From:	"Dylan Norhtup (PHY)" <norhtup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Rationalizing Dead Zones: Round 1
Date:	Fri, 25 Jun 1993 16:07:17 -0400

On Fri, 25 Jun 1993, S.F. Eley wrote:

> How does this relate? Well, let's say the Dead Zones are catchholds on an
> earlier or alternate "reality." That before man learned to harness
electric
> forces, the electron didn't EXIST and electricity was impossible. When it
> manifested in nature, it did so because of Greek elemental theory, animistic
> theory, or simply because "that's nature." The unexplained happens all
the
> time. But if it isn't explained or studied, it doesn't have to follow rules.

But what happens when we study it? Then it has to follow rules! The wave
function (if we are going to drag QM into this) HAS to collapse. If it
collapses to one end then tech will work and there is no dead zone. If it
collapses towards the other end then tech will not work and there are dead
zones..... BUT, then you have the really sticky problem of haveing two differing
wave functions in the same reality. This, as far as I know, cannot happen (If I
find out this fall when I take QM I will tell you). You also have the problem
of violating the Theory of Consistency:"Even at the far end of the galaxy 2 + 2
still equals 4" to quote Spock.

Physics-wise this violates or at the very least bends the hell out of a lot of
assumptions that Physicists have relied on for centuries. I do not take such
violations lightly and would consider the ramifications of these violations
before positing them.

Dylan N.
-- Doc X --