mind around intangibility, real though it has proved to be. I am thus not surprised that Walker could be considered "fringe" within a group where timidity reigns.

I agree! And I am anxious to read the Walker book.

Roger Penrose has taken a lot of heat as well, mostly from the disciplines who are threatened by his assertions. Stephen Wolfram is another who is criticized, in his case by using the very formalisms he seeks to debunk (LOL!)

The aversion to the intelligent design movement is so visceral that the opponent/scientists take to signing petitions of all things. Jeepers!

Old ideas die hard, particularly where there is a “vested interest.”

916 posted on 02/24/2003 8:57:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
Roger Penrose has taken a lot of heat as well, mostly from the disciplines who are threatened by his assertions. Stephen Wolfram is another who is criticized, in his case by using the very formalisms he seeks to debunk (LOL!)

They're both fine minds who wrote intellectually indefensible pop science books. I've posted a long list of reviews of Wolfram's book previously. You can find similar reviews of Penrose, who explains entanglement and chaos quite nicely, and then goes off the deep end. None of it is science.

Is the band (many of whom are more talented than Penrose or Wolfram, and certainly more talented than Walker) out of step, or are they?

923 posted on 02/25/2003 8:35:10 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson