(urth) Information, etc.

Kieran Mullen kieran at ou.edu
Tue Apr 11 13:45:04 PDT 2006


> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:46:24 +0000
> From: "Chris" <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (urth) Christian relativity
> To: urth at lists.urth.net
> Message-ID: <BAY102-F21EF2C411F60BC596C1F7186CD0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>>> Check Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen theory and experiments. It has been
>>> conclusively proven that news can spread instanteously, perhaps even
>>> backward in time - but only for the internal purposes of the 
>>> universe.
>>> You cannot transmit information faster than light. Universe can.
>>
>> a) Details.  Cites.
>
> As much as I appreciate an eye for detail, this isn't a physics lists. 
> In
> any event I believe he was not referring to any one particular paper 
> on the
> subject - there is a great deal of talk about EPR and its implications 
> out
> there. You can start with 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality.

The original is:

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical 
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Phys. Rev. 47 
(1935) 777-780.

There are hundreds of papers on this topic, if not thousands.   There 
are books too.   I particularly like:

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics : Collected Papers on 
Quantum Philosophy  by J. S. Bell

But then, I am a theoretical physicist.   Perusing Amazon.com yielded 
the following book that look a bit more accessible:

The Ghost in the Atom : A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum 
Physics (Canto)  by P. C. W. Davies.

> The gist I think of what he was talking about in the paragraph above 
> is that
> there are things that seem to be instantaneous interactions at a 
> distance,
> but that these do not transfer information in any formal sense and 
> thus can
> be considered not to violate relativity. Maybe.

Yep, QM says that when you measure one set of a pair of entangled 
states, you determine the outcome on the other member of the  pair, no 
matter how far they are from you.     OTOH, you can't force a 
particular outcome of your choosing on the pair far away.

You have two pens - a blue and a yellow one.  You randomly separate the 
pens putting each into one of two boxes.   Your friend takes one box to 
Alpha Centauri.   When you look inside your box and see "blue"  you 
instantaneously know that any measurement on Alpha Centauri will 
observe a "yellow" pen.   All is fine and doesn't seem to violate any 
sensibility.

The difficulty is that you can set it up so that you have "green"  (in 
a handwavy sense) in your box - a superposition of "yellow" and "blue" 
that exists until you actually look and see which one it truly is.   
But whatever you measure, your friend will have the other pen.

>
>> b) This is God we're talking about here.  You know - omniscient,
>> omnipotent, omnipresent, creation-ex-nihilo, rising-from-the-dead
>> God.  Is anybody really worried that he couldn't get information
>> out faster than light if He wanted to?
>
> Deists, I would suppose.

Umm.... I suppose it depends upon your form of Deism.   Some would say 
God is bound by the laws of physics.  Others would say that she wrote 
the laws and do whatever she damn well pleases.    Especially since God 
exists outside of time.

Kieran Mullen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060411/2369d1cf/attachment-0004.bin>


More information about the Urth mailing list