Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)

["Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru>]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> > But what those result *mean*? Are the *words* appropriate? Do those words
> > carry proper, familiar associations in this case? To which degree?
>
> I can't say for you, which is why I recommend the math.  Followning the 
> formal math in quantum mechanics is tough, but it tells you things.

Unfortunately, I graduated from Moscow University (long ago) as mathematician,
and even worse, my specialization was infinitedimensional representations of
Lie groups - too close to quantum mechanics, you know. So, for me mathematics
can't say anything definite about physics in particular as well as about any
reality in general. Mathematics says only "if we believe in X then we should
believe also in Y... provided that our notions of X and Y are well-established
and that we did not violate many our silent assumptions, which are standard
for this domain". Certainly I know also the thesis, which claims that any
correct and beautiful mathematical model should represent some fact/law of
reality - well, I tend to agree with that, but even that thesis says nothing
about correspondence to particular interpretation.

> > What does it mean - teleportation of a single photon? How can one identify
> > a single photon? (And it is just the first question).
>
> You really need to study QM a lot to be able to answer those questions. 

So what is the use of that public claim? How many people studied QM enough
for that? Basic QM (that is, before QED) is most probably not enough, and
even that is taught for physisists and chemists only, I think.

I guess that I may be able to read that article, spending several weeks or
even months for that (I certainly need to recall many things and retrain
myself... I did similar things several times, so I know how much time and
effort it takes). Then, to evaluate the result, that is, to develop my own
opinion about it, I should spend on it several months more. Naturally, I will
not spend that much time for a result of very doubtful worthiness. And the
vast majority of educated people are in much worse position for this case.
So why that result should be broadcasted outside of the proper community of
physisists? We want people to lose a sense of difference between a reality
and a movie - just to keep them optimistic about Our Mighty Science?

>  But not only can you identify a single photon you can create a pair of 
> "entangled" photons, such that you can only measure one of two 
> properties for the pair.  If you measure the polarization of one photon 
> that is entangled, in one plane, the entangled photon will have the 
> opposite polarization in that plane.  Try to measure the two 
> polarizations at right angles, and you won't succeed.  This is standard QM.
>
> What happens in the teleportation experiment is that the entangled state 
> is teleported.  After the teleportation of one of the members of a pair, 
> the NEW photon is entangled with the other member of the pair.  The 
> original photon is no longer entangled with anything.  So quantum 
> teleportation makes one photon or other particle (at a distance) into  a 
> copy of another.

Well, I can honestly say that I did not understand almost anything - I got
just very vague glimpse of some part of the deal. And I didn't hope to get
more, of course. Please, get me right: I do not say that the experiment was
somehow incorrect or the result is unbelievable or unimportant - I just say
that this is wrong to broadcast it to general public as an important achievement
in teleportation, because the public (and even educated public) will interpet
these words another way, nothing similar to physisist's understanding of the
event.

> Similarly, the Alcubierre warp drive when first proposed, was completely 
> impractical.  Now there are lots of papers published on the subject and 
> the amount of negative energy required is becoming quite modest.  See: 
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905084 and 
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0207/0207109.pdf

No, never more! -;)  I followed that gr-qc several years in the mid of 90th,
and dropped that wrong habit with big relief.

>  That doesn't 
> mean the human race can start building warp drive spaceships next week. 

Well, I'll better wait until the people responsible for that succeed to build
something useful.

>  But the Alcubierre geometry is now getting to be close to reasonable. 

Although I saw enough various geometries, I don't recall that name... well,
one geometry more, one toy more. Grants should be received, of course.

>  (Now all we need is a way to make a few kilograms of negative mass.)

Hm, are you sure that they will not annihilate all us? -;)

Oh, I just guessed what is the famous Big Bang - it happens every time when
some civilization in Universe accumulates critical negative mass -;) .



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia