Re: convert light into energy

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

OK, so a photon is an object with definite momentum-energy, zero mass, and
unit spin.  You may prepare a state with a pair of photons and by
manipulating the spin of one you can affect the spin of the other, even
though the two are widely (spacelike) separated.  You cannot, however,
transmit information by such a process.
                        Regards,
                                Jack

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Jim Green wrote:

> Larry's question --
> > The one that baffles me is about the Nightcrawler (of the X-Men) who can
> > do teleportation.  "Today's technology: Scientists in Austria moved a
> > photon by converting the light packet into energy and then reconverting it
> > across the lab."  What kind of energy are we talking about here?  What
> > kind of conversion?
>
> I am really quite surprised at the responses to this question thus far - I
> awake from my nap long enough to add my bit:
>
> It strikes me that anyone who is intensively involved with the likes of the
> X-Men, who ever they are, has far too much time on his hands.
>
> As to moving "a photon by converting a light packet into energy...":
>
>   I continue to being very nervous about talking about a "photon" -- as I
> have said previously I hove no assurance of the nature of "light" or of a
> "photon" .  I believe that accepting unquestionly accepting that a "photon"
> is some sort of "particle" -- in the sense of an "electron" -- what ever
> that is -- is a very weak assumption.   I hold that "light" is neither a
> particle ("photon") nor a wave (wave packet).
>
> However, saying that a "wave packet" (or anything else) is converted into
> "energy" is really nuts.
>
> This _is_ clear: "energy" is a property of an "object" -- like color, mass,
> and charge, etc.
>
> Would anyone on this list countenance saying that a rubber ball was
> converted to something  --anything -- and was transported anywhere?  Well
> OK, on Star Trek -- I give you that.
>
> But, even there, no one would say that the ball was converted into "blue"
> and the "blue" was transported -- The BALL can be transported WITH its
> properties of color, mass, charge, and energy,  but to say that the ball
> was converted to "blue" (or "energy") and transported  is just silly.
>
> Have we not yet learned not to think of _properties_ as objects -- Leigh
> has his special name for this -- but I can never remember
how to spell it. (:-)
> However, I do admit that in our laboratory here we are doing experiments on
> fluggles in order to convert them into rumples and thereby transport them
> safely to Mars for the NASA Polar Explorer Project.  Next we will study
> diesel locomotives  in order to ease the massive transportation problems of
> the world -- maybe steam locomotives would be easier -- but we have yet to
> decide what color to convert them into to minimize costs.  Well, yes, we
> have no idea at this point how to transport color either.
>
> Just me over here in my little corner
>
> Jim Green
> mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
> http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen