Physicists Claim They Can Send Particles Into the Past
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Learn physics and maths on Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/sabine.
Can you really send a particle into the past? New Scientist published an article about this last week, and though I’m quite fond of the concept of retrocausality, I’m afraid to say that reality is much less interesting than fiction. Let’s have a look.
Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2403.00054
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics - Věda a technologie
Retracting scientific papers is about to get several disorders of magnitude more complicated. Some papers will simply unretract themselves.
I have bought "5D chess with multiverse time travel" game today and I see your point 😅
@@AgentLeonI bought it yesterday, check.
talk about spooky...you allegedly wrote that comment two days before this video was posted?.. 39 minutes ago......now it went back to June 3Oth 2024...how odd.
2d ago
@@handledav When was the video posted?
Objection! I spilled _instant_ coffee onto a particle accelerator one time and it was ready to drink 5 minutes ago.
That’s a Steven Wright joke
Shame on your for supporting the instant coffee industry
So if I get diahorea, does that mean that I can eat all that cheese?
Weren't they called retro microwaves? You know they work coz you don't feel like any more coffee, maybe just some old fasion cocaine
@@Lopfff Only because I said the joke when I was stood near a particle accelerator watching Desperately seeking susan
One does not simply ask a question on Twitter and expect answers. Only expect mental break downs.
The New Scientist article would have a more accurate title if it was "Scientists entangle the probe qubit with an ancilla qubit and then this happens!" 😀
"Make sure you read until the end of the article! Then like and subscribe!"
"Scientists sniff T-shirts using this one weird trick."
Scientists in {insert router location} have discovered this one weird trick for speeding up measurements. Click here to find out more about full qubit measurements for a price that will surprise you.
That's when my brain would explode.
@@Turnipstalk So that's how those scammy ads work!
Sabine, I’m just a teen lost in life exploring the wonders of the universe. I never would’ve thought myself to watch any videos about science but here I am now.
Your videos bring me so much comfort and I wait for you to make a post everyday just to hear about what else you have to say. Thank you.
Likewise.
I used to scoff at people that would say scientific atheism is becoming like a religion but I don't see any other way to interpret this comment.
@@Iliekchoocolatye That's unsubstantiated conjecture, and a really strange opinion.
@@RokeJulianLockhart a teen lost in life who finds comfort in blah blah blah
Sounds like a religious conversion to me
I'm 65 years old and I'm still learning every day. Sabine makes complex subjects understandable. Make a habit of learning all your life. It will be a life well spent.
Man, I hate having a burrito yesterday and ending up with an existential crisis from it, tomorrow
I hate having an existential crisis today for a burrito I will eat tomorrow.
@@bertblankenstein3738 true. Sad. Many such cases. Some people theorize a burrito-existential crisis duality and superposition.
We don't know how bad that crisis is until it's observed. My poor commode.
It literally like rewinding a video? It's not going backward in time, it's instant replay...
"Tonight's burrito isn't tomorrow's existential crisis." Well, unless it was too spicy... 😁
Thank you for keeping this one sane. We don't want Heisenberg to be more UNCERTAIN than necessary. It is a matter of PRINCIPLE.
No wonder spooky action at a distance is verified if you feed your apparatus only with particles designed to get the correct results.
What's "sane" about pineapple on pizza?
@@dougaltolan3017 Or a pizza on a roof?
And what have the physicists done for us ?
The aqueduct : ?
@@user-mv6gm4sz5x Duck cleaning at its finest.
"Unless you're a philosopher, then it means everything and nothing at the same time."
As someone who studied philosophy in grad school, I can confirm this statement.
This statement is also why I work in a woodshop now.
This statement is why I studied conlangs.
How do you isolate a particle when there are so many particles everywhere? If you took it away from it could be with the thing you house it in as an example Besides the life of a particle is a constant thing here how do you know anything from a blank slate? Well the sun did something like this well a little bit but it overwhelmed our particles and now our weather etc are affected too
@@PeachesCourage like he said, he works in a woodshop now. why are you asking him questions lol
I too studied philosophy and got a good chuckle out of Sabine's lighthearted ribbing.
@@PeachesCourage You make a good argument. Not even a vacuum is a true vacuum. There'd be some air or light particles, or EM particles, or other energies from the elements of its container.
Gregory Benford wrote a novel, "Timescape" based upon the concept of particles--tachyons--traveling into the past. It was used as a signal from the future to warn the past of an impending disaster.
"and then you block everyone who disagrees with you and hide their comments"
I was taking a drink Sabine!! AH MY NOSE
lmaooo
How do you isolate a particle and then measure it really since the activity of it belongs in huge masses Everything here on earth is particles very small isolate one and say it went someplace you can't be sure to many always everywhere the air oxygen everything else affect it
@@PeachesCouragewe have particle coliders auch as CERN, I recommend asking chat gpt to explain that kinds of procedures cause most of us on YT know this or that method and this or that theory but the whole answer is ofc far more complex
😂
@@ani_n01 do... do not recommend people go to chatgpt for science advice lmao
its a language model, it makes pretty sentences, it'll teach you untrue details with full confidence
Don't drink cocaine through your nose.
I was going to send a particle back in time-- but things got really busy at work last week and I was too busy to see it come in.
I'm going to send a particle back in time next week, but I'm a little busy today so I hope I saw it last week.
I'll send a particle back in time next week, but I forgot in which branch of the past.
I think it’s bullshit. I just asked a particle how many fingers I’m holding behind my back and it couldn’t answer.
How do they isolate a particle and measure it accurately if they do? I don't think either could necessarily work do you? Besides the sun recently did a spiffy job of messing with some of the earths particles recently Ugh
7
Just because it didn't answer doesn't mean it couldn't. Never trust particles, they make up everything.
It doesn't work unless your fingers are entangled.
@@philochristos Doable
i know one scientific paper about an experiment, where light was "time-reflected". It was named "Observation of time-reflection for electromagnetic waves" by Shixiong Yin, Andrea Alu, Geng Yu Xu & Emanuele Galiffi
Light has no concept of time.
Sabine, knowing the intended audience of the New Scientist article, what would you have recommended for the headline?
Eg you can make clear in the headline that this is a claim that the scientists made rather than just stating it as a fact (which is what I did). The other thing that NS could have done is to say that the physicists arrived at a practical result by thinking about science fiction. I haven't thought about how to phrase this into a catchy headline but I think it'd have worked and it's also true.
@@SabineHossenfelder Tell us how you really feel :)
@@SabineHossenfelder New Scientist is like 'Blue Peter' for grown ups. It puts on a smiley face and presents what it thinks will excite, but not confuse too much.
I'm not even convinced time is anything more than a conscious recognition of change. There is just simply now.
You may be on to something.
Like eternalism? Or are you saying the past and future don’t exist, only now
It's change in an area, all areas can have different rates of time. Which makes the question what time is it fairly irrelevant.
what allows that change to happen then
You should check out the recent Theories of Everything with Fay Dowker, particularly the part where she talks about consciousness.
You go back in time with memory, forward in time with time, and into the future with imagination.
You recall the past with memory. Are present when conscious. And perceive the future through intuition
I love your sense of humor. Nobody makes me laugh like you do.
Well done. Very clear explanation of the issue without getting bogged down in T-symmetry and Entropy. Good analogy using a familiar subject, texting.
Under Feynman point of view, aren't antiparticles in a sort of sense traveling backwards in time?
Not from what I remember; an antiparticle can be viewed as a particle travelling backward in time.
😂Pineapple-pizza terminated! Isn´t that similar to the quantum eraser experiment?
Pineapple Pizza will be recreated as many times as is necessary by us loyal pineapple on pizza loving folk. You cannot unmake that amazing combo.
Yes and Sabine made a nice video how that works and explained what it does and what it doesn't do.
@@firefighter4443😂
Earlier this morning I read a long quite philosophical post in a facebook group discussing if "the universe is a game", and then watched this video about "time travelling" particles. I love the internet.
I’ve got teenage kids. The bit about sniffing T-shirts got me, now I just need a quantum washing machine.
Sabine: "Particles don't go into the past or into the future. Particles are simply at some position at some time..."
Me: ""Particles don't go into the left or into the right. Particles are simply at some time at some position..."
Sounds like you agree, in the past, maybe...
I'd say that there are no particles. In 4D, it's static arcs. And how 1-dimensional is time in a quantum world at all?
I don't know if you intended this as a joke or actual criticism, but that section of the video felt like someone trying to fill the minimum word count on a book review and decided to get semantic on the title. I came away with the conclusion that particles are particles so the title of the story isn't scientifically accurate. I wasn't expecting it to be!
A particle is never late, nor is it early. It arrives precisely when it means to.
@@larsgutsein3910 Heisenberg wouldn't agree.
I enjoyed this video as much today as I did yesterday.
Sabine: "Particles don't go into the past or into the future. Particles are simply at some position at some time..."
Me: Particles don't go into the past but into the immediate future at some position.
Space-time diagrammes allow particles to travel into present and not necessarily future.
My co - worker asked me where the socket wrench was. I said in the past and pointed to the toolbox where i had put it yesterday.
Newton's 4th Law : Things stay where they are unless some thieving chav nicks them.
Every measurement delivers a complete set of basis vectors. I have no idea how you would decide what was measured earlier. For example in the delayed choice experiment it doesn't matter what the apparatus measures, because the result is compatible with both measurements (interference and non interference).
And when it comes to entanglement, particles are not individual particles, they are part of a single wave function. We can represent them separated, but that isn't what happens in reality. If it wasn't a single wave function, it could violate conservation laws.
But most people probably have no idea what I am talking about ^^
No one said that you could decide what was measured earlier. The eigenvectors are of the Operator and are not temporal in nature. I think it is a shame that the authors haven't really analysed what exactly is happening in their experiment and have merely resorted to flimsy linguistic descriptions.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
Can you go back in time is basically just a question of can you turn back the flow of entropy.
I will not believe it until I {have / will have had / will have} a note from the {future / past} telling me to buy Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook stock.
buy Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook stock AND NVIDIA, or buy NORTEL in the 1990s and SELL before the crash of 2002 at $125 !
Now you have a note from the future of this post !
Send Particles Into the Past: Literarily the story of a 2023 movie: Aporia. :)
Fun fact, they filmed that movie in 2024.
Never seen but my conspiracy is that the future is stealing antibaryons from the past to make doomsday weapons...is that the plot?
That explains the dust build up in my house despite all the cleaning.
Imagine, Humans trying to send things back in time led to one big experiment ranging from observable universe, like recording all information using trillions of sensors or measurement device spread across the universe and then trying to put it all back and everything breaks apart and becomes the way it was during the first expansion of universe and this is the cycle we are stuck in forever as it will satisfy all laws we might have come across. Could be a sci-fi movie someday.
I've been talking about this idea for a while. I've been wanting it to be explored for a while. I make no assumptions about the truth of it though. But I'd been thinking more about it as more information about time crystals got out.
All I can about is reading the past not sending information back. If we can read information from the past then we can extract even more interesting information about predictions moving forward. Even recreate historical information.
But I always guessed an engagement would just anchor information extraction. Not allow alternations.
not sure but from your comment it seems to me that you use a strange concept of a time crystal. Do not get confused by the name all it does is to show a periodic repeating pattern of switching between 2 inner states.
@@Techmagus76 well I hope I can say this correctly. there seems to be potential to get an unknown amount of time in dissapative time-translation symmetry. Which to me looks like an anchor of energy in time and space. A conservation of space translation symmetry as well... I cant say for sure, but I think you could entangle it too. And I'd like to know what that entails. If even just a little bit of time manipulation, freezing or otherwise could have crazy philosophical implications and engineering potential. But again I assume nothing. I just see that there is much to explore there.
I can send particles into the past. Go on, go into the past and prove I didn't.
Done
Take a whiff of the particles I sent into the past.
🏃💨
@@2l84t im reporting from the past and this guy is lying. i don't see him anywhere actually.
Yes.
I stay in the present and claim that all the junk is still here, :)
Can't believe a whole video about particles going backwards in time, and she didn't so much as mention Richard Feynman's interpretation of antiparticles.
The "dead time" analogy is not particularly helpful. If all the second detector does is figure out particles with which spins do not yield good measurements so they can be ignored, it doesn't change the fact that those "bad" particles have impinged on the first detector or eliminate the corresponding need to wait for detector recovery.
Retro-causality is one way to explain the Bell Inequality. Time travelling paradoxes are avoided because the information sent back in time consists only of random quantum outcomes, which we have no control over. Hence, it is not possible to use this phenomenon to encode useful information.
It is one of MANY interpretations. It has no meaning unless one can prove a particle is going backwards in time. That's likely never going to be possible (a single particle going back in time has no meaning that we know of).
"Time travelling paradoxes are avoided because the information sent back in time consists only of random quantum outcomes, which we have no control over."
There is no information sent. Retro-causality here is just as scientifically useful as Lorentz Ether Theory. If one posits that LET should be ignored because it brings in something to explain the universe without any evidence... well then retro-causality should be ignored also because it does the same thing.
LET, retro-causality, interpretations of QM, and whatnot are only useful in so far as they help one understand the subject matter and their extra postulates are not yet falsified.
"Hence, it is not possible to use this phenomenon to encode useful information."
That's because there is no information sent. There is proof of nothing.
This falls under the no communication theorem. If there is no communication, then there is NO information sent. Communication = sending information
Correlations are NOT sending information (useful or otherwise).
"No-communication theorem
In physics, the no-communication theorem or no-signaling principle is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer."
Thanks!
Thanks from the entire team!
You sre the definition of the most underrated gem in human history. # near Nobel laureate level educating the dark massed with your godlike knowledge. Seriously I love your work. Your like the mona Lisa of science dommunicatio
Domunication.
....
That's the sort of thing you get, here in the comment section.
Thank you
3:52 "In quantum mechanics the idea is that the spin didn't actually have any value until you measured it."
Is there a profound difference between the meaning of this statement and "the idea that the particle didn't actually have a spin until you measured it"?
0:03 "Someone asked me this last week".
Actually, they asked you next week.
1:22 so let me get this straight - the particle is just a particle that doesn't know anything about time and *_therefore_* it has no direction in time? Do you mean by that that the water droplet jumping from the sea and disappearing into the clouds and thus clearly going back in time at 1:12 *_does_* know anything about time??
The particle by itself doesn't hold enough information to determine how it is travelling in time. In fact both backwards and forewards would look the same. So there is no difference. A water droplet going backwards tells us enough info by acting opposite to gravity.
A water droplet falling causes entropy to increase. All the gravitational potential energy gets converted to kinetic energy as it falls, then heat and small currents in the sea. As entropy increases over time, if you reversed it, it would look like it’s going back in time in that sense
If you see a particle going to the right, is it going backwards in time or not? but if you see rain going upwards you know for sure time is flowing backwards.
It's but a simulation. I've seen an equation or two that suggests you can't send particles back, only information. However, you can make some astonishing claims thereafter. Causality loops for instance.
There is no macroscopic back in time. Replace plus t by minus t in a CFD, or in any other non-linear n-body system or differential equation simulation run, and you'll understand. When going back in time, physically, entropy will still increase. Well, it's even more weird than you thought. It's not like running a movie backward.
Even though this article was the usual media popularizing the real science too much, and there was no real time-travel in it, isn't there actually a way to construct an entanglement across time? Well, sort of and it's actually trivial and nothing new but, hey, since time travel is interesting: Remember how in a spacetime diagram the coordinate-axes rotate for another observer that is moving relative to you? His "forward in time" is different than yours and it partially also points to a direction that you consider to be "forwards/backwards in space". This means that if you have two entangled particles, then it's a choice of your reference frame to make them also partially "entangled across time". Of course, you still can't do anything with this, certainly not send information to past, and the setup is more about the relativity of simultaneity than time travel, but I thought it interesting.
Damn! I wanted to use this to send lottery numbers back in time! 😢
This conundrum exists because people refuse to accept that time is a purely human invention due to our ability to remember the past and observe patterns (first it was seasons, then moons, then solar years and so on till atomic vibration clocks of today).
To me time is a unit for measuring moments of existence not something that is tangible just because we can conveniently plot on a graph.
Yeah I can send beers into the past. Don't see me bragging about it anywhere on utube
You’re right here
Indeed a Bar Stool is a Time Machine. Sit upon One and take in the necessary fuel, soon you will be transported to happier days.
Here's my ai generated tldr
Imagine a scenario where a single particle traveling into the past interacts with a quantum field, inducing a Noise Einstein Condensate (NEC) state.
Noise Einstein Condensate:
A NEC is a state of matter where a group of particles occupy the same quantum state, but with a noisy, fluctuating behavior.
Holographic Microphone:
The NEC state could then be manipulated to create a holographic microphone, effectively "projecting" a microphone into the past.
The holographic microphone would not be a physical object but rather a virtual, holographic image that can detect and process sound waves.
This virtual microphone would exist as a pattern of light and energy, allowing it to interact with sound waves in a way that is not possible with physical microphones.
Entangled Particle:
The single particle traveling into the past is entangled with the quantum field, meaning that its properties are correlated with the properties of the field.
This entanglement allows the particle to influence the behavior of the quantum field, inducing the NEC state and creating the holographic microphone.
The entanglement also means that the particle is connected to the holographic microphone, allowing it to transmit information from the past to the present.
In this scenario, the single particle traveling into the past creates a virtual, holographic microphone that can detect and process sound waves. The particle's entanglement with the quantum field allows it to manipulate the field and create the microphone, effectively "projecting" it into the past.
0:53 I just have to point out that the style of this graph and the background gives off some major weather channel vaporwave vibes
So glad you explained this because I was confused before seeing this video. 🤔
TIL all bitcoin millionaires are time traveler's.
How did u know?
@@dollyrama1132Post selection 😅
I'm favoured, $27K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America.
It's Mrs Sonia Duke of course
She's the best broker ever
Started with 5,000$ and Withdrew profits
89,000$
I'm glad to write her tay I do hope she will help handle my paycheck properly☺️☺️☺️
Can I start with as low as $1,000?
- "The crisis in science can't get any worse!"
- "Hold my beer!"
Thank you Sabine for being sane and defending sanity.
Nobody is existing in one timeframe. Each atom is in a different relativistic geodesic position in curved spacetime. I don’t need quantum physics to time travel! My feet are in the past of my head!
Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $8,000 and got my payout of $270,500 every months,God bless Christy Fiore 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸..
Hello!! how do you make such monthly, I’m a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself 😭 because of low finance but I still believe God
Thanks to my co-worker (Carson ) who suggested Ms Christy Fiore
After I raised up to 525k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery….Glory to God, shalom.
She's a licensed broker here in the states🇺🇸 and finance advisor.
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of CZcams videos about it but I still find it hard to understand
This really has the best introduction to quantum mechanics, we actually measure particles, not just probability of many particles. And you also explained that particle has it's property, we just can't observe it fast enough to talk about the absolute.
When you were saying particles don't know which way is past or future, I somehow thought about space-time diagram in relativity. Yeah, if the universe is 4D, particle can go which ever way in coordinate time, which only says about it's speed, because perceived time is always increased.
Thanks so much
I'll stop restoring a Delorian and looking for a flux capacitor and some plutonium.
I don’t understand enough about quantum mechanics to comprehend this: what is the purpose of the entanglement in this case? If you can measure the first particle and select it,then why can’t you use that particle for whatever your purpose is? Why do you need the other entangled particle in the first place? Is it because selecting it causes the first particle to be absorbed in the selection sensor or something like that?
4:11 Thought you were talking about video game journalists there for a while.
Time is akin to temperature in that it can change relative to other bodies, but can never reverse (ie go below absolute zero).
*indefinite causal ordering* allows for superposition of ((A causes B) + (B causes A))/root(2) as a real quantum phenomena.
well.. my tiny brain has no clue what just happened.... but respect for your work sabine!
It was because of these misleading articles that I unsubscribed from NewScientist several years ago.
If any change happens to a particle within space, then there is time. If it exists within space, and there is any change within the system, then there is time. Thus, unless you make sometime exist outside of the dimensions of space-time, there is time. Particles are no exception unless they are unaffected by the dimensions of space-time.
There is no change in a 4D spacetime. Particles are lines. In a Hilbert space, it's some odd infinite network, again static, since time is part of the space. And in QFT, there is no classical particle at all.
What’s the point? No one said time doesn’t exist or that particles exist outside time.
I seen a star with its high beams on last night aiming north
That would mean that those particle would exist in two places at the same time: the one where they are by proceeding normally along the time arrow, the other one where they are by "going back" in time, which is ludicrous.
time travel is absurd on the face of it . but its fun and makes for a lots of good sci - fi
Yes, same about manymultiverseworlds.
So direction is an emergent property?
In 2013, I attended a brief by NARA and the rep. told us, although he wasn't supposed to tell us but they had transported one particle in time.
I note earlier in the paper they are saying " The protocol harnesses the mathematical equivalence between certain entanglement manipulation experiments and closed timelike curves, hypothetical worldlines that travel backward in time" - which doesn't to me suggest they are saying they send particles back in time - and indeed they call it 'hypothetical - and later in the paper they put the idea that you can "imagine" that the particle is travelling back - presumably because, as they said earlier, there's a mathematical equivalence. Maybe New Scientist put a headline that cherry picked the 'time woo woo" idea, but the paper authors stuff like ". One can imagine that the time-traveling qubit in Fig. 2(a) is flipped at T1. Hence we say that our experiment is inspired by closed timelike curves" doesn't seem to be claiming any time travel woo woo and more that it's one way of imagining what is happening and these 'closed timelike curves' have the same maths. At least my layman scanning of the paper wouldn't make me put "Scientists send particles back in time" as the headline.
Amazing real life comparisons. Sniffing my t-shirt will, to me, now feel like I'm an experimental physicist doing quantum mechanical measurements.
When discussing time at the level of particles there is no absolute "'time'', each particle has its own time.
Part of the problem as I see it, is that it's easy to start thinking of time as a real thing. It's not. It's nothing more than an abstraction we created to describe motion. Time is defined by motion. Time is motion, they are the same thing.
Sabine, I wonder if all non-locality quantum effects of "entangled particle pairs" experiments are explainable simply because the particles don't have a preferred direction in time?
They are causally connected both backwards and forwards to the point in time where they are first entangled.
I remember Cher doing extensive research in the area
Yes, I believe she was attempting to alter sound waves in the past somehow. I think she also hit a stumbling block due to the vast distances between stellar objects.
At the beginning you pointed out an aspect of philosophy that was my take-home-lesson when I was in high school (where we had a "Philosophy" class, which actually is "History of philosophy"). You can always find a philosopher (whatever that means) who says "a", and another one who says the opposite: "-a". Now, if the value of "a" is equal to the value of "-a" (and why should one be more "valuable" or true than the other?), it means that the value of the statement "a" (and of course of "-a") is zero ("a=0")
As somebody that's only had a single physics course I have to watch your videos often a second or third time but I love doing so. Loved the bitcoin joke at the end.
If we can maintain an entangled state over a big enough distance that we get to using classical sublight methods and send a signal in the sense of whether or not the entangled systems stay entangled you just might be able to get a hint about what numbers to play... Either way it'd be a cool experiment.
Can you cover the effects of entanglement where the pair are in different states of time dilation?
I know time-travel is possible, both to the past and to the future. But how would one actually know they sent a particle into the past? Is it like rewinding a tape, or does the particle simply disappear to re-appear at a later time? Like growing a tree, sending it to the past, making it smaller to watching it grow again.
Came for the "Too good to be true", stayed for the comments.
Thank you for again dispelling the retrocausality arguments. measurement always measures the quantum state at the moment of measurement. A very simple statement, but often, apparently, confused by many.
Congratulations les't have a pri-vately conversation
It’s possible to bring an inevitable result back to its previous state simply by reversing the steps just before the moment of solidarity though the arrow of time itself hasn’t changed direction. I don’t think it’s possible to reverse entropy through.
Heisenberg principle makes me annoyed because it makes it sound like the real problem is we don't have the technology to look at quantum particles without affecting them. We lack the ability to view them in their natural state. So we're just shooting in the dark when it comes to understanding how they behave.
The way it clicked for me is when you consider that the relationship of some quantities like momentum and velocity are like the relationship between a song and a musical note. If I have a sound and I play it very briefly, and I ask, which note was that, you can answer that. But if I ask which song you can't answer because the number of songs for that note are unbounded. If I play for more time and ask which note was it, suddenly there were lots of notes, you can't tell which one was but now you know the song. It is basically the relationship between frequency and location of a wave. The difference is that it is a probability wave. So the uncertainty principle is just because you have a frequency dependent quantity and one that depends on the location of the wave, and the more you spread the wave better you know the frequency and the more you concentrste, better you know the location. Basically applying Fourier, but the wave is a probability wave. I short, the uncertainty principle is fundamental, having better measurements won't change, because you can't tell which song I am singing if I just sang a single tone and stopped.
How would you prove it?
I'm having my best laugh's of the week.
🤣🥳
Thanks Sabine 🎉
Is there a way that with a magnetic field we could make certain spin directions for a particle more likely than others, without measuring its current spin first? If that was possible, I think it would also be possible to create an algorithm that allows communication using entanglement.
I remember watching something about this at least 10 years ago. and have considered it pretty much ever since then wow, within 20 seconds the good doctor burst that bubble. it's obvious now that I've been told. this is one of the few places where someone routinely makes me feel like an utter fool. a humbling experience.
Journalists have a hard time distinguishing between an undefined quantum entangled particle and retro-causality
Love that Sabine refuses to say the Brilliant line about being 6x as effective.
"They'd be trading Bitcoin" 😄 The whole article in a single statement!
I used this as a premise for a Science Fiction short story about 15 years ago. (I never finished it of course.) This is a lot more technical (and accurate)(the best kind of accuracy) but I'm still proud of myself for thinking of it as a generalization.
Many years ago i saw an article that entanglement can exist between particles at different times meaning if you change one parrticle, the other changes in the past as well. Not sure if this statement is still valid?
I have been wondering about the statement that single particles don't have any direction in time. Doesn't the fact that they have half lives (even though mostly extremely long) mean they do have a direction in that they eventually decay but dont un-decay?
Please do an analysis of the Plasmoid Thunderstorm Generator.
Hey, so glad you are talking about that paper. I am the Third author on it. Worked on experiment setup.
You know a particle's gone back in time when it finds itself matchmaking its own parents on pain of de-existence.
I would like us to know each other better
Sabine, what do you think of David Hoffman's claim that "spacetime is not fundamental"?