UFO Conjectures

Monday, November 21, 2016

A Rebuttal to Non-Locality (quantum entanglement)?

A review by Tim Holt in The New York Review of Books [11/10] about George Musser's book on the quantum theory of entanglement (covered here a few weeks back) has received a "clarification" (cleansing) by theoretical physicist Jeremy Bernstein in the December 8, 2016 issue of The NYRB,  Page 62.

Dr. Bernstein wrote that the idea of faster than light quantum entanglement espoused  by some is patently absurd.

And Tim Holt responds, showing that there is as much back-and-forths in science as there is in the folly known as ufology, the difference being that ufology's arguments are often goofy whereas debates in science, while often scintillating, are based in a reserved decorum, as you can see in the encapsulated article here:
(I've left the piece in a major pixel mode so you can click on it to read it.)

RR

5 Comments:

  • Thanks for the article, it was very interesting. I must admit that Tim Holt made more sense to me (if we can say "sense" when talking about quantum physics). He says that there´s a "causal connection between two entangled electrons, one that operates faster than the speed of light" but that this connection cannot be used for signaling -- that´s what I thought I understood before, there´s this quantum entanglement, yes, but we can´t use it for transmitting information faster than the speed of light.
    Funny how the ETH-UFO people never seem to think the problems that faster than light -travel would make (if information could travel faster than light), I mean, seriously, if you start to think about it... BTW, why these UFO occupants never tell something like "your close star has gone supernova, you have to get ready, your magnetic field will be gone, go underground" or something like that?

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Tuesday, November 22, 2016  

  • Jeremy Bernstein also had a review (of M. Shifman's "Physics in a Mad World" on Page 52) in the issue.

    He's an erudite guy, but I agree, Tim Holt's response made more sense to me that Dr. Bernstein's.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 22, 2016  

  • "...ufology's arguments are often goofy whereas debates in science, while often scintillating, are based in a reserved decorum"
    This reminds me that often when I´ve been reading some ufo blogs (not yours) it sometimes seems almost comical when there are people who with seemingly no more education than elementary school share their "theories" of universe and physics (probably channelled from some aliens). I think it would be good to read couple of real science books before all those UFO books (although I enjoy reading some UFO books, the classics, Vallee, Keel...Greg Bishop). But actually, many propositions in modern physics are more weird than any UFO stuff, I think.
    Sorry, didn´t mean to sound such an sceptic : )

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Tuesday, November 22, 2016  

  • Jerry..

    I have many screeds here about the seeming "insanity" (madness) of physicists.

    (But then "madness" seems to be the coin of the realm in everything, nowadays, so what do I know?)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, November 22, 2016  

  • I must say that I rather trust the insanity of physicians more than the insanity of ufologists.(Although I don´t think that any idea should be discarded just becouse it "sounds mad", ideas should be tested first, if possaible.)

    JC

    By Blogger Jerry Cornelius, at Wednesday, November 23, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home