Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hull
From: hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics, Aspect experiment, EPR paradox
Message-ID: <1207@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 00:39:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1207
Posted: Sat Oct 13 00:39:32 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Oct-84 04:47:27 EDT
References: <361@petsd.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 46

[]
   I agree with C.J. Henrich.  Even something so simple as the theory of
special relativity implies that if a photon is emitted at the beginning of
the big bang, and somehow manages to escape absorbtion until the "end" of
the universe, it knows no time.  For its own sake, it is absorbed at the
same moment as it is emitted, and even in what might be described as an
"adjacent" place.  The Lorentz contraction is complete; ahead, it sees (as
a surface) only the point where it will be absorbed.  Behind, it sees only
the point (again as a surface) from which it was emitted.  Orthogonal to its
path, a direction to which it is not coupled, it "sees" the entire remaining
universe in some why that does not betray the passage of time therein.
If someone in that universe places a "dark slide" in the path of the photon
"after" it is emitted, the photon already knows that it will be absorbed at
the dark slide.  If the dark slide was not in place "in time", the photon
knows that, too.  Einstein was right: God does not play dice with the Universe.
HE knows the outcome of these things; it is we that play the dice, for we know
not the outcome.
   If two photons are emitted together, each knows at one instant from
whence it has come and to whence it shall go.  By this means, a causal
connection is made instantly through the three space-time points.
(Are these causal connections Saffarti's "Fibers"?)  It is only we that
occupy perhaps just one of the three sites that find it convenient to say
that the events are unknonwn and as yet (to our notion of time) unconnected;
That is why Henrich can say:
>      This appearance vanishes, if we say that the
> correlation between the two particles exists in both places
> where the particles are.
The space-time location where both particles "are" is defined in their
frame of refrence, not ours.  Henrich notes that the authority of the
photon frame of reference carries through in the transfer of energy and
momentum defined by the emission and the absorbtion:
> since its presence can be tested.  If its location does not
> consist of both places, what is its location?
What has one location in one reference system, but two locations in another?
Easy: an "event" that has no temporal separation in one system (i.e. it is
"properly temporal" in that system) but does show temporal separation in
another.  This does imply some relative motion between the two refrence
frames, but we seldom are careful enough to analyze for this.
>      Note that the idea of a bilocated entity is implicit in
> the formalism of wave mechanics for a two-particle system.  
Gotta be.
I'm beginning to feel very warm now; perhaps an intense radiation field
approaches :-)  Photon Flames (assuming you know where they came from as
well as when they left and where they're going and when they'll get there)
to:
	{ihnp4!stcvax | decvax!stcvax | seismo} !hao!hull