Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2g!stekas
From: stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Faster-than-light computer? (and Roulette)
Message-ID: <599@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 15:23:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.599
Posted: Fri Aug 16 15:23:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 04:30:24 EDT
References: <1085@ames.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 31

> macroscopic sized chunks of some superconducting materials would behave as a
> single quantum, and state changes (spin or charge or something; don't
> remember) would occur *simultaneously* in all parts of these "chunks", without
> regard to lightspeed limitations.  ...
> It sure *sounds* like a violation of special relativity.

Again the same old problem - a process which can cause simutlaneous events
at A and B does not imply that the process can be used to send messages
from A to B instantaneously.

Using widely accepted physical "laws", it can been PROVEN for the GENERAL
CASE that communication can occur no faster than the speed of light.
Applications of the same physical "laws" to test specific cases which
violate the general theorem MUST be in error.   If I write a computer
program which sums a set of positive numbers and it gives a negative answer
the program MUST be in error because it can be PROVED that the sum is
positive.

The tie in with roulette:  Every day some joker somewhere invents a betting
"system" which will win at roulette.  The system usually relies on some
complex pattern of bets with a combined winning return "greater" than 50%.  
After the system has been widely used is it realized that the return on
each bet was calculated incorrectly and is actually <50%.  The point is
that NO roulette betting pattern can beet the wheel because they are all
linear combinations of losing bets.

So roulette and special relativity share a common characteristic:
people are always trying to find special cases which violate the
general case.

Jim