++> 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 measured ...at which time it no longer represents what it was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? >>
 
  ++> Inspired by Santa             .   o   .
                                   .  _/ \_   .
                                   . _/00 \/~  .
 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;\\;;  .
 ;  MERRY CHRISTMAS |    .    |   .    ; ||_
 ;  & Happy*      --*--     \ | /    * ; '
 ;  New Year.    * /|\  .- - -*- - -   ;            *
 ; *  .   :   .   /"o"\  :  / | \  .   ;            i
 ;  .      .    /o/"|"\o\  *  |        ;     \ iiii I iiii /
 ; .    *       /"/"o"\"\    .  : * .  ;       ~~~~\I/~~~~
 ;  .  .  *   /o/"/o|"\o\"\o     .     ;    &       I Happy
 ; __________"""""""H"""""""_____ 1997 ;            I Honukah
 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Dave;;;;;;;;;;;;           /~\
 Though not religious and unable to understand the wonder of it
 all beyond words, I do very much favor the Christmas "message"
 and "happening" ..............an atheist that loves Christmas?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------