++> Inspired by a Richard Meic to David Martorana
++> comment on "Science Stuff"
DM>> Saw that other item of interest, the first (successful) effort at
DM>> "quantum teleportation" which went over my head (most quick) when
DM>> the concept of measuring to sense the photon death of an
DM>> "entangled pair" tried to explain itself. A photon was made to
DM>> disappear at one point and reappear some yards away; and my
DM>> Science 101 failed me "BIG TIME". [University of Insbruck and
DM>> covered in the "Journal of Nature"]. That "quantum" stuff always
DM>> gets me confused -in not being anything for sure until after it is
DM>> measured ...at which time it no longer represents what it was
DM>> before it was measured...yea!
RM> The Uncertainty Principle rules out the possibility of teleportation.
RM> It is a waste of time and money.
NOTE: In some very basic layman-ish checking, I find the
"Uncertainty principle" ("UP") itself referred to as a theory?
In the article, they mentioned the "UP" but said the measurement
was the result of a secondary quantum peculiarity of matter when
an "entangled pair" is produced (having opposite properties)
...from which they lost me in detecting one side of the pair (A)
at one station (sender) and the other (B) at another station (receiver)
(both halves of photon ??? having traveled in opposite directions).
The act of measuring (A) instantaneously tells (B) what to be (even
if a million miles apart ???). Photon (A) was sent to the sender
position and the other (B) to the receiver. Then a third
photon (C) whose specific polarization constituted the message to
transmit. The sender combined C and A and scrambled them together into
another "entangled pair". Then it measured the pair, destroying both
photons. The polarization of (C) was already known and (A) had to
be the opposite of (C). (LOST ME!). The results were duplicated by
an Italian team. Apparently by being able to read positions of matter
at several super-imposed states, a quantum computer might be imagined
....???
Be kind!!! In all probability I'm not saying it any ""righter"" than
I understood it . You might enjoy a good laugh at my rendering!
I know this is science and not philosophy BUT!!! some time ago
I remember reading that there was a theory that what we consider
conscious being is actually controlled at atomic levels relegating
our decision making an extension of atomic requirements and also
subject to the laws of physics (likely with some translating).
There is SO MUCH to think about in this world, that when we allot
time for the everyday, we miss so much. Probably doesn't matter
much anyway- No ???
INQUIRY: Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) [indeterminacy principal 1926)
My questions:
1. Could it be "reasonably" possible that some
mechanism of atomic measurement (as alleged
by the Insbruk photon experiment) might permit
an accurate quantum value for the position
or momentum at micro levels without disturbing
the particles under investigation ...or is such
disturbance inherent in the problem? or am I
asking the question wrong?
2. How uncertain is the "UP" in terms of accuracy? i.e.
Would a measurement likely be half accurate? 25% accurate
etc ??? ....some value +/-? or anywhere between 100%
correct and 100% incorrect?
3. "HOW DOES" the "UP" prevent accurate measurement by
thereby changing the matter's circumstance? or does
it mean the particle is changing, and therefore the
measured reading reflects only the particle during
change (during a cycle wave)?
NOTE: The brief explanation of "UP" in my "Dictionary of
Theories" assumes erroneously that the above questioned
data is already well understood.
!?,
...It is beginning to be difficult _/##"\_ ...Dave
...to be smart in our techno-world, no? >>
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------
* Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000)
|