Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Physics and Mathematics Guild

Back to Guilds

 

Tags: physics, mathematics, science, universe 

Reply The Physics and Mathematics Guild
How do I invented Flux Capacitor? (title deliberate)

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Cynthia_Rosenweiss

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:30 am


Actually while there's no reason anyone is going to hop in fusion-powered DeLoreans anytime soon, this story is really interesting all the same:

Quote:
If his experiment with splitting photons actually works, says University of Washington physicist John Cramer, the next step will be to test for quantum "retrocausality."

That's science talk for saying he hopes to find evidence of a photon going backward in time.

...

"It doesn't seem like it should work, but on the other hand, I can't see what would prevent it from working," Cramer said. "If it does work, you could receive the signal 50 microseconds before you send it."

Uh, huh ... what? Wait a minute. What is that supposed to mean?

Roughly put, Cramer is talking about the subatomic equivalent of arriving at the train station before you've left home, of winning the lottery before you've bought the ticket, of graduating from high school before you've been born -- or something like that.

....

Basically, the idea is that interacting, or entangled, subatomic particles such as two photons -- the fundamental units of light -- can affect each other no matter how far apart in time or space....This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time.

...

For the first phase of the experiment, to be started early next year , they will look for evidence of signaling between the entangled photons. Finding that would, by itself, represent a stunning achievement. Ultimately, the UW scientists hope to test for retrocausality -- evidence of a signal sent between photons backward in time.

In that final phase, one of the entangled photons will be sent through a slit screen to a detector that will register it as either a particle or a wave -- because, again, the photon can be either. The other photon will be sent toward two 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) spools of fiber optic cables before emerging to hit a movable detector, he said.

Adjusting the position of the detector that captures the second photon (the one sent through the cables) determines whether it is detected as a particle or a wave.

The trip through the optical cables also will delay the second photon relative to the first one by 50 microseconds, Cramer said.

Here's where it gets weird.

Because these two photons are entangled, the act of detecting the second as either a wave or a particle should simultaneously force the other photon to also change into either a wave or a particle. But that would have to happen to the first photon before it hits its detector -- which it will hit 50 microseconds before the second photon is detected.

That is what quantum mechanics predicts should happen. And if it does, signaling would have gone backward in time relative to the first photon.

Link


Thoughts?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:26 am


Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE - isn't retrocasualty just a convention in feynman diagrams? A particle moving forward in time is the same as its antiparticle moving backward in time... isn't that just just a diagram trick?

Regarding entanglment.... is it necessary that we describe this effect as a 'signal' being sent between the two particles? Could there be that there is no signal? I have a great macroscopic example made just today by our quantum TA. Say you have a pair of shoes. You separate the left shoe from the right shoe into two boxes and ship em to two different places such that you have no idea which box holds which shoe. If the person in Antartica opens the box and finds that she's got a left shoe then inherently the second shoe, now in Ireland, must be right. Was there really a signal sent between the two shoes? Because the state of one shoe depends on the other and because the chances are exactly 50:50 then doesn't that somehow determine that entanglment will happen? I mean if the chances were anything other than 50:50 and if the objects in question were more than exactly two particles (or two shoes in our case) then wouldn't this not be possible?

Furthermore isn't it kind of like a process of elimination, once you've found out all the unknowns and you are down to the last variable doesn't the value of the second last directly allow you to determine the value or state of the last variable without having to perform an experiment?

And also, how does he plan to detect the signal?

nonameladyofsins


Layra-chan
Crew

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:00 pm


Last I heard, entanglement doesn't actually send information, so it's not really "retrocausality," as the actual cause happens before both observations.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:57 am


Layra-chan
Last I heard, entanglement doesn't actually send information, so it's not really "retrocausality," as the actual cause happens before both observations.

The argument being that you need to know about the first entangled state to be able to say anything about the other, I think, and is still over a causal channel.

That said, does anyone know of a theoretical reason to have causality? From what I know, we insert it by hand — e.g. in QFT you use a Dirac delta function to set the effect of one point in a field to be zero if it is outside the lightcone [there is no casual way for you region to know anything about that point, so it cannot have an effect]

Eh, my brain is fried. Trying relearn the phenomenology of neutrino oscillations and the importance of theta_{13} this morning in an hour, just before I was due to give an informal seminar about the importance of Chooz. x_X

A Lost Iguana
Crew

Aged Pants

9,100 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Profitable 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200

Layra-chan
Crew

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:13 am


A Lost Iguana
Layra-chan
Last I heard, entanglement doesn't actually send information, so it's not really "retrocausality," as the actual cause happens before both observations.

That said, does anyone know of a theoretical reason to have causality? From what I know, we insert it by hand — e.g. in QFT you use a Dirac delta function to set the effect of one point in a field to be zero if it is outside the lightcone [there is no casual way for you region to know anything about that point, so it cannot have an effect]


Eh, considering that causality breaks down inside a Kerr black hole (uncharged slowly rotating), no, I can't think of a good reason why causality should actually hold. Especially since outside of thermodynamics and the seemingly non-deterministic quantum reduction operation, the equations of physics are time-symmetric (well, CPT symmetric, but close enough). I get the feeling that q-reduction isn't exactly a good candidate for the theoretical basis of causality.
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:12 pm


Here are some links that may or may not clear up issues raised here:

Link 1

This site gives some diagrams of how the experiment is actually set up.

Link 2

This seems to be an extract from a paper that John Cramer wrote:

Quote:
At the interpretational level, the nonlocality of the quantum mechanics formalism is a source of some difficulty for the Copenhagen interpretation. It is accommodated in the CI through Heisenberg's ``knowledge interpretation'' of the quantum mechanical state vector as a mathematical description of the state of observer knowledge rather than as a description of the objective state of the physical system observed. For example, Heisenberg in a 1960 letter to Renninger wrote[3], ``The act of recording, on the other hand, which leads to the reduction of the state, is not a physical, but rather, so to say, a mathematical process. With the sudden change of our knowledge also the mathematical presentation of our knowledge undergoes of course a sudden change.'' The knowledge interpretation's account of state vector collapse and nonlocality is internally consistent but is regarded by some (including the author) as subjective and intellectually unappealing. It is the source of much of the recent dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen interpretation.

....

In the Wheeler-Feynman picture when the retarded wave is absorbed at some time in the future, a process is initiated by which canceling advanced waves from the absorbers erase all traces of advanced waves and their ``advanced'' effects, thereby preserving causality. An observer not privy to these inner mechanisms of nature would perceive only that a retarded wave had gone from the emitter to the absorber. The absorber theory description, unconventional though it is, leads to exactly the same observations as conventional electrodynamics. But it differs in that there has been a two-way exchange, a ``handshake'' across space-time which led to the transfer of energy from emitter to absorber.

This advanced-retarded handshake is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating ``boundaries'' of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations). It also alters the way in which we must look at physical phenomena. When we stand in the dark and look at a star a hundred light years away, not only have the retarded light waves from the star been traveling for a hundred years to reach our eyes, but the advanced waves generated by absorption processes within our eyes have reached a hundred years into the past, completing the transaction that permitted the star to shine in our direction.

Cynthia_Rosenweiss


AirisMagik

PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:15 pm


So...

if they somehow manage to get this to work, you're telling me that suddenly there will be a recording of something 50ms in the past out of the blue by doing some in the exact moment?


Soo...

UGH MY BRAIN. One moment.

Okay. That would imply that we still exist in the past, and are making our way forward in time. Why? Because in order for the signal to be recorded, it has to go back in time 50microseconds before the initial effect, and then be recorded on a previously, already played out timeline!

!!!!!!!

Would it stem in another universe, cease this one existence?
Will it just alter the present?

I know it's just 50 microseconds, but if it proves correct!...

I am excited. <<^.^>>!

~!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:37 pm


poweroutage
Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE - isn't retrocasualty just a convention in feynman diagrams? A particle moving forward in time is the same as its antiparticle moving backward in time... isn't that just just a diagram trick?

Regarding entanglment.... is it necessary that we describe this effect as a 'signal' being sent between the two particles? Could there be that there is no signal? I have a great macroscopic example made just today by our quantum TA. Say you have a pair of shoes. You separate the left shoe from the right shoe into two boxes and ship em to two different places such that you have no idea which box holds which shoe. If the person in Antartica opens the box and finds that she's got a left shoe then inherently the second shoe, now in Ireland, must be right. Was there really a signal sent between the two shoes? Because the state of one shoe depends on the other and because the chances are exactly 50:50 then doesn't that somehow determine that entanglment will happen? I mean if the chances were anything other than 50:50 and if the objects in question were more than exactly two particles (or two shoes in our case) then wouldn't this not be possible?

Furthermore isn't it kind of like a process of elimination, once you've found out all the unknowns and you are down to the last variable doesn't the value of the second last directly allow you to determine the value or state of the last variable without having to perform an experiment?

And also, how does he plan to detect the signal?


About your shoes: Wouldn't the analogy be something like you put the shoes in the boxes, and sent them to the two places, and before the shoes arrived, the people that were receiving them already knew what they were getting, without being told?

If i'm completely wrong on this, just ignore me. I thought I knew a decent amount, and I came in here and I feel like a 6th grader.

Hibiki (Neon) Tokai


nonameladyofsins

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:13 pm


Hibiki (Neon) Tokai


About your shoes: Wouldn't the analogy be something like you put the shoes in the boxes, and sent them to the two places, and before the shoes arrived, the people that were receiving them already knew what they were getting, without being told?

If i'm completely wrong on this, just ignore me. I thought I knew a decent amount, and I came in here and I feel like a 6th grader.


no the actual detection happens when the shoe arrives, that is when the particle arrives and it has been decided that it is of spin up then automatically we know the other particle is of spin down.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:42 am


It seems like Cramer has his own problems with time to deal with before we can get an experimental clue... Time travel experiment running out of time for funding

To intersect a bit with philosophy, wouldn't retro causality imply destiny i.e. lack of true free will?

Because much like the shoe analogy wouldn't the state of the photons have to be predetermined before detection, "knowing" that the experimenter will decide to do his altering trick to determine if he gets a right or left.

And what if it doesn't work, what does this say about wave particle duality, the only reason i could see it not working is because the detection of the first photon should collapse the wave function FIRST and hence determine the state of the other, so what i would expect to see is the first detector arbitrarily detects a particle or a wave, and the second detector detects nothing in some cases.

Retro causality is some serious mojo, it may just imply that i can be manipulated by people in the future oh noes!!! i don't want my grandkids altering my quantum events no matter how smart they are.

Ash Engel


Cynthia_Rosenweiss

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:57 am


Those idiots! This utilitarian "performance-based" approach to research is a capitalistic distortion of the authentic scientific approach! Even if it doesn't involve actual temporal anomalies, it can at least tell us stuff we didn't know about entanglement! But, no can't have that. Must only fund research with practical applications in mind. evil
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:10 am


So let me get this straight, they are trying to force a photon back in time, about 50 miliseconds?

yukiine

Reply
The Physics and Mathematics Guild

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum