Mike Purton Saturday December 4, 2004 The Guardian
A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th century.
Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> Mike Purton > Saturday December 4, 2004 > The Guardian
> A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever > our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will > also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th > century.
> Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> Mike Purton
The article goes on to suggest that all matter may be in an entangled state and draws religious implications from this suggestion. The suggestion, however, is false. Entanglement is a quantum phenomena that doesn't exist between macroscopic collections of particles because of decoherence. This is in fact one of the problems in constructing a quantum computer from a large number of particles: as the number of "qubits" grows, the harder it is to prevent decoherence from destroying the quantum correlations.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:12:05 +0000 (UTC), maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>Physics and metaphysics >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html >Mike Purton >Saturday December 4, 2004 >The Guardian >Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >are now at opposite ends of the universe.
One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on opposite direction through the galaxy.
Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of trousers.
Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this. Steven Carr ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
>>Mike Purton >>Saturday December 4, 2004 >>The Guardian
>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on >opposite direction through the galaxy.
>Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of >trousers.
>Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a >right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
>This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
>I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states. Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a right leg.
[Well, that is a bit superficial, but it extends the analogy appropriately].
>>>Mike Purton >>>Saturday December 4, 2004 >>>The Guardian
>>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >>>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >>>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >>>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >>>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>>One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on >>opposite direction through the galaxy.
>>Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of >>trousers.
>>Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a >>right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
>>This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
>>I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
> There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the > core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it > is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states. > Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a > right leg.
>>>>Mike Purton >>>>Saturday December 4, 2004 >>>>The Guardian
>>>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >>>>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >>>>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >>>>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >>>>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>>>One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on >>>opposite direction through the galaxy.
>>>Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of >>>trousers.
>>>Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a >>>right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
>>>This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
>>>I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
>> There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the >> core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it >> is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states. >> Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a >> right leg.
>Umm, isn't it *both* left and right?
Oops, yes. Or I suppose I could have said "not purely left or right".
>>Mike Purton >>Saturday December 4, 2004 >>The Guardian
>>A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever >>our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will >>also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th >>century.
>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>>Mike Purton
> The article goes on to suggest that all matter may be in an entangled state > and draws religious implications from this suggestion. The suggestion, > however, is false. Entanglement is a quantum phenomena that doesn't exist > between macroscopic collections of particles because of decoherence. This is > in fact one of the problems in constructing a quantum computer from a large > number of particles: as the number of "qubits" grows, the harder it is to > prevent decoherence from destroying the quantum correlations.
Thanks. Saves me the effort of actually reading the article to determine if my first supposition, "Here we go again. More fucking quantum solipsism from some whackjob." is correct.
> >Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > >more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > >on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > >between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > >are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on > opposite direction through the galaxy.
> Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of > trousers.
> Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a > right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser
entanglement.
Didn't this first appear in a paper on quantum trouser entanglement by Professors Wallace and Grommit?
> Mike Purton > Saturday December 4, 2004 > The Guardian
> A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever > our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will > also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th > century.
It's doubtful that it has anything to do with religion whatsoever. Furthermore, while entanglement may show a degree of non-locality, it has yet to be verified at extreme distances. So needless to say, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself.
-- Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow' disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
> >>>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > >>>>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > >>>>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > >>>>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > >>>>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> >>>One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on > >>>opposite direction through the galaxy.
> >>>Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of > >>>trousers.
> >>>Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a > >>>right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
> >>>This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
> >>>I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
> >> There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the > >> core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it > >> is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states. > >> Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a > >> right leg.
> >Umm, isn't it *both* left and right?
> Oops, yes. Or I suppose I could have said "not purely left or right".
> -- > The peace of God be with you.
> Stanley Friesen
Does this predetermine the color of the suspenders or belt?
>> >>>>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or >> >>>>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then >> >>>>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist >> >>>>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they >> >>>>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>> >>>One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on >> >>>opposite direction through the galaxy.
>> >>>Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of >> >>>trousers.
>> >>>Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a >> >>>right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
>> >>>This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
>> >>>I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
>> >> There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the >> >> core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it >> >> is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states. >> >> Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a >> >> right leg.
>> >Umm, isn't it *both* left and right?
>> Oops, yes. Or I suppose I could have said "not purely left or right".
>> -- >> The peace of God be with you.
>> Stanley Friesen
>Does this predetermine the color of the suspenders or belt?
I suspect that those measures commute, so I think not.
> > Mike Purton > > Saturday December 4, 2004 > > The Guardian
> > A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever > > our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will > > also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th > > century.
> > Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > > more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > > on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > > between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > > are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> > Mike Purton
> The article goes on to suggest that all matter may be in an entangled state > and draws religious implications from this suggestion. The suggestion, > however, is false. Entanglement is a quantum phenomena that doesn't exist > between macroscopic collections of particles because of decoherence. This is > in fact one of the problems in constructing a quantum computer from a large > number of particles: as the number of "qubits" grows, the harder it is to > prevent decoherence from destroying the quantum correlations.
So, what exactly are the dimentions of a quark?... in qubits, I mean.
EROS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- "Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods: and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" - Bertrand Russell
> Mike Purton > Saturday December 4, 2004 > The Guardian
> A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever > our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will > also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th > century.
> Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> let me know when they get around to doing actual physical research.
> --------------------------- > to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" > and enter 'wf3h' in the field
It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research programme' is. Does it mean that if our research doesn't come to a clear conclusion, we say that God did it and abandon any future research on the subject?
> > Mike Purton > > Saturday December 4, 2004 > > The Guardian
> > A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever > > our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will > > also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th > > century.
> > Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or > > more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then > > on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist > > between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they > > are now at opposite ends of the universe.
> > let me know when they get around to doing actual physical research.
> > --------------------------- > > to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" > > and enter 'wf3h' in the field
> It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research > programme' is. Does it mean that if our research doesn't come to a > clear conclusion, we say that God did it and abandon any future > research on the subject?
Popper's claim was that Darwinism was a MRP, meaning that it was not scientific as a hypothesis is, but that it guided research. Popper thought this was legitimate, as he was not a positivist and thought metaphysics was perfectly fine.
Popper was wrong. Darwinism has metaphysical implications (for example, about essentialism in biological ontology), but it is a perfectly fine theoretical framework. It is testable, and has been tested (and survived, with modifications). It guides actual research as theoretical frameworks do, by suggesting fruitful lines of investigation, models that can be applied, and most of all physical explanations.
IDevotees want to have the same standing as Darwinian biology (which includes all the various forms of later evolutionary theory that developed out of Darwin's ideas, but which include ideas Darwin did not have, just to be on the clear side of vagueness), and since they cannot actually offer a scientific hypothesis which can be tested - the ordinary mark of science - they are attempting to say that Darwinian evolution and ID are on the same level as MRPs. It's a variety of "Darwinism is religion - we are religion, so we are as scientific as Darwinism". -- John S. Wilkins j...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207 web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
What would be the difference between a gene designed by an intelligence, and a gene that was not? What evidence would disprove intelligent design to your satisfaction?
We have gone from Creationism, which is falsifiable and has been falsified, to Intelligent Design(tm), which cannot be articulated even by its proponents who have science PhDs (all four or five of them). Kermit
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:19:13 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> said in alt.atheism:
>The intelligent design hypothesis
Aside from "goddidit", what's the hypothesis? -- "If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at verizon dot net
On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest" <rich...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
>It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research >programme' is.
I think it would mean that we research research programs. -- "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at verizon dot net
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest" > <rich...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
> >It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research > >programme' is.
> I think it would mean that we research research programs.
No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't stay still. -- John S. Wilkins j...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207 web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they > were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in > order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world view in order to "get it."
> What would be the difference between a gene designed by an > intelligence, and a gene that was not?
Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is often given as evidence of deism.
> What evidence would disprove > intelligent design to your satisfaction?
This is like asking someone in a 12-step program What evidence would disprove your notion that electricity is a "higher power"? ID will never be disproved in these peoples minds, you can only get the more intelligent of them to admit it's not real science.
-- Craig Franck craig.fra...@verizon.net Cortland, NY
Craig Franck <craig.fra...@verizon.net> wrote: > <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they > > were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in > > order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
> I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get > a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was > not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of > explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The > idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural > forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
Russell notes that Thales was not as irrational as it sounds on the bare page - until 20 years before he published the history, it was thought by scientists that the universe was composed mostly of hydrogen, 2/3 of water. Russell didn't understand atomic chemistry, of course, bu tthere's a point hidden in there somewhere.
> But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science > might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world > view in order to "get it."
The "it" they had to get was that the world had a nature that did not depend on the whims of gods. I think they'd get it pretty quickly if you put it in those terms.
> > What would be the difference between a gene designed by an > > intelligence, and a gene that was not?
> Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if > only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is > often given as evidence of deism.
Or as evidence that we evolved to deal with the universe...
But I have friends who take the anthropic principle seriously.
> > What evidence would disprove > > intelligent design to your satisfaction?
> This is like asking someone in a 12-step program What evidence would > disprove your notion that electricity is a "higher power"? ID will never > be disproved in these peoples minds, you can only get the more intelligent > of them to admit it's not real science.
We wish. -- John S. Wilkins j...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207 web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch. And John tasted that it was good.
