|My view from the left||Mainstream Media says||Views from the right|
Kerik to assert quantum defense?
In a stunning move understood by a select few physicists, Bernard Kerik appeared ready to assert the first quantum defense in American political history. Kerik, Bush's nominee to head the agency responsible for protecting Americans from terrorist attacks, withdrew himself from consideration when a skeletons in his closet began generating more interest than the Jurassic Chinasaurs.
Kerik now asserts that he both hired a nanny who was an illegal alien, but that the nanny did not exist: she had no name, no age, and no country of origin. "I never met her," Kerik's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina said. "I don't know what country she came from. I don't know her nationality. I don't know her name... I know she's not a phantom, because a (secret) document was applied for and received."
"We are not going to discuss the nanny any further," said Christopher Rising, Kerik's other spokesperson said. Rising has been central in preserving the uncertainty principle on Kerik's behalf.
Kerik's former protectee, Rudy Giuliani, also attempted to assert a quantum defense:
"He's not part of Giuliani Partners," Giuliani said. At the same time, the firm's website asserted that "Mr. Kerik is a Senior Vice President at Giuliani Partners and is Chief Executive Officer of Giuliani-Kerik LLC, an affiliate of Giuliani Partners."
Giuliani's defense fall apart moments later, when he attempted to explain -- and therefore make more certain -- Kerik's role: "Senior vice president of the group is what Bernie was when we started. I think that remains his title, but that's not the way we primarily relate to him. As you know, he does some work for a few of our clients."
A quantum physicist working for a private firm on defense issues confirmed both that Giuliani's explanation nullified his quantum defense and that "senior vice presidents" don't work very hard at his company, either.
Much more at Talking Points Memo.
From Space.com, December 16, 2004
In the previous two articles we discussed the basic double-slit experiment that demonstrates the dual nature of light -- wave and particle -- and then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which demonstrates the complimentary (mutual exclusion) of what one can measure at the same time. In this article we shall discuss the more basic interpretation of quantum physics in terms of what one can even know or not know, and how this affects the results one is trying to measure.
John Bell formulated the uncertainty principle in terms of what one could know or not know in an experiment. Several Bell-type experiments have successfully shown that this would seem to be the simplest interpretation of the situation. Taking our double-slit example, if one puts a detector at one or the other of the two slits -- even one that does not destroy the photon, electron, or whatever particle as it goes through the slit -- then an interference pattern does not appear at the detector. This is because one has set up an experiment in which one can "know" which path the particle took (i.e., which slit the particle went through). As long as one can tell this, then the particle cannot go through both slits at once and one no longer gets an interference pattern.
Even this potential (i.e., "knowability") is enough to stop the formation of an interference pattern. All ability to detect which path an elementary particle took (in this case a photon of light) must be removed to obtain interference. In other words, one must not even be able to tell -- even in principle -- which path the elementary particle took in order for it to "take" both paths and form an interference pattern.
This is the most fundamental concept in quantum physics -- knowable and unknowable. It is from this more fundamental concept of the uncertainty principle that we shall approach our quantum astronomy experiment. It has been experimentally verified that if one can know which path a photon traveled, then an interference pattern is not possible. But if one can become ignorant of which path the photon (or any elementary particle) took, then an interference pattern is assured. That is, if one is ignorant of which path the photon took, then an interference pattern is not just possible, it must occur.
Freepers agree: Kerik is Clinton's (you pick which one) fault