Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

T H Ray: on 3/18/11 at 12:47pm UTC, wrote Don't worry. Not even physicists trust physicists with science.

Observer: on 3/18/11 at 12:30pm UTC, wrote Applause.. I too am starting to worry about trusting physicists with...

Georgina Parry: on 3/17/11 at 23:08pm UTC, wrote Bubba, you are entitled to your opinions, but do not confuse them with...

Georgina Parry: on 3/17/11 at 22:58pm UTC, wrote Just to tie that back into the topic of this thread. Space-time is an...

Bubba: on 3/17/11 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote Everything you just stated is entirely irrelevant and meaningless to a...

Georgina Parry: on 3/17/11 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote The following foundational question has been asked; "Why is quantum...

Georgina Parry: on 3/17/11 at 20:12pm UTC, wrote Bubba, Thank you for that quote. I will take it as evidence that Noble...

John Merryman: on 3/17/11 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote Tom Bubba, Looking back over this discussion, it seems as though one side...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, thank you for explaining very clearly. "Of course, as is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

jaime allen: "There are many topics like these, and all of them are helping me to become..." in Equivalence Principle...

Robert McEachern: "Georgina, It may help you come-to-terms with the fact that a "huge..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Yes,I agree with Eckard,there it's totally to be frank crazzy and..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: ""Please Joe, stop to post Always the same". Perhaps you have almost nothing..." in First Things First: The...

Sydney Grimm: "Lorraine, You want to the bottom? ;-) In physics “unification” –..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Sydney, Re climate change: I’m more on the side of the QBism model, but..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

anna john: "It's a very good informative section. I appreciate the intelligence and..." in Gravity's Residue

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS
September 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Time Travel by Teleportation [refresh]

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 20:24 GMT
Time travel is a fascinating subject. Can we really go back in time and maybe change it? Suppose I can go back in time, would I be able to kill my own grandfather thus preventing my own birth? Here opinions are split. Some think that precisely because of this “grandfather paradox” time travel is unphysical. Others, state that if you go back in time you cannot change the past no matter how hard you try. And this is elevated to the status of a principle, called the Novikov principle.

But why do we even consider such things? Obviously we are not seeing any time travel tourists from the future visiting us, as Hawking observed. There are good reasons to ask such questions, besides a wish to deflate our egos by stating that we are not seeing time tourists from the future because we are uninteresting.

The first reason came from Einstein’s general relativity which under certain conditions can develop whirlpools in the fabric of spacetime, bending it so that the future meets the past. The theoretical possibility of creating a general relativity time machine is in serious doubt, but even if it could be done, there are problems putting it into practice. It turns out however, that the energies involved in developing these whirlpools are truly enormous and lie beyond our current or foreseeable technological capabilities. Also time travel is possible only from the moment the first time machine was created anyway.

Maybe we can settle for something less ambitious.  Quantum mechanics is really strange. It allows for teleportation, and if we can teleport anywhere, why not “anywhen”? This fantastic possibility has been analyzed by FQXi’s Seth Lloyd and collaborators (arXiv:1007.2615v2, blogged about by arXiv blog here) and it has even been demonstrated in an actual experiment (arXiv:1005.2219).

So is time travel real? Well, not quite––it depends on the definition of “is.” But to see what I mean, let’s start at the beginning with teleportation.

A quantum state is a very brittle state, and any questions you ask of it, can destroy it. Moreover, it is impossible to extract all relevant information due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and in general, it’s well known that you cannot clone a quantum state. So how can you actually teleport a quantum state when you cannot really make a copy of it? The best way toexplain this (and also a most entertaining way of doing it) is to quote Charles Bennett’s description of it. First consider 2 twin pupils, Remus and Romulus (a Bell entangled state), each completely ignorant of all subjects, answering randomly, but always giving the same answer, even when questioned separately.

“Teacher A: Remus, what color is growing grass?

Remus: Pink, sir.

Teacher B (in another classroom): Romulus, what color is growing grass?

Romulus: Pink, ma’am.”

This Romulus-and-Remus Bell state can be used to teleport an unknown quantum state. For example,paraphrasing Bennett, here is how Remus and Romulus can help solve a crime that they did not witness:

Suppose someone, called Alice, had seen her best friend Bob murdered in Boston. Under shock, although she can recall the details, any questions can confuse her and erase critical pieces of her memory. Fearing that, the FBI wants to take charge and fly Alice to Washington DC to be interrogated by experts. But Alice is busy and the FBI comes up with a compromise: They know that Remus and Romulus share a special bond, and conveniently enough Romulus is currently located in Washington DC, while Remus lives in Boston. Therefore they instruct the local police to let Alice talk with Remus and see if they “get along” or not. (Alice and Remus will not be talking about the crime she just witnessed, but about other topics.)

Alice spends some time with Remus and she decides that she does not get along with him 100% of the time. Moreover, the stress of this meeting has erased all her memories of the murder. The Boston police phone the FBI and tell them that Alice and Remus don’t get along. The FBI use this information by talking to Romulus and asking him about the murder. They know that Alice and his brother did not get along and whenever Alice would say yes, Remus (and his brother Romulus) would say no, and the other way around. So by carefully reversing every single response they get from Romulus, they can extract all the information Alice had about the crime.

What we have here is teleportation of Alice’s brittle knowledge from Boston to Washington. In the process, the original state of Alice was destroyed, and the no cloning constraint is obeyed.

Now that we have a more intuitive description of how quantum teleportation works, we can proceed with explaining Lloyd’s experiment and analysis. In quantum teleportation there is one bit of classical information transmitted from past to future: “Then the Boston police phone the FBI and tell them that Alice and Remus don’t get along.” To achieve teleportation to the past, this step has to be eliminated. How does Lloyd do it? By projection to another Bell state followed by postselection. (Postselection is what is being invoked by FQXi’s Paul Davies to explain how the universe’s set fate could be influencing its present state. For more details, see Julie Rehmeyer’s article, “The Destiny of the Universe.”)

To see what is happening in projection and postselection, we have to meet Alice, Romulus and Remus again. Alice likes songs, and Romulus likes to write down lottery number guesses. Today Alice hears a song on the radio: “Mary had a little lamb…” while a year ago (last time) Romulus wrote: “13,1,18,25,0,8,1,4,0,1,0,12,9,20,20,12,5,0,12,1,13,2,…

Then Alice meets Remus and spurred by the song, they fall strongly in love, discovering to their amazement that now they share the same psychic bond as Romulus and Remus did in the past. Moreover now the original bond between Romulus and Remus is lost.

Together Alice, Romulus and Remus make a three way system: Alice is system 1 entering the time travel loop, Romulus is system 2 emerging from the time travel, and Remus is system 3, its purification (see Eq. 2 in arXiv:1007.2615v2). Here the projection to another Bell state takes place when the Alice-Remus pair is formed. Postselection eliminates the cases when Alice falls only weakly in love with Remus, meaning that the state of Alice-Remus link is not in the precise prior state of Remus-Romulus.

All this excitement made Alice completely forget about the original song. But that information from today is not get lost. It is now in the past as the state of Alice from earlier today is teleported to Romulus one year in the past. And indeed there is a simple cipher key translation between the song and the lottery numbers: A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D=4, etc.

This is “effective time travel to the past” (see George Svetlichny (arXiv:0902.4898)).  Time travel is only a possible narrative of what is going on, but it is not falsifiable one way or another. The best way to understand this is in Bob Coecke’s pictorial formalism where tracing the path of the information sometimes moves backwards in time (arXiv:quant-ph/0402014v2). (A similar scheme was proposed by Horowitz and Maldacena (arXiv:hep-th/0310281v2) as a way to teleport the infalling information into a black hole outside the black hole in outgoing Hawking’s radiation using the Bell state of correlated infalling and outgoing Hawking radiation (there the postselection is replaced by the mirror effect of having a unique singularity state).)

At this point you may cry, “nonsense, this is like tea leaf reading!” But here is the amazing thing: change the song today and you’ll get another cipher key whenever Alice falls strongly in love with Remus. And look at this from an information conservation perspective: in one instance you have a Bell state in the past and a song in the future, in another instance you get the same Bell state in the future and the lottery numbers in the past. Therefore there must be a direct translation between the lottery numbers and the song. If the song is changed to the point that no such translation is possible, then it is guaranteed that Alice will not fall strongly in love with Remus, and those cases are pruned by postselection.

So is this genuine time travel? What if I write down on a piece of paper today all possible lottery numbers and tomorrow after the actual drawing I postselect only the winning number, erasing all the others. Would this be considered time travel to the past? Not at all, but quantum mechanics is subtler. This situation is reminiscent of the question Aharonov asked about quantum mechanics: Can quantum mechanics be derived from non-signaling and non-locality? The answer came back negative with the discovery of the Popescu-Rohrlich box. Similarly, can time travel be banned by energy conditions in general relativity? No, because teleportation with postselection does allow it in the absence of general relativistic closed timelike curves, and it is experimentally confirmed. And it IS time travel because a quantum state is all about information and the information did get erased from present and did travel to the past. However, it could not alter the past obeying Novikov’s principle, and also it is not a falsifiable time travel. Also it IS NOT time travel because it can be also understood as a narrative for selecting the appropriate communication channel between past and future by projection and postselection. In the little charade above is about having the right conditions for falling in love, losing your head, and the hindsight of the inevitability of that happening. As stated in the beginning, it depends on the meaning of “is.”

The advantage of Lloyd’s condition over Deutsch’s condition is that nature has validated teleporting to the past, while Deutsch’s condition is only speculative at this point. However, Lloyd’s resolution of the grandfather paradox is rather unimpressive because the inconsistent case is automatically discarded by projection and postselection. It is like drawing random numbers, postselecting only even numbers and then observing that you don’t get odd numbers no matter how hard you try. Other authors proposed other solutions to the grandfather paradox, like Greenberger and Svozil for example (arXiv:quant-ph/0506027), and in all those proposals, causality is respected. What this shows is that in order to ban causality violations (or standard time travel in general relativity settings) one needs an additional ingredient besides quantum mechanics. (General relativity does not do it, and neither does quantum mechanics in certain circumstances.) This missing ingredient is most likely free will, for if I can choose to change the past after knowing the future, I would be able to create a paradox. For people believing the Novikov principle under all circumstances, free will is just an illusion, and this argument may not sway them. What is really needed is a full theory of quantum gravity. But can we do better and find additional arguments against “falsifiable time travel” without solving the hard problem of quantum gravity? I believe that we can. Time will certainly tell.

In the meantime, here is a question for you: is post selected quantum teleportation to the past time travel or not? Or if it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is not falsifiable as a duck (and sometimes could be described as a goose), is it a duck? If not, what is it?

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 20:46 GMT
Quantum Mechanics will not allow you to violate causality. The best you can do it to be uncertain of when an event actually occurred.

Time travel and FTL travel are mutually exclusive. You have to close the door to one of these in order to open a door to the other. The physics community is of course free to be wrong. They are free to waste a lot of time and opportunity on something that won't yield any benefit. Sooner or later, physicists will have to close the door to time travel. In doing so, they can explore another type of physics violation, faster than light phenomena.

M87 is a galaxy that contains a super massive black hole. It spits of a perceived physics violation, a jet clocked at 6c. But it's 100 million light years away, so it's hard to be sure.

To the physics community: enjoy your time travel fantasy. Relish it now. Because the time will come to put away childish things.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT
You take your 12 inch straight edged ruler and you place it on your flat wooden surface. You make a mark on the flat wooden surface at the point where the marked divisions on the ruler begin. You make a second mark on the wooden surface at the 6 inch line on the straight edged ruler. Just to be sure, you then try to verify that your first mark on the flat wooden surface was correct by trying to move your head and aligning your eyes into the same position they were in when you made your first mark and it is an impossible thing to do.

You cannot move back any single part of anything anywhere. Every moment of existence is unique and can never be duplicated or replicated. If you cannot position your head into the same position it was in only moments ago, it should be obvious that no amount of Quantum Mechanics would help you to materialize anywhere else than wherever it is that you can be located right now.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT
Here's a question for you Florin. Is a swimming, quacking, sometimes goose-like fantasy duck still a duck? That is a serious question not a derogatory remark.

If one -believes- in quantum theory -and- that there are existential time realms, then time traveling is not unreasonable. If one does not have those beliefs then it is totally unreasonable. The answer to your question comes down to the explanatory model being used. If the -explanatory model- being used is not consistent with existential reality then the interpretation will be incorrect and the conclusion will be incorrect.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 03:16 GMT
Georgina,

The answer is somewhere between genuine time travel and hindsight: (events from today illuminate events from the past) But I don’t think there is a word that describes it completely and correctly.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 10:27 GMT
Florin,

there may not be a word that fully describes it but can you describe it more fully with more words? You can not leave it as an indescribable situation somewhere between impossible time travel and very possible hindsight.

Imagined time travel to fantasy time realms, due to misinterpretation of the space-time model, is one thing. Hindsight is very different, certainly is not time travel. Events today illuminating events from the past is not time travel. These are real phenomena.

I might dig up a bag of ancient coins today and learn some new information about the past. I would not say I have time traveled. It is not the same at all. The information has remained within Objective Now and has not been lost or destroyed and therefore is accessible in the present, -from the present-, due to that continuity of material existence.

PS I have read your opening post several times and appreciate your effort to explain. Though it still doesn't sound sensible to me.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 21:45 GMT
Florin,

Continuing from previous post- you said, "In quantum teleportation there is one bit of classical information transmitted from past to future: “Then the Boston police phone the FBI and tell them that Alice and Remus don’t get along.”" Making a telephone call is not time travel either.

I think this all comes down to a basic misunderstanding of time. Using a -historical- concept of time within a physics model. Historical time is the imagined path that something took through time. This path does not exist as an objective physical reality imo. Everything that exists only exists in atemporal objective Now.

The person speaks into the phone Now, there is change in absolute spatial position of the ground on which the person is standing and the rest of the earth. The telephone signal passes down the wire. These are spatial changes. The signal arrives at the receiver at the new Objective Now which is a new absolute spatial position and there has also been transmission across 3D space. Two different kinds of spatial changes. It has gone from atemporal Now to atemporal Now not past to future. The future does not exist so nothing can go there except in the imagination. The past does not exist as a material and sub atomic reality nothing goes from it. Physics is getting all tied up with the psychology and language of time, imo.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Florin,

"... teleportation ... is experimentally confirmed." Really? FTL transmission of signals was also shown by Nimtz, and he was definitely wrong. If Einstein's hypothesis of general relativity lets room for an obviously paradoxical conclusion, then we should look for possible fallacies in the foundations before trying to remedy the hypothesis by means of even more abstruse ideas.

I would like seconding Georgina and ask what does a so called quantum state mean? Is it something real at all? Who invented and first used the word teleportation and why? Was it related to the dispute between Schroedinger and Einstein in 1935?

Incidentally, I estimate D. Deutsch. Diana is really an expert. Perhaps you refer to someone else. Let me guess: David? Wasn't he among those responsible for the at least so far unfulfilled huge hopes for quantum computing?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 02:27 GMT
Eckard,

Quantum teleportation is real, it was experimentally observed, and it is not a FTL transmission. Quantum states have different interpretations. For example some consider them ontological others think they are epistemological, while some are agnostics. If you believe the ontological camp they are real things, if you are in the epistemological camp they are only a reflection of one’s knowledge about the system. Both positions have problems: the ontological camp has a lot of trouble explaining the collapse of the wavefunction, while the epistemological camp has to explain why everyone shares the same knowledge. The agnostic camp (shut up and calculate) are pragmatists believing both to the extent that it helps them in obtaining results.

Teleportation was discovered by Charles Bennett and collaborators: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/telepo
rtation.html It has nothing to do directly with the EPR paradox, but it does use the EPR Bell state as a resource.

Yes, David works in quantum computing, but this area does not yet work not for any theoretical reasons, but for technological limitations because quantum states are very brittle and they decohere by interacting with the environment.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:26 GMT
Florin, Why should I trust in claimed experimental evidence if the ultimate practical application was already announced but will obviously never happen even with strong support by IBM and other powerful research facilities? On the other side, I am finding mounting indications for serious foundational mistakes that more and more likely affect a lot of abstruse physics.

I prefer careful work. So I try to understand Einstein's definition of simultaneity. He considers light from A to B and reflected back to A. Why doesn't he demand that light from A reflected at B back to A and light from B reflected at A back to B behave symmetrically? So far, I am not yet in position to completely judge Einstein's reasoning.

I would like to check the meaning of quantum state. Isn't it a complex quantity? I claim having found out that the representation of a function that is unilateral in its original domain is redundant in complex domain.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:52 GMT
Light reflected from B to A does behave symmetrically, as Einstein showed in one of his first thought experiments, in which he concluded that his reflection would be shown in a mirror he held in front of his face while he traveled at light speed. Like Maxwell's equations, the wave behavior is symmetric in spacetime.

Incidentally, that he performed this thought experiment at age 16 is only one counterexample to the myth that Einstein was slow at math. He simply thought differently, more creatively -- even kinesthetically, by his own account.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 23:57 GMT
The issue with post selection of states plays a role with black holes and holography. The following considerations indicate how the process of quantum evaporation of a black hole is an example of post-selection of states. The states on the event horizon, as observed frozen there by a distant external observer, are destroyed by the states which quantum radiate from the black hole. Further, the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:08 GMT
One point usually forgotten in the discussion of time travel is that things and events exist in the present only, and that they cease to exist the moment they enter the past. Time is the measure how distant a past event became from the present. This time begins the moment when the present turns into the past. It is not real.

If things change and move from the present into the past they can only do that at the interface between present and past. This “point in time” is fixed. It cannot move from now to a thousand years ago, simply because whatever had existed than, does not exist anymore.

Should there, against all odds, be a time in the present, and should that time have direction, then, if this time’s direction would reverse in the sense of decreasing entropy, which had been suggested by some, the outcome would be that we would become younger. We would meet our grandfather when he will return from his grave.

Wolf

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:33 GMT
Wolf,

those that talk about time travel are using the space-time model of reality in which it can be argued that both past and present exist as both can be seen. What is seen and the order of events depends upon observer position. It is then impossible to say what the present is because everyone experiences their own version. There is no clear interface between the past and the present that will allow them to be separated in that model of reality. They are muddled together.

Importantly, imo, change and causality are occurring in atemporal Now, without temporal spread, which is not the same as the space-time experienced present.

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 02:34 GMT
Thanks, Georgina, for the clarification. I always had problems understanding this kind of logic. For me it is impossible to think that let's say Georg Washington is hanging around somewhere waiting for us to visit him. It is almost like religion.

Well, we had discussed past and present in a previous blog, and I have the impression that you and I mostly agree.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT
"Others, state that if you go back in time you cannot change the past no matter how hard you try."

Not to pop the bubble, but if you are going back in time, you are changing the past. Ref: Butterfly effect.

Frankly I'm going back in time all the time. When I wake up tomorrow morning, the me that is sitting here will be falling into the past. The past will have changed, because it will have another eight hours added to it. If I was driving to Lexington, Kentucky, which I have to do Wednesday, I'd almost be there.

As for the love triangle, it seems like a non-local shell game. Unfortunately it's a little too garbled to tell.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 02:49 GMT
John,

I am not in the camp of people believing in general relativity time travel, but the counter argument you will get for: “but if you are going back in time, you are changing the past. Ref: Butterfly effect.” is as follows: The past already happened and it cannot be changed. It already account for all your actions you took in the past.

Then you may say: this is all wrong, because it means that I don’t have free will. The reply to that is: it is my free will to walk on the ceiling, but the laws of physics prevent it. Similarly, it is my free will to kill my grandfather but I will not succeed no matter how hard I try.

Indeed the “love triangle” is a bit contrived and garbled, but I could not make it clearer. The situation is very subtle and the best way is to read it in parallel with the original paper. If anyone has any good suggestions on how to better explain it, please let me know and I’ll change the post.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 09:42 GMT
Florin,

I agree with you that one cannot go back and change events which occurred in the past. I'm just pointing out that if one were to time travel back into the past, their presence there would effect changes.

I'm one of those who firmly believe that time is simply a consequence of the changing configuration of what is, not any form of dimensional projection along which events are placed. It is not that the present moves from past to future, but that the future becomes the past. The earth doesn't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. It is just that during our lives, we are part of the present, so our lives continue through the series of changing circumstances, thus we experience it as this serial effect. Much the same way we view the sun as moving east to west, though we now understand it is the earth rotating west to east. Much of the confusion about time is this effort to explain the linear effect as fundamental, whether Newton's universal flow, Einstein's fourth dimension, or the laws of entropy, as expressed by such people as Sean Carroll, rather than an emergent effect of the changing configuration.

Your response to Jason, "the information form the past was there but not accessible until the events from the future took place," expresses my view that this really isn't any form of time travel, but a function of how information is collected. You could say a star ten thousand lightyears away blew up five thousand years ago, but we won't know until the future five thousand years have occurred. The only difference being that it uses the idea of non-locality, ie. "spooky action at a distance," as the "medium" of information transfer.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 13:14 GMT
I think you did a good job of it, Florin. The difficulty I perceive that many have in associating "time travel" with large scale quantum coherence is a blind trust in the "common sense" of the classical world.

Common sense tells one that -- I like your analogies -- that walking on the ceiling and killing one's late grandfather are physical impossibilities. One fails to realize, however, that the physics _of_ experience is bounded by physical experience (I draw only even numbers because I postselected even numbers).

Last Friday, I saw the movie "Inception." It's a science fiction thing (a riveting movie, BTW, with great special effects), in which the characters share dream experiences such that one cannot distinguish dream from reality except by an encoded signal known only to the dreamer.

Fact is, none of us know in ordinary life, whether we are dreaming or living, because we don't really know what "life" is except as we recall our personal history, that unique encoded signal that coheres with what I call "me."

In any other set of physical circumstances, however, that "me" does not cohere with this "me." On the large scale of quantum decoherence the physics of experience will be quasi-classical and the time line will be linear, comporting with a classically continuous field of reversible time trajectory.

The quantum domain, however, allows no time trajectory and thus no individuated experience in the classical sense. A large scale quantum coherent system of cooperative states is a program, made only of computable information. Introduce time, and superposed wave states collapse into a unique history. If the collapse never occurs (as in Hugh Everett's model) one cannot distinguish _in principle_ between the unique history of "me" and the branching history which I experience as an alternative program of the same coherent system. Nonlocal communication in the quantum sense cannot be distinguished from time travel in the classical sense; however, the price of "knowing" is decoherence. Then the question of whether one can come back to "reality" hinges strongly on what "reality" is -- I agree with you: we won't know until we have a complete theory of quantum gravity.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 03:07 GMT
I would like to congratulate Florin for his amazing creativity and astounding degree of abstract comprehension.

I hate to bring up the topic of psychic phenomena; but I think it might come in handy with respect to understanding this quantum experiment. While I don't believe that it's possible to time travel and kill your grandparents or get lottery numbers, there are various psychics (Edgar Cayce/ Nostradamus/etc) who are famous for seeing events from the future.

Under the assumption that ESP is a quantum phenomena, does this article describe how information may be retrieved from the future or the past?

C'mon, any takers?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 04:00 GMT
Jason,

Thank you for your kind words. This was a particularly hard paper to explain, and even harder to explain is the experiment itself (which I did not do).

My lottery numbers-song analogy is not perfect: in the paper and experiment, the information form the past was there but not accessible until the events from the future took place, while in my explanation the lottery numbers have an independent existence. As Lawrence points out this is similar with Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 04:34 GMT
Florin,

It's starting to look as if the universe obeys some weird kind of wave/dicey logic. If it can't be logically understood, maybe we should just embrace the strange quantum logic in search of some new and useful technology.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 01:04 GMT
Jason,

Indeed, while in the past people tried to explain away this strange behavior, now quantum entanglement which makes all those strange behaviors possible it is viewed as a resource like electricity or oil. I remember when I was in grad school that I could not work in this area because most of the grant money involved at that time required security clearance.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 11:25 GMT
Teleportation runs in space only and not in time.

Time is numerical order of teleportation that is t = 0, same is by EPR experiment.

TIME RUNS IN SPACE AS NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE.

SPACE IS 4D.

yours amrit

attachments: 1_Time_Travel_is_Out_of_Question.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
Hi doc(S)....

Macfly is returned.ahahaha

Steve

Ps one of my favorite series of films with Starswar of course.

yes I am a jedi I am not crazzy ,it's yoda who said me that.An other thing,he said me also SPHERIZATION BY SPHERES IN A SPHERE......The force is with me hihihii

Ray May the force be with you...

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Steve,

I haven't yet bumped my head and imagined the Flux Capacitor.

May the Force be with you... (as long as it isn't the Dark Side of the Moon).

As much as I've been saying "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" lately, Florin's pair-o'-ducks (paradox) is kind of funny.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 17:59 GMT
Interesting Ray....I will be always there to help you, and that to not become a dark side jedi.First Relativate the Las Vegas city and evitate the sins hihihi

The good wins always Ray, in the films and in the life,it's only simple like that, It's the reason why I eat all the bad people ,at my breakfast, and even if I am dead, I will continue hihihiihihi it's that the faith and the eternity, the good Ray, the well.It's better than the sin city for example and its oceans of opulences.

You know I dislike that.And a real jedi Ray dislike the monney, the differences, the frontiers, the weapons and the sins......it's the universality Ray.

You shall see , the well wins always,always, and for ever....it's that the future and its harmonious plan.....the universal love in fact Ray simply.

Don't complicate the simplicity, if never you have crushed an insect for example,you are a real jedi of the well.

Take care brother Jedi and universal ,the revolution arrives Ray ;quietly but surely.like the quiet road of a fluid......

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 16:50 GMT
I know there exists a number of paths from moment to next moment. Ok..if one sends a signal particle to about a smidging above a plank time "ago", one would have a definate problem with sifting through the gathered data, (trying to locate a data anomoly caused by the backwards particle interaction)..so all local signals will be indestinguishaable from local(NOW) partcle events.

So lets say the particle signal can stretch back farther than 1 second ago...say to a calander date of 1066?..the intervening moments would have changed vastly, the farther back in "time" a distruptive signal transverse's, the more "now" time changes, so in effect 1066 would be meaningless to current historians.

Thus, the longer_farther back in time one goes, the faster current events percieved by the now observers, us or experimentalists, would observe change,it would be akin to sombody throwing a quantum switch

, causing us to literaly FIP, be in a "NEW UNIVERSE".

In quantum mechanics, the calibrated moments (entanglements) are not available to "current" observers, we do NOT see any change to the "now" moments, the cahnges occur propotional to the passing of time, to see the changes caused by the present day experiments, be it LHC or in a small research lab using standarc quantum teleportation techniques, the changes will be observed in the far off future, not so much the BUTERFLY EFFECT, more of whatr I call the PTERADACTYL EFFECT get it ;)

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 18:38 GMT
I'm not sure that the physics community really understands the significance of "quantum teleportation". At best, you might be able to improve your lottery numbers or observe a few moments of Adolph Hitler saying, "How bad can a Russian winter be?"

But you don't get is a flux capacitor; you don't get a time traveling DeLorean. The past cannot be changed, ever. But physicists will waste another century on time travel while the world economy remains stale. Physicists will spend another hundred years trying to wrap their heads around a physics paradox just to get their "I'm smarter than you" bragging degree.

The physics community is not interested in advancing technology or enhancing the technological know how of humanity. They are certainly not interested in anything more than their own narrow-minded cynicism.

But hey, let's build a time machine back to a few seconds before the Big Bang and set off an atomic bomb. That might be sufficient to change the conditions of the "accidental" universe, and prevent EVERYTHING from existing. We'll call it the Ad Absurdum Time Bomb.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 2, 2010 @ 23:39 GMT
Jason,

Sometimes people just have to beat an idea into the ground before they realize there is no there there.

Time travel is an appealing idea and it's natural that every possible angle will be explored before the idea gets boring. That's not cynicism, just healthy curiosity.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 01:16 GMT
John,

I suppose you have a point. So do you think it's possible to back to a few moments before the Big Bang and disturb the boundary conditions in such a way as to prevent the Big Bang? I am starting to think that the Big Bang does violate conservation of energy. The Big Bang seems similar to the Weak force, in that the W particle that is emitted is 100 times as massive as the neutron that emitted it. If this is so, then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can over rule conservation of energy. In fact, conservation of energy is really just a classical approximation.

I'm afraid that any physics theory that relies upon the assumption that QM obeys conservation of energy, that theory would be undermined.

Everyone put on your blinders and...

Conservation of energy is not guaranteed at the quantum scale.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 02:27 GMT
Jason,

Not to get to explanatory, but for me, the Big Bang is up there in the clouds with the old guy pulling all our strings.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
John,

They're pretty convinced that a Big Bang occurred. What we don't know is whether or not there was anything already here when it happened.

But what do you think about the idea that Conservation of Energy is not followed strictly at the quantum level?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 09:30 GMT
Jason,

For my views on BBT, read my posts to Lawrence in the Planck Scale thread. I realize they are quite convinced, but how much of this is due to psychology and how much is due to rationality? Our herd instincts are far more subconscious than conscious.

If energy is being created at the quantum level, it is also being cancelled as well. That anything exists at all would be due to slightly more having been created, than has been cancelled.

It just makes far more sense for the creative instability to be spread in a very thin layer across infinity and not as just one singularity. Not only does it explain the effect of expansion and the evenness of background radiation, but gravity as well, as this instability is constantly collapsing and creating long causal chains of instability and collapse, with lockups in the process causing the effect of mass.

Otherwise, consider the various factors, such as Inflation and dark energy, required to make the official version work.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 09:40 GMT
From the New York Times:

www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/space/03kepler.html

"The biggest benefit from answering these questions — what is the universe made of, or where does mass come from — might be better questions. Cosmologists have spent the last century asking how and when the universe began and will end or how many kinds of particles and forces are needed to make it tick, but maybe we should wonder why it is we feel the need to think in terms of beginnings and endings or particles at all."

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 12:14 GMT
The smug and impatient NYT journalist can no more hurry the progress of science than Canute can command the ocean's waves. I'm sure he knows this -- yet, the idea seems to persist in the popular mind that all explanations are simple and all knowledge ought to be worth some equivalent sum of money, in terms of technology.

Science and technology are not equivalent, however, and often simple explanations are the result of many years of complicated research, failed experiments, specialized language and bad guesses. Science is knowledge for its own sake -- as Jacob Bronowski put it, "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

At a conference a few years ago -- it was at a big hotel, so there were people there for other reasons -- I found myself at the bar seated next to a man sipping what I learned was an apple martini. As it happens, he is a wealthy man who owns marinas from the Great Lakes to the Florida coast. After telling me the story of his success and learning my reason for being there, he asked about my conference presentation. After I asked him a few questions about complex systems, trying to find a path of common understanding, and getting nowhere, I took a long pause to drink my beer and reflect on the answer. He suddenly leaned into my face with noticeable irritation, saying, "Go on -- tell me what you DO." Before I could reply, he swigged the last of his third or fourth apple martini and left, convinced, I surmise, that I am just one of the many worthless human beings stealing his oxygen while trying to relieve him of his fortune through govenrment handouts.

As Kurt Vonnegut would say: and so it goes.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 15:59 GMT
Mr. Moldoveanu,

I think that people who write about "time travel" should be required to define exactly what they mean by the words "time travel." Would it be productive to discuss "financial interest rates," for example, without everyone beginning the discussion with an unambiguous definition of what constitutes a "financial interest rate"? Why do we simply assume that everyone understands exactly what is meant by the term "time travel" (or, for that matter, by the term "time")? Intuitively obvious, you say? I think not. Please do me the huge favor of reading (or re-reading, as the case may be) the essay which I submitted to the most recent FQXi essay competition and which may be found here. Then let's talk about time travel. Thank you.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Mr. Smith,

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:35 GMT
Mr. Moldoveanu,

For openers, how do you define time travel?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 03:23 GMT
This is the question at the end of the blog post. For now we know only of two kinds of time travel: general relativity closed timelike curves which are exact solutions of Einstein’s equations, and teleportation to the past, meaning the information disappears from present and appears in the past. The first kind of time travel is hypothetical, while the second was experimentally observed. But the first kind is falsifiable while the second is not, meaning it is only a consistent narrative of what is going on, other inequivalent narratives are possible.

There is yet a third kind of time travel, the science fiction one in “back to the future” where the present changes instantaneously whenever the past does (remember the picture with the vanishing brothers on it), but this is only author’s fantasy, and it is not based on acceptable physics.

The origin on closed timelike curves in general relativity is easily understood. In Einstein’s equations matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move. Moreover, Einstein’s equations are only local equations and while causality is always obeyed locally, globally one can bend spacetime on itself, and there are many exact solutions obeying this.

The teleportation to the past is only a narrative, and this is not strange at all: consider the classic “car and the garage relativistic “paradox” “ where the driver of the car and a stationary observer do have different, yet correct narratives of the same sequence of events.

report post as inappropriate

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 16:02 GMT
The "System" apparently logged me out before I submitted my previous "anonymous" post. Sorry.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Fast Fred wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:22 GMT
Florin, to travel into the past is the same as traveling from the future. It is clearly impossible. Everyone's space/experience is different as well; so, it is also impossible for this reason as well.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Nice post, Florin.

When you announced it, I had a hunch that it will be about Seth Lloyd et. al.'s papers. I agree with the conclusion of their articles, because quantum teleportation combined with post-selection is a straightforward idea, implicit in quantum mechanics.

They use the expression "post-selected CTCs" many times - but their CTCs are not of the type of those in general relativity. The CTCs in general relativity are closed timelike curves which are derivable at any point. Dropping derivability allows "CTCs" in the Minkowski space too: just take two wordlines with common starting event and ending event. It is this kind of CTCs they refer in their article. They do not predict closed timelike loops as in general relativity. But they name them CTCs anyway, because the state which is teleported can be interpreted naturally as propagating in the past.

So, I think that the idea that CTCs as defined in general relativity should be ruled out is not contradicted by Seth Lloyd et. al.'s result. (However, I don't see yet reasons for ruling it out.)

best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 00:36 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I am glad you enjoyed it. You raise a very good point with derivability. So can you venture a guess on the question at the en of the blog post?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 12:51 GMT
A post CTC is not one where you can expect to either send information into the past or to receive it from the future. The P-CTC is really about time-entanglement than time travel.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 05:11 GMT
Lawrence, I agree.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:47 GMT
General relativistic solutions with CTCs are trivial to construct: just "roll" the Minkowski spacetime by making the time periodic. However, the authors of the paper seem to imply the contrary: "it took several decades before Godel proposed an explicit space-time geometry containing closed timelike curves (CTCs)."

Godel's solution is important not because it introduced the first time CTCs, but because it introduced them as a logical consequence of general relativity and a rotating universe. That is, under plausible circumstances, it predicted CTCs. Godel's universe, the rotating black holes, the Casimir effect, are good reasons for someone who accepts general relativity to think twice before ruling out the CTCs. And to think thrice before accepting them :-)

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Florin,

I can't help feeling there is a bit of hype in the naming of these phenomena.

Lets say I have a book and I tear it in half. One half of the book remains in the the UK but is not identified as beginning or end. Just put straight into a brown envelope. The other half is sent to Australia. If the UK half of the book is then burned, still without being identified as to beginning or end, the information that might have been obtained from the book half is destroyed with it.

To find out that information a telephone call can be made to Australia and one can ask is your half of the book the beginning or the end. If it is the end the UK book half was the beginning and if it is the beginning then the UK half was the end. Lost information has been recovered but only at the speed of the telephone call. Is there more to it than that? What if a book lover, Mr. Jones looks at the book half in Australia . If it is the start of the book he is happy, if it is the end half of the book he is miserable. Now all one need ask on the telephone is "is is Mr Jones happy or miserable?" Information has been recovered but there has been no teleporatation or time travel, in the sense that most people would use for those terms.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 01:02 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Nice example. Have you heard about “Bertlmann’s socks”? John Bell wrote a famous essay: “Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality”: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00220688/en/ The essay starts with:

“The philosopher in the street, who has not suffered a course in quantum mechanics, is quite unimpressed by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. He can point to many examples of similar correlations in everyday life. The case of Bertlmann's socks is often cited. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see (Fig. 1) that the first sock is pink you can be already sure that the second sock will not be pink. Observation of the first, and experience of Bertlmann, gives immediate information about the second. There is no accounting for tastes, but apart from that there is no mystery here. And is not the EPR business just the same?”

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 01:03 GMT
Florin,

I really appreciate the time you are giving to reply to our questions and comments. I would be interested to know if the scenario I have given here is the macroscopic equivalent of what you are describing, or if there is something more that I have not yet grasped.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:53 GMT
What do Closed Time-like Curves allow you to do? In other words, is it hoped that we can build a CTC generator and create a wormhole between the present and the past? In the movie, The Philadelphia Experiment, that had a wormhole that could span from 1950 to 1980. Is this the idea of a CTC?

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:35 GMT
This is why I think time travel is a matter of fantasy:

A time traveler in the year 2010 leaves our reality to go back let’s say 200 years. He pops up in a reality that is exactly as our universe had been 200 years ago. However, the reality of 2010 which he left behind still exists with all the people in it minus the traveler. Another time traveler travels forward 300 years into the future. He arrives in a real universe that is exactly like ours will be in 300 years. Now we have 3 simultaneously existing universes.

If we could time travel to any time we wanted, past or future, the world must be populates with an infinitive number of existing universes representing any moment of the history and the future of our current universe. In the countless universes, that cover our life span, we would exist simultaneously in all stages of our lives.

In these realities, we would be condemned to experience and to do exactly the same things we did and will do in our current reality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 10:59 GMT
Hi Wolf,

The space-time concept suggests that every single object must be replicated or smeared through time to be in every space-time position it has ever occupied, (if it is taken to be existential external reality rather than just subjective experience.) That is a vast mass of tea cups alone. When every single material object is considered it becomes nonsensical.

I agree that there can not be free will if there are many versions of the self existing at different times.If a former version of ones self got killed, by living life with free will, this current self would have to wink out of existence. People are not observed to just vanish because they have suddenly ceased to exist. So it is extremely unlikely that this happening.

A wise man, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said" You can not step twice into the same stream, for as you are stepping in other and yet other water flows on." IMO We can not step into the past because the matter of the universe is flowing on in continual non linear motion. Wait just a little too long, step back into the space that has been passed through and the earth is no longer there.

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Georgina:

With the smeared time concept, I have my problems.

The whole thing is easy to explain if one excepts the concept that only the present (or as you call it the Now) is real and that future, past, and time are illusions.

Our physics are the physics of the past and future without regard of the present. In this non-existing world time travel clearly is possible. However it happens inside of our head only.

I prefer to time travel by visiting a museum.

Wolf

report post as inappropriate

Wolf Krebs replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 16:23 GMT
Sorry it should have been: ....... if one accepts the concept .....

Wolf

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 06:37 GMT
Dear Wolf,

Your argument makes total sense. With every additional universe that exists due to time travel, an entire universe worth of energy has to pop into existence. For this reason, time travel is a flagrant violation of conservation of energy. By the same reasoning, so is the many worlds interprettaion of quantum mechanics.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 09:07 GMT
Florin, I'll try to give you my view on your question at the end of your blog post:

The "time travel" based on post-selection does not offer much freedom to choose the object to be teleported. The object in cause must already be entangled with another object in a very special way. These constrains reduce the freedom of choosing the object (it has to be "entanglable" enough), and the destination time and place (the choice is done when they become entangled).

So, naming this effect "time travel" is similar to calling "teleportation" this phenomenon. Teleportation in time is in fact delayed choice quantum teleportation.

IMO, its importance resides in building intuition about the quantum world, and not in providing a viable mean of time travel for practical purposes.

As for the apparent lack of falsifiability, it is a manifestation of the counterfactuality of quantum phenomena, in particular of entanglement. I consider it as falsifiable as any EPR phenomenon can be.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 11:04 GMT
Hi dear Christi,

All that is very interesting.

But I beleive humbly that the time travel is not possible but the teletransportation is logic.

My little solution is this one

Firts ,check the rotating spheres and the two senses,1 for the gravitational stability and 2 for the light ,thus the aim is simple, the gravity must become light and after we reencodes the gravitational stability after a transfert between 2 points.

Regards

Steve

Of course for that we must check the main central code,thus.....

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Steve,

thank you. I think that

TELEPORTATION & THEORY OF RELATIVITY => TIME TRAVEL

Please see the attach figure. Let's assume that Alice teleports Laika from her lab at A to Bob's lab at B, which is on a spaceship flying away from Alice. Then, Bob teleports Laika back to Alice's lab. Laika will appear in Alice's lab at a time previous to the time when the first teleportation took place.

Please note that I do not claim that this kind of time travel or teleportation are possible, just that they are logically equivalent assuming that theory of relativity is true.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Can you please explain to me the word counterfactual. I did not find it in my English dictionanries. Does it mean nonsensical? Is there a corresponding German word?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:18 GMT
Dear Cristi,

You said, "TELEPORTATION & THEORY OF RELATIVITY => TIME TRAVEL"

Do you believe that when we talk about time travel, that we should specify whether we mean:

a) causality observant time travel versus,

b) causality violating time travel?

It is my opinion that the theory of relativity does not have causality built into it. More specifically, the light cone is used to protect causality. However, I believe that the light cone can be violated in the following way.

Consider a quantum entanglement experiment. Let us imagine that 10^19 entangled pairs of electrons are distributed between two drums. The idea is that when one drum is beat, both drums will emit noise. Now separate the drums by a light year. In principle, two drummers could communicate with each other in real time.

If you accept that this experiment is plausible, then you might begin to realize that the light cone is not sufficient to protect causality.

Can you comment?

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Jason,

I don't think that we can use entanglement to send useful/accessible information outside the light cone. But I agree that the lightcone by itself doesn't protect against time travel. Many solutions in general relativity allow CTCs, which basically means that the history of a point can be cyclical: it returns to the initial point (they are not the same as CTCs in Seth Lloyd et. al.'s papers). CTCs are a way to escape the lightcone prison. Another possible escape is provided by tachyons, if they exist. I don't think that there exists a proof that CTCs and tachyons cannot really exist. Which doesn't mean that I think they should exist. Frankly, I don't know.

The only arguments against CTCs and tachyons and time travel in general is the so-called violation of causality, in particular grandfather's paradox. But there are possible solutions to these problems, which are in fact counterexamples to the statement that causality precludes, in principle, time travel.

I think that the principle of causality is invoked too often without being enunciated, this causing misunderstandings. Maybe people feel uncomfortable at the thought that they may be erased completely from the history, and they invent "proofs" that time travel is impossible. I don't think that the past can be erased, but maybe an alternative past can be created.

To conclude, I am agnostic about time travel and teleportation other than the quantum ones which don't really transmit useful information.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 20:27 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I don't know why I haven't responded to this post before; maybe I did, and my post got moved. Oh well.

The light-cone prevents information from being transmitted FTL simply because photons have to carry the information. Let me describe what I think is happening.

Photons cause the Higgs field to exist. They are in photo-equilibrium with the Higgs field; similar to chemical equilibrium between reactants and products.

The Higgs field causes the conservation of momentum to exist.

The Higgs field implements distant, 3D space and the rate of flow of time. Since photons are in photo-equilibrium with the Higgs field, they are continuously calibrating distance and advancing the flow of time for our atomic clocks.

Obviously, the Higgs field also gives particles there mass by virtue of their energy, E = mc2; m = E/c^2. Energy is conserved by the Higgs field.

The Higgs field can manifest as space-time; it is responsible for the effects of gravity. The Higgs field is like a brane from string theory. The Higgs field has energy levels that correspond to gravity.

The Higgs field is implemented by photons which have to red-shift or blue-shift in order to climb up and down the potential energy wells.

The Higgs field, at its lowest energy, is the zero point energy vacuum.

It is difficult (impossible) to determine that one is at rest with respect to the Higgs field, which really is just space-time. All we can say for certain is that we are at the lowest energy point of the Higgs field because our atomic clock runs the fastest, because we are at a point of least time dilation.

For the case of the Big Bang and the superluminal jet from M87, I attribute the superluminal behavior to the effect that the Higgs field's available energy states are all used up. This forces new Higgs field into existence. During this process of Higg-genesis, the ability of photons to calibrate distance is disrupted.

I believe that he Higgs field, also known as space-time, rarely called the aether, is a froth of wave functions. Wave functions act like wave guides for virtual photons.

If your picturing the Higgs field as a weave or mesh of fiber optic cables, that's fine if you remember a couple of things:

a. wave functions are wave guides for virtual photons and virtual particles.

b. real photons and real particles exist adjacent to the Higgs field, as opposed to virtual photons/particles which are inseparable from the Higgs field.

c. wave functions themselves, as the fibers of the weave of space time, have no physically tangible (touchable) existence. As a metaphor, roads and highways allow traffic to travel; but the roads and highways are not (generally) part of the activity of the traffic.

Does this explanation make sense?

Are there any noticeable flaws in my interpretation?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 21:27 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I think the longest distance for quantum entanglement is about 1 meter. After that, noise becomes a problem. That's why I suggest 10^19 entangled pairs in order to raise the signal to noise ratio. Like I was telling Ray, information is typically thought of as a definite 1 or 0; so how many Fourier series terms does it take to get a discernible 0 or 1. I think that is the challenge for information transmission via quantum entanglement.

For causality, let's imagine that some more victim is shot by an attacker. I cannot conceive of how the gunshot can occur unless an attacker pulls the trigger and shoots them. Traveling FTL, it might be possible to somehow see the gunshot wound occur before seeing the attacker open fire, but there is no way to prevent the attacker from pulling the trigger once that gunshot wound occurs.

The problem with CTC's is that it is just too easy to create a paradox and force the laws of physics to create a whole new universe out of nothingness, and then move it somewhere without anyone noticing.

Real time is occurring everywhere in the universe. Since photons are kind of slow, communication between distance points is subject to delays. If tachyons existed, or what I call hyper-photons, it might increase the range of real time communication between distant points. I don't see how that would cause any paradox at all.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 22:21 GMT
Jason,

Wow, you could not be more wrong! Quantum entanglements are blind to distance. An EPR pair can exist in an entanglement with arbitrary distance, and with fiber optics entanglements with photons have been found across considerable distances, which I think is up to the order of 100 km or so. There was an experiment done across the Atlantic, but I don’t recall this was an entanglement experiment.

These Einstein lenses are beam splitters of sorts. Photons exhibit a strange physics called Hanbury Brown-Twiss effect. This is where photons at detection enter into an entanglement or superposition at the homodyne. Now for a distant galaxy a long wavelength radio wave at the detection at VLA or some such radio telescope could be a superposition of states, that being where the photon crossed on one side or the other of the intervening galaxy which lensed the radiation. Now one needs to have a band pass set so that the uncertainty in the distance is such that the path difference is smaller than the Heisenberg uncertainty in distance. One may then perform a Wheeler DeWitt Choice experiment, where the radio astronomers may determine which side of this galactic beam spitter the photon traveled along. In doing this you are looking at set the post selected state which then correlates with the initial state emitted by a galaxy several billions of light years away, and about that many billions of light years into past. Stunning!

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
I'm wrong about which part? Entanglement occurs across distances much larger than 1 meter. OK, I got that.

Can you tell if I'm wrong about trying to use lots of entangled electrons to provide multiple terms in a Fourier series to get at a definite 1 or 0 (thus information)?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 01:24 GMT
Entanglements can occur across any distance. Quantum states are really blind to distance, and only have a represetnation in space or spacetime with respect to the causal structure of observables.

As for trying to use lots of entangled electrons I am not sure what you are trying to say.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 06:01 GMT
Hi Jason,

entanglement is not affected by distance, but it is affected by the interactions on the way. This problem can be avoided and experiments proved entanglement over very large distances, so that the speed needed to explain it by classical means is 10000 c.

What Lawrence said is correct: in quantum teleportation you need to make available/useful the information sent by entanglement using another information sent by classical means. That's why I said "I don't think that we can use entanglement to send useful/accessible information outside the light cone.".

On the other hand, just the information sent by classical channel is not responsible for the teleportation. They both are needed.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 09:43 GMT
Hi Cristi,

"That's why I said "I don't think that we can use entanglement to send useful/accessible information outside the light cone.".

What would be an example of useless information?

A commercial?

A pickup line?

A pun?

Evening news?

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 11:11 GMT
Hi Jason.

Think of it like an encrypted information. It is useless and not accessible. It becomes useful when it can be accessed, and this happens after another information is received, on a classical channel (like mail, email, phone, smoke signal etc.). The encrypted information behaves like it was sent instantaneously, through entanglement, but no matter what will you do, you can't use it to transmit something meaningful.

As a metaphor, think that Alice has a box, and Bob another. Alice puts a pet in her box, for example a cat or a dog. Then closes her box, and when she opens it, the cat is gone. "Instantaneously", the cat appears in Bob's box. But he deosn't know, because he doesn't have the key to open the box. So he needs to wait for the key. The box cannot be opened without the key, but the key by itself can't tell Bob what is inside. That's why it appears that the content of the box was teleported, because the key is not enough to reveal it.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 13:06 GMT
The situation is similar to a combination safe, with the combination locked inside of it. This classical picture has only a brute force solution; i.e., try all possible combinations. If one has an infinite amount of time, one will eventually open the safe.

Suppose, though, that one has access to an extra dimension. In that case, the information locked in the safe is transparent. One can retrieve the combination, therefore, and position this information "outside" the safe in the classical world. Of course, the combination may still be so complicated that it will take a practically infinite amount of time to apply it, using classical computing, and open the safe.

With quantum computing, however, we expect to reduce the number of solutions to a computably finite range by constraining the parameters within the problem domain.

One will naturally ask, if the combination can be retrieved, why not just forget about the combination and simply retrieve the contents of the safe? Forget it -- because unless the problem has a classical solution, we cannot say that we have opened the safe. We have to bring the information back to the classical domain of real safes and safecrackers. So this ordered key, the combination, is the algorithm -- the compressed information -- that allows us to uncompress the contents of the "safe."

In any case, relevant to the "time travel" discussion, we cannot differentiate between the act of retrieving the combination by access to an extra dimension, and the act of travelling "back in time" to when the combination was locked into the safe in the first place. That is how we relate computability to the cosmological problem, under discussion in Lev Goldfarb's "Limits of mathematics in cosmology" forum.

I find this real problem in the real world much more challenging, interesting and intellectually satisfying than all the fuzzy speculation in pop-sci and sci-fi about "time travel."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Cristi,

So, the cat or dog is "instantly" transported from box A to box B; however, you can't get "Fluffy" out the box until the key arrives. This sounds like a clever ploy to rob quantum entanglemnent of the ability to transmit information FTL. This is done by requiring that a "key" to unlock the encrypted cat or dog.

So what happens if we open the Bob reaches inside (detects) to get Fluffy before the key arrives?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 13:07 GMT
Jason,

Think of entanglement this way. A spin system has in the basis of the Pauli matrix σ_z the states |+> and |-> for spin up and down. The Pauli matrix acts on these states as

σ_z|±> = ±|±->.

Now these states are complex numbers, which means there are 2 variables for each state and thus 4 altogether. However, there are constraints, such as the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 14:32 GMT
Since Lawrence provided this technical description, I will use it to illustrate something that usually is not visible in metaphoric descriptions using a password protected safe. We may think to try all the possible solutions, to eventually open the box before any signal traveling at maximum velocity c can give us the password. Thus, we may conclude that there is no need of the classical signal. This will not work. In the entangled spin example described by Lawrence, we can see that any password (that is, any orientation of the Stern-Gerlach device) will try Alice, she will be able to "open the box" and find the particle having the spin along that particular axis. The spin will be either positive or negative, but not necessarily that teleported by Bob. She will obtain Bob's spin only if she will measure it along the axis sent by Bob via classical means.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 17:04 GMT
I should have included that fact that Alice and Bob have to have the SG apparatuses oriented in the same direction. Yet this is the necessary piece of information required to make the teleportation work. The advantage of teleportation is still clear, for the classical information sent is small in this case. A single bit of classical information is used to unlock quantum information involving two bits. So there is a savings in the amount of classical information which needs to actually be sent. This advantage can increase enormously for N Q-bits in an entanglement, or NOON states.

An interesting problem to consider is the following. Suppose Alice and Bob have their EPR pairs. Alice sends her SG apparatus data to Bob. Bob can from then reduce the 3 variables to 2 to work out the teleported message or receive the teleported state. Now let us throw a spanner in the works. Suppose a gravity wave passes through the space during the teleportation. This may mean that the vector corresponding to the orientations of the SG apparatuses are parallel translated. This means that when Alice sends here SG axis information it will only pertain to that orientation in her local inertial frame. This may deviate from Bob’s local inertial frame. So while the SG z-axis in flat spacetime might agree during the passage of the gravity wave there is (δz)UV = R(z,U)V. This will then detune the teleportation and give some probability for the decoherence in the EPR pair or noise in the signal. The is also an interesting symmetry at work here as well. If the SG apparatuses are off axis during the teleportation due to the gravity wave this is equivalent to the gravity wave changing the classical information about the SG orientations.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 19:42 GMT
Interesting problem, Lawrence.

I would assume quantum theory in curved spacetime, so that the gravitational field is not quantized, and the entangled particles don't exchange gravitons with the environment. So I will ignore decoherence.

I will assume that Bob's and Alice's systems were in the same place when the particles became entangled, and that their systems are "free-falling". Then, I don't see any reason that the probability changes from 1. The orientations of the two systems remain the same as those of the particles (although they are in a superposition of separated states). So, any perturbation of the orientation of one of the systems will be the same as the perturbation of the two entangled particles. There is no reason that the classical information is perturbed by the gravitational field, we can encode it binary to make sure. So, Alice and Bob will obtain the full correlation between the spins of their particles.

We can think at this by using an exponential map at the event when the entanglement is produced. Then, Alice and Bob are moving along geodesics. If we parallely transport their frames back to the origin, we obtain that the orientations are not changed. The "third edge" of the triangle, the trajectory of the classical information, is irrelevant here.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 00:35 GMT
Cristi,

The rotation by a gravity wave is a bit like the rotation of an SG apparatus in a Bell experiment. The SG apparatus experiences a shear which can rotate the direction of the SG apparatus. So if Bob’s SG is rotated this will induce a change in the amplitudes which enter the Bell norm. The gravity wave is classical as are the apparatuses. It seems to me that if Alice then sends here SG orientation data to Bob this data will deviate from the actual orientation. An extreme example of course of such parallel translation of an SG apparatus is when Alice falls into a black hole, for in that case Alice can’t send anything back out to Bob. The decoherence induced by spacetime curvature would then continuously vary to 0 in the limit Alice sends the key out on approach to the event horizon.

This might serve as a possible method for detecting gravity waves. It also might provide a machine to examine some questions in quantum gravity. In particular, if the gravity wave is linear it can be easily quantized. (BTW contrary to that guy on the PS3 page you can quantize gravity within some asymptotic limits. We just don’t have the whole picture yet). Then one can look at what happens if the two SG apparatuses are quantized and entangled with the EPR pairs. The classical measurement is then done by a third apparatus. In this case the gravity wave couples to the SG apparatuses and serves as a model for a weak quantum gravity process.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 04:50 GMT
Lawrence,

If the perturbation would be of a different nature, it would be likely to induce a rotation. But I think that gravity would affect identically the spin orientation and the SG orientation of Bob. That's the equivalence principle.

So, I think that they can't detect gravitational waves only based on the spin orientation they find. They have to do something else, for example they have to measure the orientations with respect to distant stars. Or Bob can apply a parallel transport to his system bringing it back to Alice's, and compare the orientations to find the deviation due to curvature which you stated.

In the attached image, the point is that you can use surgery to cut and replace the spacetime between Alice and Bob, but the neighborhoods of their geodesics will remain the same.

attachments: EPR_in_GR.gif

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 16:41 GMT
Cristi,

Of course the extreme case of parallel transport is from a black hole. If Alice teleports quantum states from inside a black hole to Bob on the outside, which is perfectly possible, Alice is not able to transmit the key to Bob. So Bob has his spins in the EPR pair, but there are 3 degrees of freedom involved. So Bob is not able to deduce the Q-bits sent on the teleportation. Bob performs a measurement and finds pure noise.

The question seems to boil down to whether this is a continuous process. Assume there is some coherence function F, for lack of a better name at the moment, such that F = 1 for teleportation on flat spacetime, 0 for teleportation across an event horizon. Then is this a continuous function with respect to curvature, or is it discontinuous across an event horizon? This seems to be the problem which needs to be solved.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 17:34 GMT
Lawrence,

Let's assume that she sends a digital and redundant signal. We consider the time interval required by the signal to reach Bob to be T(r), parameterized by the Schwarzschild coordinate r of the event when Alice sends the signal. The time interval T(r) Bob needs to wait to receive the signal goes to infinity as r decreases to r_0. When r=r_0, he needs to wait an infinite amount of time. When r is less than r_0, the signal cannot go outside, ending up in the singularity. The time interval T(r) Bob needs to wait is not continuous at r=r_0. Therefore, Alice being in the black hole cannot be an extreme case of she being outside the black hole.

However, as long as she is outside the event horizon, no matter how close to r_0, Bob will eventually receive the signal. Since the signal is digital, it will not be perturbed, no matter how long (but finite) will be the time interval he waits. The content of the message will not be affected by the gravitational redshift for instance.

Regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 13:18 GMT
At the size of Planck information and energy transfer are immediate.

Space is made out of quanta of space size of Planck.

Space is a direct information medium ob EPR.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
Tom,

I have circumnavigated the world without finding an edge or falling off. However if I had never left my local village in my lifetime it would be a reasonable assumption.

How do you -know- magic rabbits don't exist and elephants can not vanish?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 19:44 GMT
I'm sorry that reply was in response to Tom's question "Georgina, do you think the world might really be flat? How do you know it isn't?"

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 11:13 GMT
Georgina, if all that one knows comes from personal experience, one doesn't know that one knows anything.

Science isn't made from reasonable assumptions. An assumption that the earth is flat is just as reasonable as otherwise.

I can see no room for objective knowledge in your philosophy.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
Cristi,

The question comes down to what we mean by an entanglement in general spacetimes. If you have two sets of spin operators {σ_i, σ’_i, I = 1,2,3} and an entangled state between their corresponding spins

|ψ> = (1/sqrt{2})(|+>|-> + |->|+>)

then a measurement of one spin at location x tells you something about the spin at location x’. As...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 21:21 GMT
Cristi, The matrix equation failed. For some reason I have no trouble getting TeX to work, but endless problems with this. The little graphic gives the pp-wave for a weak field case, which is the intended matrix.

Cheers LC

attachments: ppwave.GIF

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 05:17 GMT
Lawrence,

if Alice & Bob want to obtain a deviation, they have to introduce it themselves: "They have to do something else*, for example they have to measure the orientations with respect to distant stars.", as I said in a comment to you yesterday. In this case you can calculate a probability > 0 that the state is not teleported to Bob, and you did so.

Regards,

Cristi

_________

*instead of using freely falling reference frames, which is the natural choice.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
Cristi,

The nonzero probability the state is not teleported of course could be corrected by Bob. He might say, "Ah yes there is an angle θ deviation due to Einstein’s relativity and if I transport my orientation vector back to Alice this is deviated back by -2θ and so I have to account for these two and adjust by SG apparatus appropriately. This would then correct for the “error” introduced by spacetime curvature. However, if the spacetime curvature is invisible, say a black hole or a gravity wave then such compensations are not as easily done.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 00:51 GMT
Cristi,

In what I wrote above I said that the uncertainty was given by B[σ_z, σ_x])/sqrt{2} ~= ħθσ_y. I suppose to clarify things it would be best if I said the uncertainty principle is

ΔsΔθ = ħ< |(θσ_y)^2| > = ħθ.

Since the measurement of spin is fairly sharp or nearly certain we have that Δθ =~ 2π and the uncertainty in the spin measurement is approximately (ħ/2)(θ/π). This is then a bit of quantum noise that results I think for spacetime curvature. This is an uncertainty spread which says that even if Alice gets a certain value for the spin Bob will measure something in his frame that deviates from this slightly. This noise will then result in a stochastic noise in the teleportation of a state or a Q-bit.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
I think I see the paradox of quantum entanglement and information. Information can only be carried by a photon. And photons only travel at the speed of light, for all observers. So even if two electrons are quantumly entangled, and carried lightyears away, wiggling one electron will cause the entangled electron to wiggle (FINE PRINT: as soon as the photons cross the distance between the two particles). Therefore, wave functions have some of the properties of photons, but are no photons themselves. Wavefunctions merely provide eigenstates, choices for where the photons can carry there (1) energy, (2) force, (3) causal transaction.

Photons have to be the carriers of causality because they carry energy, momentum, and occasionally force.

Question: does quantum entanglement still work if you put up a wall between two entangled electrons?

If a photon has to cross the distance between the two entangled electrons, I'm sure that putting up a wall between them might make it difficult to maintain entanglement. After all, if one entangled electron is inside of a lead box, being wiggled, how can the photons get to the other electron?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT
The classical information one must send to construct a teleported state has as many Q-bits as the Q-bits you reconstruct. Above I indicate how the entangled state of two electrons has 6 bits of information, which is 2 more than the 4 bits for separate unentangled electrons. So Bob has need of 3 variables, and Alice has her 2. By sending the SG apparatus orientations this nails down the remaining two, which Bob uses to read out his two bits of information. So no information is ever sent faster than light.

So what good is this? For N-bits this nonlocal entanglement of the states can be used to compute an outcome much faster. Then to read out the result the various nodes must "communicate" by classical means the selection of eigenstates they used.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 01:38 GMT
Does anybody know if quantum entanglement still works through walls?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 02:49 GMT
Yes it does. It will even work across the galaxy.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Questions arose few months ago over my claim that there is 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'. This, if you recall, was central to my explanation of the double-slit experiment (at least the 'single emissions' version by Tonomura in 1989). Recently, I have new results that seem to confirm this claim, using Thermodynamics. I like to have your comments on this. The paper is Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time', and in it I show a direct connection between Entropy and Time and derive Boltzmann's Entropy Equation from Planck's Formula. In light of these results, the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be interpreted to say that 'all physical processes take time to occur”.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Yes, any physical process does happen in a timespan. It takes time to occur. One could also say time is a measure of physical processes. Please do not say it happens in time because this is mistakable as belief in an a priori given future.

There is no direction in time but a direction of time.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 01:57 GMT
Hello Eckard,

You are right. Your point is well taken. The phrase 'it happens in time' can be misinterpreted. Although there is a way that even this makes sense. Perhaps in later posts I may explain further. I will make this correction in my paper. But to the larger points in my thrice revised paper, Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time'.

1)It is possible to derive directly from Planck's Law, and without using statistics, Boltzmann's Entropy Equation. The opposite is also true. This also results in an equation giving the number of microstates at any time t.

2)Using the Fundamental Thermodynamic Relation, it can be shown that there is 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'. This Relation is rephrased in light of the results in the paper to read as 'total lapse of time for a physical process equals the lapse of time for the accumulation of energy plus the lapse of time for the manifestation of energy for the process to occur'.

3)The idea that there is 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy' plays a key role in many of my papers, and specifically in my plausible explanation of the single-emission double-slit experiment of Tonomura (1989).

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 19:31 GMT
Hello Constantinos,

Accumulation is roughly identical with integration or summation. A while ago I came to the idea that the original physical processes are not to be described with differential equations but with such summation of influences. DEQs are derived from them by a generalization i.e. on the expense lost particular conditions. That's why mathematical solutions are affected by ambiguity and one has to exclude the unreal advanced particular solutions. Meanwhile I would like add a slight amendment: The integration is not restricted to addition but it also includes subtractions. There is for instance constructive as well as destructive interference.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 20:12 GMT
Does there exist a logical reason not to think that space-time is implemented by virtual photons? At the quantum scale, there are virtual particles continually being created and annihilated. It is a boiling froth of activity. If this is so, then we can imagine virtual photons constantly being created. They expand outwards at the speed of light; similarly to what you see when you throw a handful of rocks into a lake, the water rings expand outwards.

Virtual photons themselves are the implementers of the laws of physics; they contain all of the physics constants as characteristics. Photons have the Lorentz transformation built into them because they create space and the flow of time. Virtual photons are continually popping into existence everywhere in space, at every point, continually.

Space-time exists because virtual photons manifest it.

If quantum mechanics and general relativity are true, and I believe them to be true, they they have to be implemented by objects that are intimately similar to photons, yet are generally invisible. Thus, the virtual photon.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 07:58 GMT
If anyone is interested, here is the video to a UFO/alien Full Disclosure Effort.

Apparently, there is a way to use zero point energy to achieve FTL capability as well as limitless energy.

I hope your skepticism works out for you.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
Tom,

They are not incompatible realities at all though. Only incompatible in the way that an experience of an optical illusion is not the same as the material reality that is generating the illusion. Both are real, both co-exist. One is generated by the interpretation of information. The other is the underlying reality, that is necessary, for generation of the information.

The underlying reality is -independent of the observer-. The experienced reality depends upon observer -and- underlying reality. This is not a difficult or unreasonable concept. I assume you do not have a problem with accepting that optical illusions are a real phenomenon. Similarly experience of perspective. The variable size of objects that are experienced, which is at odds with their fixed measurable dimensions. Both the experience and the different measured reality co-exit. Though it means that things that appear unequal are equal.

You said " The two puzzles both fit together perfectly -- just not with each other." Yes and No. Yes, for the same reason that the optical illusion reality can not be the same as the measured reality. They are both real though. -No, because they -do- fit together, just not in the usual or expected way. Inters-subjective observed reality is inseparable from underlying external reality -and- the observers. The cake can not exist without the ingredients -and- the cook (or machine) to combine and bake them. The ingredients can exist all by themselves and -must- exist or there could be no cake.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 22:14 GMT
Georgina,

_Of course_ I have a problem with treating an optical illusion, or any other kind of illusion, as real. It's the measured reality that informs us that the illusion is not real.

Inter-subjective reality is not operationally differentiable from objective reality.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 23:26 GMT
Tom,

Inter-subjective reality is observation that can be confirmed by other people seeing the same thing. If a whole group of people observe the same optical illusion it is objectively real- in your opinion. Though you are also saying you have a problem treating an optical illusion or any other kind of illusion as real. You can't have it both ways here. What do you consider to be real? That which is observed and can be agreed upon by many people or that which exists independently of that observation. I am saying it is both because they are different kinds of reality. Just ask people what is real and they will say it is what they can see!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
Cristi,

This case of teleportation is rather trivial in a way. However, if Alice orients her SG apparatus according to some coordinate, say aligned with some distant fixed star, then Bob must use this information to get the spin Alice measured. If Bob were to orient his SG apparatus along any direction this would destroy the spin information. The measurement Bob would obtain would be different than Alice’s, and in the extreme case he were to choose a direction orthogonal to what Alice set up all that spin information would be lost. Of course Alice could then send a message, I got spin up along axis z, but this is redundant. For a larger entangled set of states it is best to send the SG orientation so the teleported state with far larger number of Q-bits is teleported rather than sending a classical signal with those outcomes explicitly spelled out.

I attach an image file that illustrates what gravitation would do. Alice would say, “My SG is oriented along the line of sight of such as such a star.” Bob gets that data and orients his SG along the direction of that star and uses this classical information to set up his SG spin direction. However, the intervening gravity field causes Bob to orient his direction differently that Alice’s direction. The optical bending of the light path by gravity determines a slight error is what Alice sends. So this is not a matter of the signal Alice sends becoming distorted or noisy, it is that it is referenced to a direction that will appear different from what Bob observes. This discrepancy is what results in the degradation in the teleportation of the state.

The degradation in the classical signal may occur if Alice sends her signal close to a black hole. The signal is highly redshifted, and if the wavelength of the signal is larger than the lower band of Bob’s receiver that too will result in a loss of information Bob can use correctly. This is related, but not exactly the same as this case. For redshifting this involves not only some possible spatial orientation problems, but temporal “orientations” problems as well.

Cheers LC

attachments: Alice_Bob_teleportsun.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 21:53 GMT
Lawrence,

We agreed since the beginning of our discussion that if Alice and Bob want to obtain a deviation, they can use as reference distant stars [my comment on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 04:50 GMT].

I propose the following arrangement of an EPR-Bohm experiment in curved spacetime:

i) Alice and Bob perform the experiment on a large number of entangled pairs.

ii) Alice and Bob's frames are overlapping at the position and time when the pairs of particles become entangled.

iii) Their local frames are moving inertially (in curved spacetime) away from each other. Their particles, although entangled, will move inertially too.

iv) Alice and Bob flip coins to choose between the directions Y and Z (this is to avoid the need for a classical signal).

v) Alice/Bob orients her/his Stern-Gerlach device as the coins tell her/his, with respect to her/his own frame (and not with distant stars).

vi) Alice and Bob compare their results, to see if when they both used the same axis the correlation was 100%, and when they used different axes, it was only 50%.

QUESTION: In this experimental arrangement, would there be any deviation due to gravitational perturbations?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 02:07 GMT
Cristi,

The experiment could be done, but here is my take on the matter. I will at first assume the sort of asymptotic situation above, and in particular limit that to a local radially symmetric gravity field. If Alice were to move to the other side of the sun, she would not do it by following the path the photons take. Curiously it is actually a bit hard to send a spacecraft so it is planted stationary on the other side of the sun, but the path would be some sort of elliptical path which carries it out away from the sun some and then it passes through that region. So this is a different path than the photons take. If we were to integrate around the closed path of Alice’s orbit to the far side of the sun which connects back to Earth along the photon path, the parallel translation of a vector would define the total curvature enclosed in the loop.

I attach another figure here, which I think helps picture what is going on. Alice and Bob align their coordinates before departure. They cross a region of curved spacetime and Alice communicates her message maybe across this region as well. The spins oriented with Alice’s and Bob’s local coordinate frames are parallel translated along the path in the curved spacetime. This is the inertial motion of the two spins and their orientations remain constant in their local frames. Alice tells Bob, “I am measuring along the z axis,” which she then does. Bob then receives the message and orients his Stern Gerlach apparatus accordingly. Bob then finds there is a loss of fidelity in the teleportation due to the angle deviation in their coordinates by different parallel translations.

We could modify this a bit further. Suppose Alice moves towards Bob’s region of spacetime. In this way we have a closed curve that encloses a region of curvature. The angle of deviation between the two coordinate frames of Alice and Bob reflect the curvature in this enclosed area. However, they compare measurements by teleportation. Alice tells Bob from behind some curtain that now separates them, “Measure along the z axis,” where upon she does measure. Bob gets the message and does likewise. However, the coordinate z–directions are not coincident any more. This then detunes the fidelity of the teleportation.

I leave parts iv through vi a bit out here, for without the classical signal sent this is not really a teleportation.

Cheers LC

attachments: Alicebob_in_curved_space.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 05:20 GMT
Lawrence,

to have a change of orientation of a tangent frame due to the curvature, the path should be closed. There is a path from origin to Alice (red), another one from origin to Bob (yellow). If you want to close the path by adding something between Alice and Bob, say a classical message (pink), this can be done in an infinite number of ways. Alice can launch a CD-Rom in space towards Bob, or a radio signal which is retransmitted, or a light signal which is reflected by several mirrors. All these can be done so that Bob uses the message at a given time and position. In each of these cases, the parallel transport will be different. There is an infinite number of ways to join two events in spacetime. Each of them means a different parallel transport. So, there is no well defined relative rotation of their frames. I updated your drawing to show this.

Q: Do you know a meaningful way to define the relative orientation of their frames while they are at a distance?

Regards,

Cristi

attachments: RE_Alicebob_in_curved_space.JPG.gif

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 19:21 GMT
Florin,

N =/= NP proven? It appears that the problem of P and NP may be at least partially addressed. Here is a description of the P =/= NP proof, with a link to the original paper. We had discussed some physics involved with this. In particular if a problem is run in bounded quantum polynomial time, and it attempts to solves an NP problem in P this leads to a sort of horizon problem.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 20:55 GMT
Lawrence,

To my knowledge before reading your post, the P/NP problem was still open and it is one of the Millennium problems. The paper looks very promising and it will take me some time to understand it. And it will take some time before the proof, if correct, will be checked and generally accepted.

This all looks very exciting, and who knows, maybe physics arguments may yet play a role in the some (future) proof.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 15:44 GMT
Florin,

Some feedback is emerging on Vinay Deolalikar’s proof. This blog entry by Scott Aaronson seems to cast a pretty negative judgement on this.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Lawrence,

With all due respect for Scott’s promise (it takes a lot of guts to do it), I think he is misguided and foolish. Even if he is right.

But if Scott is right, then the gravitational analogy approach may have a (long) shot. I also see some more analogy in Vinay’s proof with gravity, in the sense that he talks about restricting the propagation of information to nearest neighbors. And this should be the key of establishing the existence of an “event horizon” boundary between P and NP where the NP solution goalposts move faster than the information propagation speed.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 19:54 GMT
Tom,

I'll make a deal with you. If you can answer my question, I will prove to you that God created the universe.

My question is this: Are virtual particles real?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 20:01 GMT
I will open the question up to everyone.

Are virtual photons real? Real, as in, are they part of physical reality?

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 09:37 GMT
Jason,

virtual particles are useful to describe fields and interactions, in a way similar to using power series and trigonometric series in solving various problems. An analogy is this: we can approximate any 3D shape to any desired degree by unions of cubes, or unions of spheres. This doesn't mean that they really are made of cubes or spheres. I think it is a matter of interpretation whether to accept the virtual particles as real or not, but clearly they are useful.

To my knowledge, so far there was no direct detection of an individual virtual particle. There is no hint of how we can construct such a detector - it would have to be virtual as well.

You can find arguments supporting the reality of virtual particles in Feynman's "QED" and Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality".

Regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 10:23 GMT
Again, Jason, recognize the difference between physically real and manifestly real. There's a reason that virtual particles are called "virtual." They exist as products of the vacuum energy. It's the vacuum energy that is physically real.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 11:17 GMT
The stars of course are cubes, our planets are squares, the moons are triangles,the eyes are strings, the particles are points, and our brain is a rectangle,wawww oh my god ????

It's that your foundamentals dear scientists???? and of course the rotations are cubics also and all our extrapolations....

In fact dear firends, it doesn't exist rotating spheres, no they don't exist in fact , no but we are in a total dream, let's be serious a little please because there it's just became ironical.

The interpretation always must be objective and realistic.The reality is these spheres.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 13:48 GMT
I think it's instructive to see what most often happens when serious science gets derailed by popular philosophy and speculation, as in Sean Carroll's recent "diva moment:"

Carroll

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 17:39 GMT
Tom,

Article: "The problem for me wasn't primarily the credulous attitude toward craziness although there was that. The real problem was dishonesty. "

"There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had, concerning the extent to which respectable scientists should publicly engage with pseudoscientific craziness."

"Under the right circumstances I could conceivably be willing to participate in a show that discussed paranormal phenomena, as long as I could be convinced that it was done in a sensible way and my views would be fairly represented. "

"all of my pre-interview communication with the producers was strictly about quantum mechanics and teleportation, with no mention of pseudoscience at all. Once the cameras started rolling, it was all ghosts and remote viewing. "

Do these quotes fairly represent your point of view?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
Jason,

Pretty much.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Tom,

Quantum entanglement and Bell's theorem have this...interconnected...quality to them. If entanglement and Bell's theorem are established fact, then why wouldn't evolution take advantage of it? My girlfriend's sister's life was saved, as a kid, when the spirit of a dead relative warned mom about a child rapist that was stacking her. About a month later, another little girl turned up dead. The rapist/murderer was caught. He said he gave up on another kid (my girlfriend's sister) because he couldn't get near her.

report post as inappropriate

Constantin Leshan wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 17:34 GMT
We really can travel in time by help of my technology Time Travel using Hole teleportation.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:07 GMT
Tom,

I will happily debate with you (or anyone) about how both physics and credible observers support the existence of the paranormal/UFO's etc...

But don't mistake me for someone who will weave and dodge the truth. That's not me. I'm someone who will detect an inconsistency in your argument, and then, I will beat you soundly with that inconsistency.

I get endless amounts of enjoyment using Bell's theorem and the Uncertainty Principle to attack and crush skeptics of the supernatural.

Step into the ring ... if you dare.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:17 GMT
Jason,

I am familiar with the arguments and evidence. I wrote an essay about it in 1998.

We have met the alien

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:50 GMT
I captured one myself, in Greece (on my camera).

:D

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear Cristi,

It's hard to differentiate between a real unidentified flying object versus computer graphics. That's why I look at more than just pictures and videos. However, I did find a couple of videos that deserve a serious review. I'm afraid I didn't understand what the wooden door meant.

On the first video, I found some interesting footage from 3:15-4:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgO4q7nGVB4&NR=1

http://www.yo
utube.com/watch?v=VHwMT0QcWb4&feature=related

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:56 GMT
Tom,

I personally have never witnessed a UFO. However, I have had a face to face encounter with a black cloaked entity, I've had visions/visits (telepathy) with aliens (grays). Amazingly, I've never been diagnosed with schizophrenia. I'm just an electronics technician. So if I see weird stuff, it's not big deal But guess what! Did you know that there are FAA reports of UFO's tracked on radar? Did you know that there are pilots who have seen UFO's and/or flying saucers? During world war II, they were called Foo fighters. Oh, let me give you something to worry about. There are retired Nuclear Missile Silo commanders (accompanied by soldiers under they're command) who have seen (and touched) UFO's. They have stated that they will testify before US Congress, under oath, that they have encountered, up close, UFO's. These are people who can launch nuclear missiles if instructed to do so.

As for landing on the White House lawn, that is considered a threatening/ hostile act, if uninvited.

But, by all means, I would love nothing more than to be able to schedule an official, open to the public, first contact event at some airport (not a military base) somewhere in the United States.

Answer me honestly. Would you desire such a first contact event?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 10:40 GMT
Jason, I said all that I have to say on the subject in my 1998 essay.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 06:16 GMT
I read your essay. You touched upon a few grains of sand amidst continents of desert. I suppose a transistor or a flip flop might fancy itself as being logical; but it will never come close the grand majesty of a Dual core processor.

You might be "logical", but you refuse to debate or discuss.

Have you met any time travelers?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I looked at your paper on Time Travel using hole teleportation.

I have the utmost respect for you for defending your Time Travel physics ideas. But your skeptic time traveling buddies like Tom continue to weave and dodge the physics and the observations. Cristi gave me a picture of a wooden door as a UFO picture. I hope it was just the wrong picture. If not then I have to assume he was trying to make me look like a dumb crackpot.

Constantin, if you create a force field that separates you from causal interaction, then you can't interact with anything. Also, there is no past or future to teleport to. The past doesn't exist in any form that will let you interact with it.

By the way, tell your time traveling friends I am going to bury them with observations and documentation of what really does exist.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:48 GMT
Dear Jason,

If I don't call him Leshan, I'll end up accidentally confusing him with Constantinos (Ragazas).

I read Leshan's What Is Ultimately Possible essay a couple of times and really thought about what he claimed. Holes (positively charged quasi-electrons of different effective mass) are an important phenomena in Solid State Physics, and holes are a relevant interpretation of the creation of matter-antimatter pairs from the Dirac Sea. "Spacetime holes" probably could exist, but I think it is more comparable to a quantum "extremal non-localized energy packet" of intrinsic spin zero that may be comparable to my Scalar Fermions or Tachyons or Higgs. And although these particular objects may act as though they are travelling FTL, I don't know how to harness them to propel ourselves (or even a simple signal) FTL.

If Leshan's holes are tachyons, then you've already considered that angle. Infrared divergences would prevent a classical hole, and thus any galactic-sized "true vacuum" hole. By hole, I am talking about a true vacuum, not the apparant non-isotropic mass distributions of the Universe around us.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Ray,

I've said that our physical universe is implement with (virtual/real) photons. I still think that is true. Here is where it gets tricky. I reasoned that a hyper-space would (could) be implemented with a faster photon, a hyper-photon. However, something funny happened. While watching a youtube video about UFO's, they suggested that FTL can occur when you move the ... virtual energy field out of the way. I'm not sure what they called it. But if that were true, well, that is the same as pushing my space-time implementing photons out of the way. Well, that would leave nothingness. Such a nothingness is identical to Leshan's hole theory.

To tell you the truth, I don't know which one is true. Faster photons will work to create a hyperspace. But they might also be completely unnecessary. Such a hole could also, possibly be equivalent, at least partly, to a tachyon field. Under no circumstances do you get time travel with any of this.

Now what's this "infrared divergence" and how does it work to create a "true vacuum" hole?

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 06:32 GMT
Jason,

you say "I hope it was just the wrong picture. If not then I have to assume he was trying to make me look like a dumb crackpot.". In fact, I just considered the alien face hidden in the wood funny (that's why I photographed it in the first place).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 04:47 GMT
So, in the first 10-37 seconds of the Big Bang, during the inflationary period, all of the fundamental quantum particles were created. Mmm...

Do we still think the inflationary period of the Big Bang occurred as a superluminal event?

Could the M87 superluminal jet, clocked at 6c, manifest any similar kinds of inflationary physics?

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 06:46 GMT
OK, I think I figured out why gravity occurs. If I'm right, then it's a puzzle that is missing vital pieces that you need to see the picture.

Gravity is a potential energy topography. This topography is an object unto itself. This object is a conductor of light/photons. This object emits virtual/real photons. This object controls the rate at which time unfolds, the atomic clock.

The emitted photons are virtual photons and go unseen. These virtual photons control the flow of time. These virtual photons transmit causality. You won't know what happened over there until a photon arrives from over there.

Gravity red-shift/blue shift photons. This gravitaitonal object has equipotential closed curves. Just as photons red/blue shift when they cross equipotential lines, so it also occurs to the virtual photons that transmit the flow of time.

There exists a preferred rate of flow of time; this is the fastest time, and has the fastest atomic clock.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
While Deolalikar's paper does present some interesting ideas, some holes are beginning to appear.

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/fatal-flaws-
in-deolalikars-proof/

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 00:30 GMT
Very interesting... Thanks for the link.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 11:28 GMT
Florin,

I am planning on carving out a block of time to read this. I have been doing some background reading on some of the preliminary elements this paper uses, as well as looking to see what the assessment by experts are on this paper. I am not in a position to make such a judgment. The matter of P and NP is somewhat tangential to my line of thinking. However, the matter of using statistical physics to sort out codes (algorithms) which are P and NP seems similar to a horizon of sorts. Quantum states or strings on the horizon are accessible to the outside observer only through a nonlocal field configuration. This is seen according to how a field configuration of a string on the horizon is cancelled, or its degrees of freedom matched by radiation from the interior far in the future. There is then a breakdown of a local configuration of field theoretic information. This is similar to the hypothesis that any attempt to compute something NP in P will generate more entropy and thus prevent any P computation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
Lawrence,

I've been thinking about your solid state physics/crystal approach to physics; particularly struts and vertices. During the inflationary period of the Big Bang, all of the fundamental particles in the universe were created. But I had an idea; consider the analogy of an egg carton with all of the eggs in it. All of the eggs represent the fundamental particles. The empty egg carton represents your crystal with all of it's particles escaped from the crystal. The crystal would be a quantumly entangled gravitational construct more commonly known as - space-time. A key point would be that gravity is massively entangled object.

Any thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 03:15 GMT
Entangled by scalar fermions surfing quantum strings.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 11:39 GMT
Jason & Cosmic Ray,

Using condensed matter approaches to field theory, strings and quantum gravity probably should focus on three things, quantum hall effects, quantum critical points, and Mott insulating states. The last two are somewhat related in a way, and here the breakdown of a fermion mass m* - -> ∞ defines a mass gap condition, which has a role in the mass-gap with BTZ-AdS physics and with its correspondence to QCD. Quantum hall effects generalize to duality conditions, in particular S and T dualities.

Massless fermions on strings are ghost fields.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 02:05 GMT
Wave functions and quantum entanglement appear to be wave guides for virtual particles.

Fiber optics are wave guides for light.

Copper wires are wave guides for electric current.

If a quantum entanglement can stretch across any distance of space, but information is still limited to the speed of light, then a quantum entanglment is nothing more than a 'wire', a wave guide for virtual photons.

Am I wrong?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 03:12 GMT
A "wire" or a string?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 06:08 GMT
Super-strings have this potentia quality about them; as if they are not objects themselves, but are something behind or preceding the object.

So the answer very well might be "string". A road or a path are similarly like waveguides; they exist before the traffic. Perhaps it is not possible to transmit information faster that light. However, quantum entanglements, are like a tunnel through virtual space. They are a tunnel for virtual particles.

What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 04:15 GMT
A wire or transmission line does permit a current flow, but in the case of AC current or a transient change in a current a wire is really more of a current source and guide for electromagnetic waves.

The Aspect experiment on quantum entanglements would say you are wrong about entanglement being some wave guide, wire and the like.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 15:35 GMT
I propose an experiment to prove that CTC loops and/or quantum teleportation can really work. Here is what we do. We create an ongoing quantum entanglement from the future to the present, which, in an ongoing experiment, is also a quantum entanglement from the present to the past.

Twice a week, we transmit into it the winning numbers to the Power Ball Lottery. I'm serious! This is a reasonable experiment. During the rest of the week, we listen for power ball numbers. Then, we play those numbers.

If we do better than the average lottery player, then maybe there is something to it. If we win the lottery, that is strong evidence that it works,

If we win the lottery twice, that is proof.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 13:32 GMT
Jason,

The Aspect experiment demonstrated Bell inequality results for QM which precluded ideas of transmitting nonlocal information in classical-like ways. If I understand you correctly this removes any causality ideas involved with nonlocality and entanglement which shoots down what you seem to be saying.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
Jason,

Tradition actually says the universe was created by "an utterance," i.e., a word. So then the symbolism is primary and the light is secondary. The trouble with creation myths is that they're myths.

Anyway, light as well as time would have in theory been created simultaneously with the "bang." Though anything beyond the Planck limit is, at this stage, largely speculation. Cosmology is still a young science.

I don't know how you get funded. However, I expect you need a coherent proposal, and publications. NSF and even NASA do underwrite some pretty esoteric stuff, though, if it fits the mission.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 21:11 GMT
Tom,

It's my day off; I have multiple things to get done. One of those things is to write up a coherent proposal for my tractor beam experiment. By generating shift photons, I can effectively create a tractor/repulsor beam. I'm trying to find the equipment I would need.

You said, "...universe was created by "an utterance," i.e., a word. " God (first cause), uttered "let there be light". The utterance caused (second cause) the light to manifest as a Big Bang. The light (Big Bang) caused (third cause) the universe to form. But it is light itself that transmits all of the physics properties like energy, momentum and causality. The Lorentz transformation is only possible because photons (virtual/real) travel from the event to the observer at the speed of light. The speed of light is a fundamental characteristic of the photon. Photons are responsible for calibrating the distance between point A and point B. Wave functions are merely wave guides for virtual photons; similar to how roads and highways are wave guides for traffic. Photons also gauge the clock via time dilation. Time dilation is the result of photons (virtual and real).

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 18:44 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

You said, "...precluded ideas of transmitting nonlocal information in classical-like ways..."

Let's pretend we have two quantumly entangled electrons, a and b. They are kept at labs A and B. Lawrence, you can be at lab B, I'll be at lab A.

So imagine that you're watching electron b, and it mysteriously starts to wiggle. What made it wiggle? So you make a phone call to lab A.

"Hello, lab B, Jason speaking."

"Yes, this is Lawrence from Lab A. Are you causing electron b to wiggle?"

"Why yes I am. I caused it to wiggle. I also caused electron a to spin up. I'll bet you $100 with 100:1 odds that your electron is spin down. If it's not spin down, I owe you$10,000. What say you?"

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT
Tom,

thank you so much for that last reply. I am very grateful.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 22:04 GMT
James, what is it that you think you understand, and why do you think you understand it?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 22:08 GMT
Tom,

Ok, you followed nothing of what I have been saying. That is ok with me. I prefer to present it in an essay contest here at fqxi.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:02 GMT
Since I find myself engaged in debate in this 'Time Travel by Teleportation' blog, I will post my opinion that time travel is impossible. Nothing in theoretical physics has anything to do with telling us about the property of time. We only learn about the properties of things that exist in time. Those things are not time. We cannot use time to cause any effect. Both space and time are unavailable for us to experiment upon. They are what we exist in and are not controllable by us. I look forward to the day that Relativity Theory is replaced with a new understanding that makes sense. Perhaps my work will contribute to the demise of Relativity theory. I hope so. If the new essay contest gives me the opportunity, I will explain what I think mass is and Relativity Theory will be immediately expelled from science. At least I see it that way. Time will tell. Oh, wait time can't tell. Someone or something existing in time will have to tell.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
Hi James,

I think we do know where time comes from. There are these particles (particle-waves). They carry a unit of action which means that they carry a quantity of energy over a period of time. These particles transmit causality; they cause things to happen by transmitting energy over an interval of time. Once they cause something to happen, it is statistically unlikely that it can be undone; thus thermodynamics.

Can you get which particle transmits energy, time and causality?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:43 GMT
Jason,

I presume the answer is photons. What about that interval of time. Everything is caused to do something over an interval of time. Why is the interval that you are referring to special enough to give it credit for demonstrating where time comes from? Please accept this message as an opportunity for you to explain your view.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT
All,

Gravity, I got it! I solved it!

The Higgs field is in photo equilibrium with virtual photons. The Higgs field itself is like a brane from string theory. The Higgs field emits and absorbs photons. The Higgs field calibrates distance and sets the rate of flow of time. Photons have to red-shift/blue-shift when they climbe/fall along the gravity well. This is why atomic clocks slow down as they step down into a gravity well.

If the atomic clocks are experiencing time dilation, then automatically, space is experiencing length contraction.

Length contraction contracts the Higgs field. Continuing contraction of the Higgs field along the radial of the planet/star/black hole, causes linear momentum to distort. This distortion is called gravity.

Gravity is a distortion in space-time (aka Higgs field) that results in a distortion of linear momentum. Linear momentum exists because the Higgs field exists.

Am I making any kind of sense?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Hurray!!!

Length contraction causes gravity! Length contraction creates the distortion in space-time/Higgs-field.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Jason,

What is your fallback medium if they don't find the Higgs?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 21:58 GMT
Hi John,

Actually, I don't think they will find a "simple SM Higgs". I think that the origin of mass is much more complicated than that simple model. If Jason is correct (and I'm not ready to jump on that bandwagon - I think it has crazy implications for gravitons and other bosons), then all we need is a tachyon (probably any variety of tachyon) to interact with the vacuum.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 22:11 GMT
Ray,

That's my point. What is the vacuum? I think the issue of just what is space is the real elephant in the room for physics. Is it simply a creation of motion and measurement, or is it the basis for motion and measurement? Much of modern physics seems based on an assumption of the first, but possibly it would all make more sense if the second possibility was seriously considered.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT
John,

I would be worried if they did find a Higgs particle. The whole space-time universe is the Higgs particle/field.

Big Bang ---> lots of little particles + 1 really big particle called space-time.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 00:14 GMT
The Higgs particle (field) is all of space-time. Like eggs and the egg carton. In the flash of the Big Bang, one of those crystals manifested, E8 maybe, I dunno which one. It created a zillion little particles (quarks, gluons, etc), and one big particle/egg carton/space-time/Higgs field.

The Higgs field is made out of wave functions. Wave functions are solutions to the Schrodinger equation. By there very nature, they are:

1. Dice to roll;

2. A space with something in it, somewhere;

3. The probability to find something;

4. wave-guides

5. particle-space

This Higgs field/space-time is driven by photons that we can't see. But they define:

gravitational potential

flow of time (atomic clock progression)

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
If you accept that the Higgs field is the same as space-time, then we can talk about Hyper-drive physics.

Hyper-drive physics is very simple. The Higgs field causes Conservation of linear momentum to be operational. Let's say we build a space-craft. On its outer surface, there is a Higgs repulsion field. It repels (or cancels out) the Higgs field around the space-craft. So what happens now?

Under the Higgs field, there is a hyper-space mass giving field whose speed of light is c' >> c. In effect, the spacecraft is now treated as a hyperspace object of mass m' = m (c/c')^2.

When the space-craft fires its engines, momentum conservation still works, but the mass is significantly less. This allows the velocity to be signficiantly higher.

There is no mechanism available to go back in time. So I guess the spacecraft just vanishes from view and covers enormous distances in a short time.

Welcome to the era of the Hyper-drive.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 19:52 GMT
I came across a video about the events that inspired the Philadelphia experiment.

Ap
parently, there was an experiment involving the USS Eldridge during WW2 which involved bending light. The ship was observed to

a. turn invisible,

b. vanish entirely.

c. teleport to a ship yard 300 miles away,

d. cause soldiers to bond with the steel bulk heads at the molecular level,

e. insanity, burns etc.

But there was no mention of time travel.

I'm skeptical of these reports. However none of these observations a through e suggest or support time travel.

Why is there a consistent pattern that paranormal events manifest strange occurrences, but don't manifest time travel?

Why? Why? Why?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Jason,

New Scientist - Lasers could make virtual particles real

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
Way cool!!! I wonder if such a device could be used to by Ghost Hunters (tv show) to strengthen the connection, amplify the paranormal event.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT

It's actually very easy. The Higgs field is what gives everything its mass. So let's say we build a rocket ship. On the outer surface of the rocket, there is a Higgs field repulsion field. The Higgs field is repelled from the rocket. With the Higgs field around the rocket held back, the rocket is basically an object in hyper-space with mass m'. When the rocket is sitting in the Higgs field, it's mass is m.

Let's imagine that when the Higgs field is repelled, there is yet another Higgs field; it is a hyper-Higgs field. It's speed of light is c' = 10^6c.

Now it's time to fire the rockets. Normally, when the rockets are fired for a period of time, 10 seconds for example, the momentum will be p. Guess what happens now!

Conservation of momentum says that p = p'. When the rockets are fired for ten seconds, it will acquire a momentum p = p'; p' = m'v'.

Since the mass is so much less, m' = m(c/c')^2, the velocity will be

v' = v(c'/c)^2.

Relativistic effects, if any, will be based upon c' = 10^6c. It will be very easy to exceed the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 13:20 GMT
Tom, As a result of our discussion and your hint, I tend to largely agree with Peter Beckmann, Luis Essen, and others. Additional I found out that most likely SR is based on an unjustified neglect of the arrow of causality when using the Laplace operator alias Nabla squared alias delta operator. I reiterate: DEQs are not the primary relations in reality.

Anyway, the idea by Voigt related to sound, Lorentz dealt with V as the velocity of earth relative to the sun system, and Einstein put V=c.

Actually the limitation to c of the velocity of any transmission seems to be correct at least for the earth and its surroundings. It does not need Einstein's idea.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT
Is it correct to add vectors and scalars as obviously did Lorentz in 1895? If not, why did nobody object or at least deal with consequences? Doesn't the mathematical basis of paradoxical modern physics including time travel and teleportation deserve attention?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 22:04 GMT
I won't even bother to refute the obvious—that matter cannot exceed the speed of light. Nor, of course, can light exceed the speed of light. On the other hand, recent Chinese experiments with quantum entangled photons seem to prove instantaneous transfer of information over a distance of 16 km. They claim that the signal was actually received before it was sent. In keeping with the tone of this topic, we should all leap for joy and plan to wire ourselves today’s lottery numbers, yesterday.

Sorry, guys; it doesn’t work that way. Let’s assume that you can send information instantaneously in the reference frame of the ether. That information will be received before it is sent in the reference frame of Earth, provided that it is sent in the direction of Earth’s motion relative to the ether. The blue shift of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in the direction of Virgo tells us that we are moving in that direction at about 627 km/s. Let’s assume that the ether is stationary relative the CMB. In special relativity, that translates to a gamma of 1.0000022, and a time shift of 7 ns/km. If the receiver is 10 km closer to Virgo than the sender, the message should be received 70 ns before it is sent, according to clocks that are synchronized in Earth’s reference frame.

An instantaneous message sent in the opposite direction will arrive 7 ns/km after it is sent. An instantaneous 2-way communication will therefore have zero propagation delay. To send and receive a message which is instantaneous relative to the ether, you would have to be present at both the sending and receiving locations at the same instant in the reference frame of the ether. In the reference frame of Earth, you would have to go to the receiving end, receive the message, then get back to the sending location in time to send the messages, and you would have to do that faster than the message, which is instantaneous in the reference frame of the ether.

Does anyone still think time travel is possible?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear Philip,

Time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. No argument there.

Quantum entanglement probably won't allow information to be transmitted FTL.

However, there might be a way to cause a space-craft to traverse a distance versus time that is faster than c. This is my approach. A Higgs field exists; it gives particles there mass. It's also responsible for many other observations including the vacuum energy. The Higgs field is a froth of wave functions. These wave functions prevent objects from traveling faster than c because of the connections between the spacecraft and the Higgs field.

You have to repel the Higgs field away from your spacecraft. In doing so, your space craft becomes an object in hyperspace. The energy content of the spacecraft is always E, whether it's in the Higgs field or in hyperspace. However, if the Higgs field is repelled, the effective mass of the space craft is m' = m(c/c')^2.

A very reasonable amount of thrust will accerate you to "superluminal" velocities for as long as the Higgs field can be repelled.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes replied on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
Jason,

I, too, am skeptical of the recent advances in quantum entanglement, simply because it is the Chinese making the claims. If it were anyone else, I would accept it. This May 20, they claimed to have "teleported" quanta of information thru a distance of 16 km, instantaneously in the reference frame of the "quantum ether". As I understand it, they sent entangled photons both directions from the midway point (actually slightly closer to the sender). The sender filtered the photons at his end, and the matching photons, en route to the other end, were instantaneously affected by the filter.

If the theory is right, then it should not matter if a wall is erected between the sender and receiver after the photons have passed the wall's location. For the information to get back to the photon source before the photons were sent, it can't be communicating via light or even virtual photons. Of course it is difficult to test that idea because there is so little time. The photons traverse the distance from midway to each end in about 27 microsecond. Perhaps you could switch an LCD barrier that quickly.

You obviously know more than I about the Higgs field. In fact, you seem to know more about it than the scientists who are trying to discover if it even exists. I won't enter an argument over something I know so little about.

I do have my own candidate messenger for instantaneous communication--dark energy. In my model, dark energy consists of ethereal pressure (longitudinal) waves, which are responsible for all the forces in our universe. Regular energy is ethereal shear (transverse) waves. All the shear waves propagate at the speed of light. Particles consist of orbiting pairs or groups of shear waves, which orbit at the speed of light. The pressure waves are at least 20 billion times faster than light. When a pressure wave collides with a shear wave, there is an exchange of momentum. The magnitude and direction of exchanged momentum depends on phase and polarity, and it accounts for forces of attraction or repulsion, depending on the phase and polarity relationship between a pair of particles.

Moreover, the pressure waves propagate backwards in time from effect toward their cause. This makes them ideal for reaching back in time. You'll have to visit my website to find out how and why this time reversal occurs.

report post as inappropriate

nirvi wrote on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 21:06 GMT
Most of physicists today still define time as a part of the space although time was never observed and measured as a part of the space. Second concept developed in last few decades denies existence of time. This concept has no answer on the fundamental question: if there is no time, what we measure with clocks? Here presented concept is guided by the Einstein idea that time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.

Time travel are out of question.

attachments: The_Third_Concept_of_Time.pdf

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 21:26 GMT
All empirical evidence has to do with objects and their behavior. The objects are not space or time. Their behavior is only their behavior and not the behavior of either space or time. No one has ever conducted an experiment on either space or time. Theory is a substitute for knowing what cause is. No one knows what cause is. Every action and reaction of objects and their patterns, from which empirical evidence is gathered, tells us only about the action and reaction of objects. Both action and reaction are effects and not causes.

I am speaking about cause in a fundamental manner. We do not know what cause is. Theory can only serve to allow guesses about what cause may be to replace lack of real knowledge. Space is absolute until someone runs an experiment upon it. Time is absolute until someone runs an experiment upon it. Lots of luck. Neither of these can be captured and contained so that they may be experimented upon. Neither of them undergo changes of velocity. It is only the patterns observed in changes of velocity that constitute empirical evidence.

Changes of velocity do not venture back into the past. Their patterns are retained in memory and used to form mechanical predictions about future possible mechanical activity. Those predictions may be correct or incorrect, but, they are not the past. Thety are recodings of the past. They are not the future. The future may even change them. Bend this or bend that, all you have are bent objects.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 23:35 GMT
"Their patterns are retained in memory and used to form mechanical predictions about future possible mechanical activity."

I chose to emphasize this point. The word mechanical is used purposefully. That is because theoretical physics has only to do with interpreting the causes of the universe as purely mechanical in nature. Intelligence and life are not considerations of theoretical physics. Therefore, if we wish to understand this universe that gave birth to intelligent life, then we must progress beyond theoretical physics.

James

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 08:44 GMT
What do you think about....the origin of intelligence is an act of love simply .....to meditate.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Steve,

Our total experience is a gift. Everything that the universe is capable of accomplishing, results from that which has existed since its very beginning. Its full potential has always existed. Love is a part of that potential. Everything that we are capable of thinking and feeling was provided for through the natural properties of the universe. Love didn't have to be added to the universe after its beginning. Love is not mechanical. The notion that the fundamental properties of the universe are mechanical is a human invention. Love is a real property.

The theoretical mechanical properties are not real properties. Even electric charge is a theoretical invention. Intelligence is natural and a part of being naturally intelligent is emotion. It is emotion that was programmed into us so that thoughts of love could be distinguished from thoughts of hate. Every thought we have is sent from our subconscious to our conscious accompanied by emotion.

The emotion of love is common because it is a part of the design of life. It is distinct so that we will know it when we feel it. We know it because we have been designed to know it. Our ability to know anything comes from within us. Our individual source for knowing love is molecules called DNA. The molecules are not the dumb mechanical pawns defined by theoretical physics.

James

report post as inappropriate