• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The 'see Ghosts Time Camera' a possibility? New findings.

Migrated topic.
N

nen888

member for the trees
Donator
Senior Member
Senior member Botanical expert
..apologies if someone has already posted this one..yeah i hyped the thread title, but it relates to a pretty groovy new photon-entanglement experiment result..from new scientist Oct. 2011

Photon reaches from beyond the grave in quantum trick
04 October 2012 by Anil Ananthaswamy Magazine issue 2885.

EINSTEIN mockingly called it "spooky action at a distance": the finding that quantum particles can influence each other regardless of how far apart they are. We can only imagine his horror at a new experiment that extends the idea to time by entangling a pair of photons that never coexisted...

...Hagai Eisenberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel and colleagues have done the experiment, via a process called an entanglement swap.

If you have two pairs of entangled photons, taking one photon from each pair and entangling them disengages the two original pairs, and creates a second, fresh entanglement between the two, left out photons. Eisenberg's team used the swap to entangle a photon with one that no longer existed.

They started with an entangled pair of photons, 1 and 2, and then measured the quantum state of photon 1, which destroys the particle. Photon 2, however, lived on and, about 100 nanoseconds later, the team created a new pair of entangled photons, 3 and 4.

When the team entangled photon 2 with newborn photon 3, photon 4 also became entangled with photon 1 - even though 1 was by then "dead" (see diagram).

The team knew 4 was entangled with 1 by measuring 4's state, which depended on the states measured for 1, 2 and 3 (arxiv.org/abs/1209.4191v1). "Without the idea of entanglement, you cannot explain it," says von Zanthier, who was not involved in the latest experiment. "The future photon, which is not born, is strongly influenced by a photon that is already dead."
Click to expand...

..while the article then goes on about it's applications in quantum-cryptography, i don't see why this couldn't lead to a theoretical 'camera' which could see through time..in a backwards direction at least..

like..ghosts..

below: 3D plot of a single photon showing wave-like behaviour
 

Attachments

  • double1.jpg
    double1.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 0
:!: Please! Don't go digging up my past!

No seriously, that one movie where they arrest people for crimes they were to commit in the future...

Why does science fiction always beat science to the Chase.
 
The Meddling Monk said:
The past is entangled with the present, is what I get from that. Cool experiment .
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the confusion about entanglement and non-locality.

All we need to do is accept that past creates the future and that two seemingly disconnected events such as entangled particle interactions can have a unified cause. The fact that they share the same cause presents a fundamental limit and nature to their behaviours.

I think this is a matter of coming out of the old school newtonian framework of thinking. In a few hundred years entanglement will stop being treated as some confusing alien thing and perhaps treated in the same way we might treat "F=MA" nowadays. Physics is only confusing when you assume insanity and expect logic to conform to that insanity.

It does suggest a timeless aspect to reality.
 
Also, to add...

If you followed the light cones of each entangled particle there would definitely be some kind of remarkable correlation.

Even in this case where the last particle is entangled with one that is actually now not even here, there is still the entanglement of light cones too. While the particles themselves may die, the light cone for a given flow of information-energy is always alive; it is a continuous sequence of cause-effects. On a higher level of abstraction, neither is the cause and neither is the effect.


Likewise I think we need a more abstract notion of the 'atom' of existence than a "particle". Think about this: a particle is essentially the centre of a 14 billion light-year sphere, an observable universe (as opposed to 'the' observable universe). This comprises a data set which is continually growing as entropy increases and more importantly, the sum total of all activity within that sphere is what defines the data point at its very centre: a particle-wave.

A particle is good for pinning down the behaviour of individual data sets when we can treat them as somewhat static objects. It worked great for newtonian mechanics. So we have this notion of "particles travelling through time" and questions of time/charge/parity symmetry present themselves. But why don't we go up a layer and assume the fundamental unit of the universe is inherently 4-dimensional; a data set represented in the form of constantly expanding spheres. Basically, you have 'spacelike separation' and 'timelike separation'. We need a new kind of 'separation' to test non-locality on. Who knows how you'd do that.

And it is not restricted to any specific shape or form, it could be a single particle that has existed since the dawn, or a vast assembly of innumerable entangled particles interacting. But whether it's one object in 3D or a thousand, it is still a single unit. There are pointers to such a concept already - 'gravity as an entropic force'. Most bleeding edge theories actually do go down this route actually. Personally in my limited knowledge I think they got it a little backwards. Inflation/expansion is the entropic force. Gravity is there to drive entropy forward and give it something to work with. Three words: information creation pressure.


The key point is that we have this current concept floating around that "if anyone understands or intuits quantum mechanics they are an idiot, insane, or both". Does that not sound like flat-earther talk? What happens when someone actually lays down the framework for an intuitive understanding of QM, which looking back on the history of science is next to inevitable? Are people not going to be feeling pretty sheepish?
 
^..i had to read that three times embracethevoid which means good! :d excellent read, and concepts..
.thanks..

..i wonder what mainstream current physicists make of Bohm's implicate order theory?
seems to me they kind of pat him him on the head, smile, and have not much to do with it?
 
I would say that the idea of QM is already pretty intuitive if you understand all of the prerequisite material (probability distributions, eigenvalues, etc.). "Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics", claims which we readily accept today. We have come a long way since the formulation of QM, but I would say that part of the reason that people find it so unintuitive is that they are taught Newtonian mechanics from the beginning. The sooner we introduce concepts like particle-wave duality and quantum uncertainty to elementary school children, the sooner society will come to think of QM in terms of more than mere conceptualizations of what is otherwise physics alchemy.

..i wonder what mainstream current physicists make of Bohm's implicate order theory?
seems to me they kind of pat him him on the head, smile, and have not much to do with it?
Click to expand...
Having asked at least one of my physics professors about it, I can assure you that that's all they do. Pilot-wave theories (such as the Bohm's) are not really taken seriously by the mainstream physics community. They're more so historical curiosities than legitimate hypotheses.
 
You're right hixidom but the common perception has not caught up yet. It's funny because it makes QM look mystical, which it is but simultaneously opens the door to all sorts of babble that people looking to make a quick buck use to sell books by preying on those who don't really understand it and using fancy word constructs.

Speaking of the 4-dimensional fundamental unit of reality, the theory of Causal Dynamical Triangulations does actually use this, positing that reality is constructed from 4-simplices (4D triangles as is the name). I think we could only really answer the non-locality problem using a discrete spacetime theory but I am not going to limit my imagination either.

At the same time my intuition tells me that even though there is a Planck length, spacetime must be infinitely granular and henceforth actually continuous meaning the Planck length, like the Heisenberg limit is just a limit on macroscopic objects and not a reflection of the inherent order of things deeper below that we may perhaps never be privy to. Otherwise the concept of a geodesic (shortest line between points in a curved space) wouldn't make much sense; any kind of pixellation would perhaps throws it off. Though there might be some kind of elegant formula that chooses which pixel of two choices to travel through.

causal_dynamical_triangulations.jpg


What a beautiful concept
 
^..amazing diagrams embracethevoid! :) i'm still pondering the latest concepts..

from memory, in Tachyon theory, tachyons occupy the 'space-like' end of the total energy distribution graph..

Godel, Cantor and the continuum , and integers, are springing to mind, but time is short right now..
but 'continuum' is essentially infinite as opposed to discrete is it not.?.i.e an infinite number of values can't be quantified/quantised..?

but, thanks again for these latest ponderings as i ponder..
 
The diagram is not mine by the way, it originates from here (that link makes for some seriously dense reading).

As for what you're asking I remember reading that the only countable infinity is the set of natural numbers. But I am not sure whether there are such things as finite continuums.
 
In all due honesty space is almost an abstraction. Have you seen how SimCity operates? You have this entire booming cityscape with millions of inhabitants, an economy, etc.

But at its heart, it is actually just a giant spreadsheet represented visually!

I would say 'space' is equivalent to data. That is to say, the very capacity for data is itself data, they are one and the same.

In that you buy a blank 100gb hard disk: there is no such thing as a "blank" hard disk as that would be 0gb. Rather you have 100gb of 0s written to the disk or some random pattern. Same thing with space.

All of the things I am mentioning herein revolve crucially around the holographic principle, the premise that the 2D spherical boundaries of observable universes can contain the entire data of everything contained inside them (the 3D spheres themselves). This creates a discrete spacetime revolving around information flow: from these information flows, all the natural phenomena such as gravity and heat are emergent.


Thing is, all wavefunctions cover the entirety of space. You are always everywhere at once but the probability just spikes up very sharply in the spot you find yourself right now.
 
btw, belated thank you to hixidom for the Bohm response..:)

..

embracethevoid wrote:
I would say 'space' is equivalent to data. That is to say, the very capacity for data is itself data, they are one and the same.
Click to expand...
..using that analogy, if Space is the HD, then Matter is the arrangements of electrons/magnetic bubbles on the 'drive', Time i guess any logical (or coherent/probable) sequence (or path or operation) of or through the data (Bits)..

..but is that to say the bits are already there, but not 'written over' (encoded) ? as in space is still matter (in which case massless)
in theory space expands..where does it come from..?

to me it makes sense that space would comprise the superluminal 'mirror side' of the universe..it's there but you can;t ever touch it, catch it..

it also makes sense that space is simply a construction with conscious processing and not 'actual' as such..and that the speed of light may in some way relate to this..

but i know not..:)
 
Exactly nen888. The data is already there but just not "written to" yet. This is what we observe as the quantum vacuum foam: particles jumping in and out of existence in a vanishing instant.

The difference between the matter you see here and now and the foam is that our matter just takes a lot longer to jump back into the void. But it does all the same! This of course implies that if you fast forward reality N times where n = 1/(average time for vacuum foam particle pair creation-annihilation) then space could actually appear just as foamy on the macroscopic scale! For all we know, all movement could simply just be a case of antiparticles annihilating non-paired particles thereby leaving their twins still in reality.

It also makes sense that space is simply a construction with conscious processing and not 'actual' as such..and that the speed of light may in some way relate to this..
Click to expand...

In fact, the speed of light represents the information transfer velocity, literally the velocity that consciousness processes reality. Acquaint yourself with the idea of light cones and rapidity (c is constant in one perspective but infinite from this perspective; both are identical perspectives) and these things will transpire ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom