Quantum entanglement time travel hypothesis

I just thought of this from someone else's post

So, what would happen if you took two quantum entangled particles, kept one preserved in a lab, but took the other and accelerated it so fast for so long that it would eventually time travel into the future?

Could we then use quantum entanglement to teleport the one back from the future?

What if that science developed technology that could survive that and record evidence of the time it was in? Would that then solidify our future, does that mean things are still up for chance as that's not been observed yet?

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 51 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • NWO? Naw, biatch, NWA!

    https://youtu.be/TMZi25Pq3T8

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I'm somewhat pressed for time at the moment but as I rather like the question and as I'm capable of answering it, I'll provide the best brief answer that I can quickly muster off the top of my head.

    Particles can indeed be entangled across time. This exploits something known as temporal nonlocality as opposed to the spatial nonlocality that you're likely familiar with alone.

    Nonlocality as pertains to quantum entanglement refers to the phenomenon whereof the measurement process of one particle automatically affects the measurement of its entangled partner regardless of the distance between them, whether that distance be spatial or temporal.

    I don't readily see anything about this process at all that would thereby imply the existence of a method for then teleporting a particle, but a very warranted and even expected question is one regarding whether or not we could exploit this nonlocality to transmit information from the future to the past, which is still time travel in a sense.

    To answer that question I'll answer the more commonly asked question: Can we exploit spatial nonlocality so as to transmit information across the universe instantaneously, effectively bypassing c (the speed of light)?

    Well, c isn't actually just the speed of light; it's the speed of many things, the cosmological speed limit. It appears possible that it's the speed of causality itself. Not to imply that we're living in a simulation, but the universe works a lot like a computer either way, and c seems to be related to its overall processing capabilities.

    Unsurprisingly, as usual, the universe seems to contain inherent fail-safes that prevent the violation of its laws (and/or limits). The idea behind exploiting spatial nonlocality for FTL data transmission is to measure particles in a way so as that we affect the measurements thereof and steer them toward something representative of either a 0 or 1 (binary code). As this affects the measurements on the other side, it would effectively allow for the transmission of data across any distance instantaneously, bypassing c. While it's slightly more complicated than this, making a measurement with the intention of receiving a specific result basically results in decoherence and effectively destroys the "magic" of the system.

    For the same reason, it can be extrapolated that communication across time would also fail with the framework of our current knowledge.

    Still, as nonlocality is in a sense capable of transmitting information either way, it's tempting to imagine the development of a quantum system that more naturally "observes" its environment unperturbed and then us simply manipulating the environment instead so as to transmit relevant information, but this is likely millions of years ahead of us, and even then may to lead to another fail-safe as the universe really loathes anything capable of violating the rules of causality.

    It would probably only be possible at any point with a many worlds model of the universe wherein causality violation can be negated via the constant creation of new universes via branching.

    Many would be inclined to assert that both backward time travel and sup-c speeds of any variety are things that we can conclusively assert will never exist, but as I'm not just a being of physics but of statistics, I can't help noticing that we're almost always ultimately wrong when we deem something impossible. I suspect that it's prudent to avoid doing so before we even have the so-called "theory of everything", essentially the graceful unification of quantum mechanics and gravity.

    We view it as if some sort of ultimate goal, but I suspect that it's only the very beginning. Even after learning it, we could potentially spend an eternity finding new applications for it and creating new technologies. Right now declaring that something is impossible is analogous to dictating what can and cannot be done with JavaScript, C++, etc. without even knowing the language.

    Possession of the master theory is analogous to merely owning a copy of the book that teaches a programming language, and we're not even there yet. We shouldn't exactly be too confident in our predictions.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I want to ask you something, because I feel like you could figure out the answer better than I could

      Is it possible to do anything with the banach tarski paradox and the Fibonacci sequence? Like combining the two to create something interesting. I've watched a few videos on both and I think they could be played with, I just don't have the time and capacity

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I could be getting things mixed up, but I swear there was some "quantum thing" that performed teleportation.

      Not like teleportation in star trek, it was more like, you have particle A and particle B, which were distinguishable I guess?, and then particle A transforms into B which becomes the only remaining particle.

      It wasn't like they could turn an apple into an orange, I'm pretty sure they were entangled particles. If I remember right, it was the same documentary that showed the two labs about 7 miles apart, one on an island, performing quantum entanglement tests with each other. I can try to find it in the next few days

      The idea I had in my mind, was create a device using entangled particles to record data, maybe something like weather or soil samples or as complicated as societal changes, accelerate it into the future, and since its entangled counterpart is in our time and if things are still relative through a space time warp then it might be able to make that jump.

      "While it's slightly more complicated than this, making a measurement with the intention of receiving a specific result basically results in decoherence and effectively destroys the "magic" of the system.

      For the same reason, it can be extrapolated that communication across time would also fail with the framework of our current knowledge."

      So I had to look up decoherence. Basically if we built the perfect Shrodinger's Box and isolated it from perception, it would just fail to work?

      Which is why you're saying any idea like that won't?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • would prob b more complicated than that.. where do u even begin

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Or they appear to communicate because there’s only one particle in the first place, they’re both the same one, everywhere, all times

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • This is reminiscent of the one-electron universe postulate. It's an idea that John Wheeler proposed to Richard Feynman via telephone wherein all electrons and positrons (the antimatter equivalent of the electron) are manifestations of the exact same particle traveling back and forth through spacetime. It seemed plausible because while antimatter is typically described as charge-reversed matter, for all mathematical intents and purposes, this is the exact same thing as being ordinary matter traveling backward through time.

      Antimatter might very well still turn out to be just that, but the one-electron universe postulate itself has been all but disproven. It's one of my favorite ideas all the same.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • May well be what I was thinking of, just remember hearing something like it and thinking it was interesting

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Are you referencing the big bang? Since all of existence was once coalesced into one lump of energy, and everything that exists now is an extension of that once unified energy, everything is connected?

      I feel like that has a name, but I forget

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • What Tommythecaty seems to referring to is the one-electron universe postulate, which I explained in greater depth in a reply to them. See that reply for more information.

        They might also be suggesting that what we perceive as two quantumly entangled particles is in fact one particle in a quantum superposition, that is, existing in two places simultaneously.

        Counterintuitively, this is very possible in the quantum realm, but no, it's a separate phenomenon from quantum entanglement.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Yes but Vanta, my man, why fight the central limit theorem of statistics? The second law of thermodynamics is a one directional phenomenon. Schrödinger's cat would never be entangled with another kitty, so to speak, on a relative Lagragian point inside CERN's doughnut.

          Isn't string theory our best hope for the graceful unification we are looking for here? Hoping you will reply, because your VIP presence is an honor for our humble website of high aptitude fuck ups (myself included).

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • What, so like we have double slit experiment which shows that the particle will behave, based on how it's observed and what the observer thinks as it's starting seem, as both a particle and a wave

          But there's also the possibility that there can be two physically separate parts based on the same(?) underlying principle?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Yeah I heard some theory that there’s only one and it’s our observation that’s wrong. Goes over my head

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Hey Doc, instead of entangling your brain, do a quick check on Wikipedia of the Pauli Exclusion principle. It frames the problem nicely before you would decide to enter the cathedral of mathematical zealotry espoused by theoretical physicists. Anyway, medical vigilance is what Tasmania is banking on. You da man.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • pfffft Schrödinger was a kook, Tommy’s cat is where it’s at.

            There’s only one and that’s why the thing reacts regardless of distance, because it’s the same one. Slit experiment was right but observed all wrong and there ain’t no spooky action like caty action.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Oh, like the ratio of matter to anti matter? My physics teacher explained -1, 0, and 1

          What about the observation? Like it'll indicate as one thing but function as another?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • wait really?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • No, but quantum superpositions (the description of things existing in multiple places simultaneously) /are/ possible, as counterintuitive as that may be to our brains, which needed only evolve so as to loosely intuitively understand the macroscopic world and some of the aspects of classical physics so as to evade predators and catch prey.

        The rules of the macroscopic world are just as determined by mathematics as those of the quantum world, but evolution needed only give us a way to somewhat intuitively understand the macroscopic realm. Therefore much of quantum mechanics is completely counterintuitive, but when the mathematics checks out, it is reality.

        If you have a difficult time wrapping your head around it, don't worry; Albert Einstein died intensely struggling with all of this.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Idk much about physics but ive read before that the seperate particles always react no matter how far away the other one is. So like one could be on the moon and one in a lab and they both communicate somehow. Idk if thats what ur talkin about

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Yes, imagine that but one of them moving so fast it could be accelerated into the future, then teleported back to the present

      As it stands, space and time seem to be linked, and the atomic clock experiment and the relativity paradox shows that there's a warp in both space and time when you accelerate near light speed.

      So the time and space of one of the two quantum entangled particles is warped, and it is proven as you said that distance, or space, won't negate the influence they have on each other or their teleporting abilities

      So if space doesn't matter, what about time?

      This post is meant to be a thought experiment, discussed by anyone

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • That sounds pretty cool. Theyre probably already working on that at cern.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • They could be, the hydrogen collider could be repurposed to get one of those entangled particles to travel fast enough

          Cern does scare me a little bit though, part of me wonders if some of this stuff would be like pulling out essential threads of clothing but we were able to split an atom successfully so who knows

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • We've /already/ pulled this off actually (the entanglement across time aspect anyway), as I said in my longer comment, but we did so in a way that is a bit more complicated to explain albeit simpler to pull off. I can elaborate if you want but the point is that it can definitely be done as you rightly expected given the nature of spacetime.

            The method used can even offer the impression that from our reference point the two particles never even initially interacted (which is of course crucial to achieving entanglement). Some argue that this possibility within the realm of temporal nonlocality is even more spooky than that which Einstein infamously described as "spooky action at a distance" regarding spatial nonlocality, but it's arguably more of an illusion in a sense as, as you demonstrably already know, all particles have their own "historians" and no reference point is more valid than another.

            Good job on suspecting that this is possible. That said, this doesn't provide a mechanism to then send one particle back in time any more than purely spatial entanglement allows for one particle to teleport across space.

            Whether or not entanglement can be used to send information back in time or across the universe faster than light, however, is arguably somewhat still open to debate. That's what my longer comment focused on.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Tell me about it

              If we can test this stuff at any distance on Earth, my first thought would be that there is no limit. But light seems slow if you scale up enough, so it's possible the limits are beyond our immediate field of awareness. Do they ever talk about needing a cognitive observer, or is it more like the tree will make the noise regardless?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
          • Theyre doing creepy stuff at cern did you ever see the human sacrifice video? They tried pulling it off the internet CERN's defense was "its just a prank bro". Weird stuff

            https://youtu.be/Yo5AOe_yS9Y

            Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment