----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Louis TU" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:56 AM
Subject: EPR paradox


F:  "Atoms and subatomic particles contain information and communicate (see
> > the striking EPR paradox and experiments). Without communication all
> > life forms would die and babies wouldn't grow. Skin to skin contact wit
> > their parents is known to be essential.

JL : The EPR paradox showed that uncertainty in quantum physics is not due
to
> our ignorance or "hidden variables" but is really a law of physics.

F : Wrong.  The so called "EPR  paradox" comes from the article writen by A.
Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, "Can quantum-mechanical description of
physical reality be considered complete?" in the Physical Review 47 777
(1935).
In this famous article, Einstein & al. tried to show that the quantum
physics description of reality is not complete.
Few months later, Niels Bohr answered in Physical Review 48 696 (1935).
Bohr's view, now called  "Copenhagen interpretation" is quite strange. It
means that on its own an atom, electron, or any subatomic particle can't be
said to "exist" in the full, common sense notion of the word.
Some physicists, such as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie tried to introduce
"hidden variables" to save determinism.
But in 1964-65 John Bell showed that any determinist theory with hidden
variables couldn't be simply an adjunction to the quantum physics. Quantum
physics were complete.
The EPR "thougt experiment" of Einstein & al. had three starting hypothesis:

1.) The predictions of quantum physics are right.
2.) No signal can travel faster than light.
3.) When two objects, per example two particles, are very far of each other,
we can speak separately of the "physical elements of reality" of each one.
That's the separability hypothesis.

John Bell's reasonning led to the conclusion that the suite of the two last
hypothesis is inconsistant and that one of the two must be abandonned!
This conclusion was subject of some experimental confirmations. Finaly, in
1983 at Orsay, Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, Philippe Grangier and Gerard
Roger showed by three experiments that (amongst other things) two photons
having interacted in the past are still non-separable at 12 meters of each
other, their spins being correlated - which mean they change spins
simultaneously. Recent experiments at the CERN showed it for considerably
longer distances. .


"Consequently, it can now be asserted with reasonable confidence that either
the thesis of realism or that of locality must be abandoned. Either choice
will drastically change our concepts of reality and of space-time.
Paul Davies summarised the result of that experiment as follows:
The Universe is not a collection of objects, but is an inseparable web of
vibrating patterns in which no one component has reality independently from
the entirety. Included in the entirety is the observer.
(Bell's theorem of the 'indivisibility' of the Universe)
As opposed to the above interpretation, some others believe in the
'superluminal' (faster than light) connection as the explanation. However,
this is contrary to the Relativity theory, which postulates that 'nothing',
not even information, can travel faster than the speed of light.
The Tachyon theory tried to prove the existence of particles, which move
faster than the speed of light. Though there is some mathematical background
to prove it, the theory has not gained total acceptance. (...)
Relativity theory postulates that nothing - not even information, can travel
faster than the speed of light. So it shall not be possible for particle A
to communicate with particle B (EPR Paradox). The Alain Aspect experiment
has proved that the two particles are 'communicating' to each other."
(from : [log in to unmask])


JL : It did  NOT show that atoms communicate. It did NOT show that
INFORMATION could be
> sent faster than the speed of light. And finally, it has nothing to do
> with growth of babies or skin contact.

F : I was not sufficiently specific. I wrote : "(see the striking EPR
paradox AND experiments)".
Yes, the EPR paradox doesn't show it. But later experiments about the EPR
paradox showed it, or else that the separability hypotesis is wrong. We
still have the choice, but the result on philosophy isn't much different.
By skin contact we exchange particles such as electrons, and those electrons
will still be correlated at whatever distance they are of each other.
Electrons contains information and information is necessary to baby's
growth. Also, telepathy isn't something beyond physics.
From the first link below :
To illustrate this EPR effect, let's quote Etienne Klein who is a physicist
at the CEA and teacher at the Ecole Centrale. (much of my info comes from
his book, "Conversations avec le Sphinx").
Here he imagines using romanticism as a theoretical foundation.
"Two hearts which have interacted in the past cannot be considered in the
same manner as if they had never met. Marked forever by their encounter,
they form one, wholly inseparable."


For more info, see :
http://perso.club-internet.fr/molaire1/e_quantic4.html
www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-projects/4thyear/sunil/epr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~johnfblanton/physics/epr.htm
and many more are available on line.

Best regards,
Francois

PS to Kirt :
Thank you for you apologies. Don't worry about that, it was probably me who
was on a bad mood!