Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!dcs.gla.ac.uk!unix.brighton.ac.uk!mjs14
From: mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute)
Subject: Re: Information Theory and QM
Message-ID: <1994Nov4.114853.29468@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Brighton, UK
References: <783590380snz@price.demon.co.uk> <39ak03INN1crm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 11:48:53 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics.particle:1811 sci.physics:98875 comp.ai.philosophy:21650

In article <39ak03INN1crm@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> cieslar@nmrvex.biochem.mpg.de (Christian Cieslar) writes:
>Lets assume the photon has a very well
>defined frequency e.g. 1Hz so that the length of the wave packet is
>1 second. The detector on the other hand can determine the time of
>photon-impact with micro second accuracy.

I think you're going to run into Heisenberg :-)
The energy of your photon, E, is going to be extremely low at 1Hz

E = h.f

(extremely difficult to detect, in fact).

And your insistence on 0.0001% accuracy with time measurements, Delta(t),
is going to give you even more difficulties with detecting the energy:

Delta(E).Delta(t) ~= h

Ok... so I'm not addressing your specific points...
I'm eager to see what others say.
-- 

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all

