From: sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari)
Subject: Re: The second law.....
Originator: sehari@vincent1.iastate.edu
Keywords: none
Organization: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:42:02 GMT

In <1983@deadmin.ucsd.edu> dagahi@bhaskara.ucsd.edu (Daryush Agahi) writes:

>Babak Sehari writes:

>>There are many question about relativity that needs to be answered.  Some part
>>of theory has not been accepted at all.  For example, "spooky action at a
>>distance" of quantum mechanics predict that you could send information and
>>even mass with a speed more than speed of light, even though the probability
>>is very small.  As a mater of fact, the quantum mechanics predict you could
>>send a object across the galaxies at an instant.  The wave function, of an
>>particle does not go to zero anywhere in the universe, so all the particles 
>>have a presence, even though small, all over the world.
>>
>>"Spooky action at a distance" is currently under research in UC Br.,
>>for invention of devices that could communicate faster than speed of light.

>Your statement is incorrect. In fact, relativity is one of the most

Really?!  

>rigorously tested areas of physics, and there is not a single credible
>experiment that deviates from or violates relativity. Relativity
>(special and general) and quantum mechanics are two of the most
>successful theories of modern physics, and there is no contradiction
>between them (see Feynman for relativistic quantum mechanics treatment). 

So, how do you explain uncertainty of mutually exclusive observables, with
Relativity?!  What about" Spooky action at distance"?!

>You should not render opinion on areas that you know little about,
>unless of course you are joking, but if you are not joking and you would
>like to LEARN more on this subject, I'd be happy to provide you with
>some references (at a level suitable for your background !). 

You got to listen to yourself, and "not render opinion areas that you know
little about".


>Regards,

>Daryush

I am sorry to lengthen the discussion on this area.  After all, some people,
who really do not know any thing about this subject, and got their shallow
information from an introduction book to quantum mechanics, are trying
to make such a public discussion on "soc.culture.iranian". -:)   For your
information I should say that I was a teaching Asst. on this subject.

As you can observe, their intend is not really, the honest discussion of this
issue.  Their objective is to show off! -:)  Off course, they could send
me an Email, why should they chose to Post in soc.culture.iranian, instead
of sending Email or writing to sci.physics, shows their real intend.  The
same way that those two Utah researchers choose to write in non-technical
news media, instead of writing in say American Journal of Physics.  Yes,
their main intend is to discuss this subject in front of an audience that
might not be familiar with the subject so they can  sale their snake oil. -:)
I remember, the same year those two scientists issued their results in a
magazine, equivalent of Kayhan Bacheha, one of the major physics conferences
was all laugh and joke about this issue. Nonetheless, the sold this idea
to bunch of un-informed investors and law makers.  As Martin Zweig says in his
book, "greed is very powerful emotion".  Yes, they told them story about
how you can make enough energy inside a mike bottle, which is full of
tab water, to supply energy for big states.  As you know, half truth
hurts, more than out right lie. -:)  They told them, they need just a small
amount of money to patch up the final corners of this new found 
technique.-:)  

However, if you really interested to bring up your knowledge to the level
of scientific discussion, read the following book, which is an standard
text:

Quantum Physics, Stephen Gasiorowicz; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1974.

                       With highest regards,
                            Babak   Sehari.

P.S.  I do not think many people are interested in the second law, Quantum
physics, and "Spooky action at a distance".  If you really, want a true
discussion on this area write in sci.physics.  However, if you guys want
to show off, with your half truths, go ahead write in this news group.
However, I do not have the time to replay to all of your pseudo-scientific
mambo-jambos.