I have been told that scientist have reliably shown an expirment that violates causality. In the story, 2 parameters related to the position and momentum of the particles in the experiement are measured as to violate the HUP(1). One of the results(call it result A) is predicable and the other (call it result B) is random. The scientist found that when they LOOK at the A first it comes out as expected. but when the LOOK at B first, then A comes out way off.
i.e. looking at the results of B changes the results of A after the expiriment is over.

The only classical explaination of this that I can think of is: God is taunting us.
But I suppose this borrows something from schrodeingers cat. The results of A and B being both corrected and hosed until someone looks at them, then the probability wave collapses.

Can anyone verify this story and give the details of the expiriment?
(1) The Hiesenberg(sp) Uncertainty Pricipal goes something like: measurements of the momentum and position of a quanta must have a combined uncertainty no less than some constant. Measuring the position of a paritcal corrupts its momentum information, and measuring the momentum, smears the partical all over space-time. I have NFC how Heisy derived this, and I’m not sure I want to know.

Been smokin’ again, Falcon?

I’m looking for a specific reference, but haven’t found a good one yet. I’m pretty sure you are referring to an experiment by John Bell. It really threw some people for a loop, until an embarassingly simple error was discovered. He assumed a linear proportionality while moving through angles. His interpretations of the results were thus wrong.

As Frau S. said, after a weekend away visiting her mother, “What did you do to the cat? It looks half dead!”

## “Been smokin’ again, Falcon?” —omniscientnot

Pass it around, Falcon.
Peace,
mangeorge

Hey, this is just a story I heard, I am quite incredulous, but it sounds so intriguing I dont want to dismiss it out of hand.
And I coincidentally, I accidentally reversed the polarity of my motherbord power supply last night and smoked one of the components. It was an all around bad trip, and let me tell you, once that magic smoke gets out of the chip, it doesnt work so good anymore.

Speaking of quantum weirdness, did anyone read the article a year or so ago in Scientific American, about how using quantum physics in an interferometer, they proved you can image an object without having any light actually touch it? Simply by having it EXIST in the (potential) path of one of the light beams, they could detect it by measuring the polarization of a light beam.

To really understand it, you hafta be a major math man, but for us Earth dwelling folks, I can say as much that it is a result of the wave nature of matter. Paticles don’t exist as discrete spheres, but rather as smeared out probability distributions. Containing a particle in a small space (high certainty of position) makes it act like a standing wave, meaning that it is constantly changing direction (low certainty in momentum).

Well, scratching head, I’m at a loss. Do you have any more details?

I think the “constant” you’re referring to is Mr. Plancks. He (Heisenberg) stated that the change in position times the change in momentum must “always” be greater than Plank’s constant divided by 2 pi.
Where did you get your info, Falcon?

00

Pi don’t enter into it.

Pretend that d = delta:

dx * dp[sub]x[/sub] ~ h

where h is Planck’s constant

Oh, and P.S., in this case, delta really means “the uncertainty in” rather than “the change in”

Not really, it was a second hand story, but the kicker was that taking the measurements as to violate the HUP didn’t screw up the results. Looking at the results screwed them up.

Oh dear GOD no. In college I actualy had nighmares that the Schrodinger Wave Equation was actualy an excerpt from the Necronomicon, and after looking at it I became a babbling evil zombie.

Ewww. Demons out. I think I need several stiff drinks to clense the evil from my memory.