jason.p

I understand Helium 3 can be extracted from the Lunar regolith. Could this ever be an economically viable reason to set up processing plants on the moon?

Thanks for all the responses. I'm afraid I got lost at around post #7. It seems I've got a hell of a lot to learn Thanks anyway.

I don't think he needs to prove anything. If his followers believe that's all that matters. After all L.Ron Hubbard has been to Venus (twice)

//Spin I think is a rather poor choice of nomenclature.// I think this is where beginners like myself have problems, trying to visualise such things in "everyday literal terms". I suppose it's got to be called something .

Thanks. I've just been re-reading Brian Greene's book. On first reading I had understood that interactions confuse the measurements rather than eliminate them, but now I see that all the interactions actually reduce the effect to nothing. I suppose the way to see it is that particles could be entangled at great distances, but in fact would not be because of the interactions they would have encountered.

I'm by no means up to speed with this theory but I would imagine that any divergence (if there were any) would be at quantum level and not at the point where you decide on a tea or coffee. Besides how could you be sure we're not flipping back and forwards between universes or dimensions all the time anyway

Sorry QP. I don't understand your reply. Surely in that case it's only the particles that have been measured that may have lost their entanglement, all others as yet unmeasured would still have the potential "link". I don't see entaglement as a physical communication across the universe as such but if there is a theoretical "probability wave" mediating this phenomenon then everything has a connection whether real or mathematical. I accept that I probably have a very naive view of QM but I really am trying to get my head round it and appreciate any help I can get. ( Just Googled Bleep movie. Looks good )

Experiments to demonstrate/prove entanglement or non locality seem to have been performed using photons, presumably because they are relatively easy to produce and measure. Is it reasonable to assume that this also applies to all elementary particles and their anti particles even though they may never be measured with any degree of accuracy? If this is the case then can we assume that all particles produced at the big bang share this non locality with their partners wherever they are in the universe? In other words could it be said that everything is interconnected by probability waves?

Thanks AJB. So "spin" is not inconsistent with string theory. I must try and get out of need to visualise everything. I can accept that spin is a real function of a particle that I don't fully understand at the moment and move on from there.

I've been trying to get my head round entaglement, locality etc and Bell and Aspect's experiments where particle spin was used as an indicator. If particles are in fact vibrating strings (if you accept this theory) how do they spin? It's easy to visualise a football like particle spinning around various axes but not a vibrating string. I'm sure it's not as simple as this and maybe "spin" is just a way of describing a mathematicall function, but I'm having to try and assimilate this in "quantum packets" and being able to visualise it helps. Thanks.

Thanks IM Egdal and Dr Rocket for explanation and links, I will definitely follow them up. When I get a better understanding I'll probably be back to discuss it in greater depth.

From what I understand Alaiin Aspect's experiment demonstrated how subatomic particles remain in contact no matter what the distance. David Bohm (possibly amongst others) inferred the holographic universe could be an explanation of how particles could "communicate" over such distances without breaking the light speed barrier. That is how I saw a connection between the experiment and the theory. I don't know how David Bohm was regarded amonst his peers. I'm sure he was well respected. He seems to me to have had leanings toward the metaphysical which in itself is no bad thing (IMHO).

I gather from the lack of response that this was either a dull question or posted in the wrong forum (or possibly both ). As I am still interested (esp in the basics of the Aspect experiment) can someone point me in the right direction. I have done the Google/ Wikki things but would like to see discussion/arguments from experts which usually tend to throw more light on a subject. Thanks. Jason