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.
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
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?
Quantum Entanglement Time Travel Hypothesis
← View full post
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.
--
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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
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?