Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!sri-unix!MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Faster than light Message-ID: <318@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 07:37:24 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.318 Posted: Wed Jun 26 07:37:24 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:54:48 EDT Lines: 19 I believe that your explanation of why the "superconducting ring" experiment does not violate the "speed-of-light limit" for information transfer is wrong. Information need not be guaranteed error-free to be information, and (meaningful) messages are sent over non-error-free (noisy) channels all the time. All that is required is that the signal sent and received not be random. Contrast this with your remarks on the EPR "paradox", where you correctly state that "no information can actually be transferred in this manner, since [in] what state the first particle will be found cannot be determined in advance." Here one has a 50-50 proposition; the signal "sent" is random, and the signal "received" is indistinguishable from random since it is *determined* (in some sense) by a random input. There is an excellent, and quite accessible, introduction to EPR, Bell's inequality, and the Aspect experiments in /Physics Today/ of a couple of months ago. Mark