From: keivan@brahms.udel.edu (Keivan Esfarjani)
Subject: The second law of Babak Sehari, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics!
Keywords: none
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:26:45 GMT

I will try to clarify some issues, and hope that Mr. Sehari will
learn something about this article! Sorry if some of you are not 
interested; you can just push the "n" key!

In article <sehari.713680922@vincent1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>In <1983@deadmin.ucsd.edu> dagahi@bhaskara.ucsd.edu (Daryush Agahi) writes:
>
>>Babak Sehari writes:
>
>>>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

First of all where does "spooky" come from??!
Second, action at a distance is just a theory; and a theory is no
good until its predictions agree with experimental results. The 
"Action at a distance" has not been successful yet in this regard.
Whereas everything Relativity predicted, has been in agreement with
experiments so far; and that's why everybody believes in it.
Third, therefore one has no reason believing in predictions of
unsuccessful theories, namely believing that mass can move with a
speed greater than c = 3*10^8 m/s 
Fourth, what the probability has to do with it? You are mixing up
different things!

>>>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.

True, but quantum mechanics never predicted that you could *SEND* an
object instantly accross the galaxy. It merely says that the 
probability of FINDING the object accross the galaxy is infinitesimally
small like 10^(-100000000.....) which is considered to be zero, and
that's the meaning of the word IMPOSSIBLE. Notice it doesn't say
anything about speed or travelling or any time dependence; since QM is
a probabilistic theory in nature, it only can tell you the PROBABILITY
of finding an object at a given position, at a given time t. So, you are not
even sure that the said object is here 100%, to begin with.
Now when you start talking about motion and speed, you have to use 
some model hamiltonian, and one usually adopts a hamiltonian
derived from a relativistic theory since it's the only accepted one.
And once you take that position, you have already assumed that 
material objects can not move faster than light.

>>>"Spooky action at a distance" is currently under research in UC Br.,
>>>for invention of devices that could communicate faster than speed of light.

See above.

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

Yes, 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"?!

Do you understand what you wrote???
I guess you mean the famous Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" ?
As its name indicates it's a PRINCIPLE, ie it is ASSUMED to be true.
Either you assume delta X * delta P > hbar/2 (which is HUP) or you have
to assume [X,P]=i hbar  (which is an equivalent statement).
Quantum Mechnics is based on this, so you cannot question it, 
and it is not related to Relativity at all.

>>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".

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

>information I should say that I was a teaching Asst. on this subject.

I really feel sorry for your students, if that's what you taught them.

>However, I do not have the time to replay to all of your pseudo-scientific
>mambo-jambos.
 
Yeah, please don't waste your time replaying to all these 
pseudo-scientific mambo-jambos, just stick to your news,
and business prospects in Iran!

Regards,
K1


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian