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