What's key is that during the entire process, the photon did not enter the channel between sender and receiver: As long as the photon passes through the channel, it will be absorbed by the ensemble if the control atom is in the ground state – but if the atom is in the Rydberg state, the photon will be absorbed by the detector. In this way, an unknown quantum state can be transferred between two distant participants without any physical particles traveling between them.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-scheme-states-transmitting-physical.htmlQuoteWhat's key is that during the entire process, the photon did not enter the channel between sender and receiver: As long as the photon passes through the channel, it will be absorbed by the ensemble if the control atom is in the ground state – but if the atom is in the Rydberg state, the photon will be absorbed by the detector. In this way, an unknown quantum state can be transferred between two distant participants without any physical particles traveling between them.It looks to me like it says you can send information without sending particles or energy the classical way. So far all quantum communications had to have a classical component and it meant that no information exchange could actually take place faster than FTL. But this seems to say that is not needed. But it also looks like they take pains to say (at least twice) that it applies to unknown information or an unknown state... So i am confused about whether this is FTL communications or not. What are they saying?
This has always bugged me. Wouldn't the time paradox not matter, because the second observer could not communicate any information about the time paradox he witnessed back to the first observer before the paradox happens in the first observer's frame of reference?
Wouldn't the time paradox not matter, because the second observer could not communicate any information about the time paradox he witnessed back to the first observer before the paradox happens in the first observer's frame of reference?
As soon as information can exceed c, then causality of some events changes in the view of some observers. They will not agree on whether A caused B or B caused A, something that was well-defined before. Because of this you can get a set of observers that see sequentially that A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That's a problem.
Quote from: ddunham on 04/03/2015 09:28 pmAs soon as information can exceed c, then causality of some events changes in the view of some observers. They will not agree on whether A caused B or B caused A, something that was well-defined before. Because of this you can get a set of observers that see sequentially that A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That's a problem.Why is that a problem?Who cares if two observers disagree about what they see? That happens all the time now and we all continue to exist.
Because if you have an ansible that can transmit information faster than light, you can send information back into your past light cone, something that all observers will agree on, and you get things like grandfather paradoxes.
Sure. But it is useful to point out that the consequences of even the slightest form of FTL effect are very drastic - it'd imply that the universe would be strongly acausal. For example, if you could use entanglement to transmit information, you could mess with events in billion-year old faraway stars or galaxies just by looking at them.At some point the consequences become so strong that you'd have to start wondering why we haven't seen any time travellers from the future.
Sure. But it is useful to point out that the consequences of even the slightest form of FTL effect are very drastic -
Quote from: Nilof on 04/04/2015 02:50 pmSure. But it is useful to point out that the consequences of even the slightest form of FTL effect are very drastic -Anyone who thinks they can live with it should at least attempt to decipher this new world and explain it to us. What sort of world is it where one observer at one velocity sees a man dying from a poisoned kool-aid while his phone rings beside him, while another observer at a different velocity sees him answer his phone and pour out the poison?
Manyworlds interpretation would.
Furthermore physicists will evoke time travel when convenient. Feynman and wheeler posited advanced waves and retarded waves traveling into the future and the past to solve certain otherwise intractible problems.
I think we are in trouble if our scientific analysis consists of "This violates some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe on philosophical grounds."There is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that any of these postulates about preserving order have any basis in physical facts let alone that they are universally true.
EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel
More so, every time someone comes up with a mathematical trick that appears to allow violation of causality, speed of light, conservations of energy/charge/etc, it always turns out that the effect can't be used to do so. Every single frickin' time. At some point you have to accept what the universe is telling you.
What gets me is simple; If a communications could be transmitted in real time to another person light years away, with no lag time, (Other than the speed of sound going from the sender to the transmitter and then from the receiver to the person listening, how would that be a violation of Relativity?So long as the reception of the message cannot arrive before it is (sent? added here) received, where is the paradox?
What gets me is simple; If a communications could be transmitted in real timeto another person lightyears away, with no lag time, (Other than the speed of sound going from the sender to the transmitter and then from the receiver to the person listening, how would that be a violation of Relativity?So long as the reception of the message cannot arrive before it is received, where is the paradox? If data can be shared by entangled particles, again, so long as simultunaity is maintained between two points, where is the paradox? (Yeah, it's a word I made up, I think, it means for an event to happen at two remote locations at the same time, as compared to each location's frame of reference). Mind you, this could not be applicable to objects moving at relativistic velocities, as the frame of reference would be massively skewed. While data transmitted to an object moving at relativistic velocities would be vastly spead up, data transmitted from an object moving at relativistic velocities should be slowed down, relative to the temporal difference in reference frames.
I think we are in trouble if our scientific analysis consists of "This violates some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe on philosophical grounds."
There is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that any of these postulates about preserving order have any basis in physical facts let alone that they are universally true.
Recent entanglement experiments strongly supported future measurements affecting the state of particles that had already ceased to exist.
Relativity allows (so far) limited time travel but it is time travel. all of it allowed by the rules; given a traversible wormhole which is not yet ruled out.
Relativity allows it; physicists have *faith* however that something in Quantum Gravity theory which hasn't been discovered yet will forbid that.
*Faith* that some how "theory X" will forbid it. LOL. Better get out the robes, incense and ritual fetishes.EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel.
I understand relativity of simultaneity and the statement that there is not a special frame of reference. However, what would constitute a special frame of reference? If it is something that can be measured from any frame of reference, then isn't the cosmic microwave background leftover from the Big Bang a special frame of reference? If I am missing something here, please enlighten me.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amI think we are in trouble if our scientific analysis consists of "This violates some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe on philosophical grounds." Fortunately, causality isn't "some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe".The only people fudging here to make themselves feel better about the universe are those who want to believe faster-than-light travel or communication is possible in spite of all the very strong evidence that it is not.Sure, we could find new evidence one day that calls into question whether FTL travel or communication is possible. So far, there's been no such evidence.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amThere is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that any of these postulates about preserving order have any basis in physical facts let alone that they are universally true. Every experiment, everywhere, has supported the idea that causality has a basis in physical fact. Everyday life experience also provides such evidence. I can't think of anything at all that has more evidence going for it than causality.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amFurthermore physicists will evoke time travel when convenient. Feynman and wheeler posited advanced waves and retarded waves traveling into the future and the past to solve certain otherwise intractible problems.You're misunderstanding what they were talking about. Those theories were explicitly consistent with the inability to communicate classical information or travel faster than light.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRecent entanglement experiments strongly supported future measurements affecting the state of particles that had already ceased to exist.And that has absolutely nothing to do with violating causality.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRelativity allows (so far) limited time travel but it is time travel. all of it allowed by the rules; given a traversible wormhole which is not yet ruled out.There are lots of things that are consistent with relativity but inconsistent with other evidence. Relativity only describes part of known physics.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRelativity allows it; physicists have *faith* however that something in Quantum Gravity theory which hasn't been discovered yet will forbid that.That's utter nonsense. Physicists follow the evidence. Causality is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence we currently have. That's why physicists coming up with theories try to find theories that also support causality -- because a physical theory that matches the evidence is better than one that doesn't match the evidence.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 am*Faith* that some how "theory X" will forbid it. LOL. Better get out the robes, incense and ritual fetishes.EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".
Information cannot exceed C; wavefronts may do so, but can't carry information. We're trying to use English here to describe subtle mathematics, and our innate perception of causality etc interferes with any understanding of the outer universe - we are simply one of the Great Apes, looking out into a Universe which doesn't fit in with our mental predispositions, and attempting to erect a narrative.Go and read Jastrow.
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/03/2015 09:58 pmInformation cannot exceed C; wavefronts may do so, but can't carry information. We're trying to use English here to describe subtle mathematics, and our innate perception of causality etc interferes with any understanding of the outer universe - we are simply one of the Great Apes, looking out into a Universe which doesn't fit in with our mental predispositions, and attempting to erect a narrative.Go and read Jastrow.Explain quantum tunneling then. A particle going from point A to point B without transitioning through the interveining space certainly seems to violate the concept of information traveling faster than light. Admittedly this, so far, has only been observed on the nanoscopic scale, but the transition certainly SEEMS to be happining at faster than light velocities.
Explain quantum tunneling then. A particle going from point A to point B without transitioning through the interveining space certainly seems to violate the concept of information traveling faster than light. Admittedly this, so far, has only been observed on the nanoscopic scale, but the transition certainly SEEMS to be happining at faster than light velocities.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/08/2015 05:23 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amEDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".No- i know well what these terms mean. And merely relativistic travel is also time travel due to gamma factor. if i go to a distant star at 99.99 percent C i travel in time. I experience an abbreviated time compared to observers at home. in my perspective the trip takes mere moments or weeks at worst. That is time travel. It's not your definition of time travel; but it is time travel. If i return home at 99.99 percent light speed; I will have aged moments or weeks at worst while everyone I greet at journey's end will be about 9 or ten years older. I will have effectively traveled to the future skipping all the inconvenient things in between moments.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amEDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".
EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/08/2015 01:57 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/08/2015 05:23 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amEDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".No- i know well what these terms mean. And merely relativistic travel is also time travel due to gamma factor. if i go to a distant star at 99.99 percent C i travel in time. I experience an abbreviated time compared to observers at home. in my perspective the trip takes mere moments or weeks at worst. That is time travel. It's not your definition of time travel; but it is time travel. If i return home at 99.99 percent light speed; I will have aged moments or weeks at worst while everyone I greet at journey's end will be about 9 or ten years older. I will have effectively traveled to the future skipping all the inconvenient things in between moments.OK, then you're just making up your own definition for a term that already has a very widely understood meaning. What's the point of that other than deliberate miscommunication?
Even time travel where you could not effect your own timeline would be very very useful for information gathering and for stealing acquiring artifacts (to preserve them for posterity) and grabbing specimens say for botany, biology or zoology. if there are "many worlds" then some would be so close to identical that the only difference could be some detail so minor as to be unnoticeable.
I had this idea too, so how it work's in my mind is that they have 2 entangled sets, one for receiving and one for sending, they would come up with a code, like Morse code, and send photons into their sending particle, then on the other side, the entangled particle would emit a photon and that photon would activate a detector, then a computer attached to that detector would decode the message. Assuming I under stand all of the details.
I've always wondered if Quantum Tunneling, outside of a gravity well, could effectively produce simultanious communication over interstellar distances.
Quote from: blast335 on 07/29/2015 02:26 amI had this idea too, so how it work's in my mind is that they have 2 entangled sets, one for receiving and one for sending, they would come up with a code, like Morse code, and send photons into their sending particle, then on the other side, the entangled particle would emit a photon and that photon would activate a detector, then a computer attached to that detector would decode the message. Assuming I under stand all of the details.How many times does this same myth have to be busted? Entanglement does not give faster than light communication.This is a well-known result in physics.Base your fantasies of faster-than-light communication on something else. Entanglement won't do it for you.
Well we can teleport quantum states through entangled particles, so why can't we devise a system to interpret these teleported states into messages?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/10/2015 03:24 amQuote from: blast335 on 07/29/2015 02:26 amI had this idea too, so how it work's in my mind is that they have 2 entangled sets, one for receiving and one for sending, they would come up with a code, like Morse code, and send photons into their sending particle, then on the other side, the entangled particle would emit a photon and that photon would activate a detector, then a computer attached to that detector would decode the message. Assuming I under stand all of the details.How many times does this same myth have to be busted? Entanglement does not give faster than light communication.This is a well-known result in physics.Base your fantasies of faster-than-light communication on something else. Entanglement won't do it for you.Well we can teleport quantum states through entangled particles, so why can't we devise a system to interpret these teleported states into messages?
a (2 Bit) ansible!http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/12/physicists-figure-out-how-retrieve-information-black-hole
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 04/08/2015 03:54 pmExplain quantum tunneling then. A particle going from point A to point B without transitioning through the interveining space certainly seems to violate the concept of information traveling faster than light. Admittedly this, so far, has only been observed on the nanoscopic scale, but the transition certainly SEEMS to be happining at faster than light velocities.I sure can't explain quantum tunnelling ..but the physicists who claim to understand it say that the mathematics that predict quantum tunnelling also explain why it cannot be used to transfer information faster than light.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-two-way-quantum-particle.htmlis it an ansible yet?
Experimental two-way communication with one photonSuperposition of two or more states is one of the fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics and provides the basis for several advantages quantum information processing offers. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate that quantum superposition permits two-way communication between two distant parties that can exchange only one particle once, an impossible task in classical physics. This is achieved by preparing a single photon in a coherent superposition of the two parties' locations. Furthermore, we show that this concept allows the parties to perform secure quantum communication, where the transmitted bits and even the direction of communication remain private. These important features can lead to the development of new quantum communication schemes, which are simultaneously secure and resource-efficient.
The speed limit of C is not an explicit requirement of quantum mechanics as I understand it, but it is a requirement that appears to be obeyed in experiment.
Quote from: 1 on 01/06/2016 08:13 pmThe speed limit of C is not an explicit requirement of quantum mechanics as I understand it, but it is a requirement that appears to be obeyed in experiment.2 year old post, but to expand on this, straight quantum mechanics based on the Schrodinger equation is non-relativistic, and has no protections for the speed of light.As I understand it, the Dirac Equation (relativistic extension of quantum mechanics) is properly relativistic with full compatibility with special relativity, and the speed limit of c in inherent in it.
Quote from: meberbs on 02/27/2018 06:51 pmQuote from: 1 on 01/06/2016 08:13 pmThe speed limit of C is not an explicit requirement of quantum mechanics as I understand it, but it is a requirement that appears to be obeyed in experiment.2 year old post, but to expand on this, straight quantum mechanics based on the Schrodinger equation is non-relativistic, and has no protections for the speed of light.As I understand it, the Dirac Equation (relativistic extension of quantum mechanics) is properly relativistic with full compatibility with special relativity, and the speed limit of c in inherent in it.It is true that simple QM has no protection for the speed of light. But in order to use quantum entanglement to pass information there has to be a real particle that travels the distance. Whatever limits the speed of that particle also limits the speed of the information transferred by quantum entanglement. That limit would be set by relativity.
Quote from: ppnl on 02/27/2018 10:28 pmQuote from: meberbs on 02/27/2018 06:51 pmQuote from: 1 on 01/06/2016 08:13 pmThe speed limit of C is not an explicit requirement of quantum mechanics as I understand it, but it is a requirement that appears to be obeyed in experiment.2 year old post, but to expand on this, straight quantum mechanics based on the Schrodinger equation is non-relativistic, and has no protections for the speed of light.As I understand it, the Dirac Equation (relativistic extension of quantum mechanics) is properly relativistic with full compatibility with special relativity, and the speed limit of c in inherent in it.It is true that simple QM has no protection for the speed of light. But in order to use quantum entanglement to pass information there has to be a real particle that travels the distance. Whatever limits the speed of that particle also limits the speed of the information transferred by quantum entanglement. That limit would be set by relativity.Yes. My limited understanding of entanglement is that you wind up with a Schrodinger's Cat situation until you transmit end-state information in real time back to the observer, which obviously removes the advantage of entanglement-enabled communications.
Causal picturesThe notion of going back in time is acausal, meaning it is excluded automatically in a Hamiltonian formulation. For this reason, it took a long time for this approach to be appreciated and accepted. Stueckelberg proposed this interpretation of antiparticles in the late 1930s, but Feynman's presentation made it stick.In Feynman diagrams, the future is not determined from the past by stepping forward timestep by timestep, it is determined by tracing particle paths proper-time by proper-time. The diagram formalism therefore is philosophically very different from the Hamiltonian field theory formalism, so much so Feynman was somewhat disappointed that they were equivalent.They are not as easily equivalent when you go to string theory, because string theory is an S-matrix theory formulated entirely in Feynman language, not in Hamiltonian language. The Hamiltonian formulation of strings requires a special slicing of space time, and even then, it is less clear and elegant than the Feynman formulation, which is just as acausal and strange. The strings backtrack in time just like particles do, since they reproduce point particles at infinite tension.If you philosophically dislike acausal formalisms, you can say (in field theory) that the Hamiltonian formalism is fundamental, and that you believe in crossing and CPT, and then you don't have to talk about going back in time. Since crossing and CPT are the precise manifestations of the statement that antimatter is matter going back in time, you really aren't saying anything different, except philosophically. But the philosophy motivates crossing and CPT.
Had a moment of confusion. It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state. The annihilated form of it. I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states. I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states. For instance light as a wave passes through two slits. The wave pattern predicts the appearance of the photon but once the photon appears all the energy of the photon is concentrated at the point of absorption. Its almost like the reverse time operator goes back in time and focuses the energy at that exact location. Creating electron-positron pairs in the vacuum in a quantum states of superposition. Its like they were created out of the vacuum but the vacuum has not determined their exact orientation yet, upon interaction the vacuum uses the anti-matter in the vacuum state or the virtual stuff, to determine the final state of the other quantum entangled particle. The wormhole bridge between the two. Tunneling for instance. A particle bangs on a barrier and it has a vacuum wave associated with the particle so particle-wave hybrid. Compound that the vacuum has inherent vacuum energy fluctuations if the particle's vacuum waves passes through the barrier then based on the quantum vacuum energy fluctuation there is a chance the far part of the wave will receive enough energy to re-create the particle on the other side of the barrier. When the particle is created on the other side of the barrier it induces reverse time operators that annihilate the particles previous position via negative energy and the particle exists at its new position. I suspect that the nature of Quantum reality is fundamentally related to the vacuum and negative energy, reverse time operators. Even Richard Feynman diagrams I have been told have reverse time operations. Quote from: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/is-anti-matter-matter-going-backwards-in-timeCausal picturesThe notion of going back in time is acausal, meaning it is excluded automatically in a Hamiltonian formulation. For this reason, it took a long time for this approach to be appreciated and accepted. Stueckelberg proposed this interpretation of antiparticles in the late 1930s, but Feynman's presentation made it stick.In Feynman diagrams, the future is not determined from the past by stepping forward timestep by timestep, it is determined by tracing particle paths proper-time by proper-time. The diagram formalism therefore is philosophically very different from the Hamiltonian field theory formalism, so much so Feynman was somewhat disappointed that they were equivalent.They are not as easily equivalent when you go to string theory, because string theory is an S-matrix theory formulated entirely in Feynman language, not in Hamiltonian language. The Hamiltonian formulation of strings requires a special slicing of space time, and even then, it is less clear and elegant than the Feynman formulation, which is just as acausal and strange. The strings backtrack in time just like particles do, since they reproduce point particles at infinite tension.If you philosophically dislike acausal formalisms, you can say (in field theory) that the Hamiltonian formalism is fundamental, and that you believe in crossing and CPT, and then you don't have to talk about going back in time. Since crossing and CPT are the precise manifestations of the statement that antimatter is matter going back in time, you really aren't saying anything different, except philosophically. But the philosophy motivates crossing and CPT.or http://www.johnagowan.org/feynman.htmlAnother example is an electron in orbit around an atom. As it falls in it encounters vacuum polarized electron positron pairs via the atoms electric field. As it falls in it emits energy and it trapped around the atom in a wave state. I think it exist mostly as a vacuum fluctuation. The electron looks like a cloud because it is a cloud of vacuum fluctuation. It isn't actually whizzing around the nucleus, but the vacuum wave is, so hence no radiation. Even radioactive decay. If the distribution of proton and neutrons isn't right this may create points around the nucleus that have electric fields in excess increasing the chance via vacuum fluctuations of particle creation outside the nucleus? Haven't really thought this last one through much but seems plausible. Continued: Relativistic length contraction might be speculated to be a polarization wave in the vacuum where in front of a moving particle, negative energy particles that subtract time build up, while behind positive energy builds up adding time, causing relativistic time travel. General relativity might be speculated to be something similar, where matter polarizes the vacuum where negative energy reduces the local mass distributing it over space - a field. the build up of negative energy near matter, causing lower altitude clocks to tick slower than those higher. Possibly related to the nucleus of atoms polarizing the vacuum.
Had a moment of confusion. It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state. The annihilated form of it. I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states. I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 06/24/2018 02:22 pmHad a moment of confusion. It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state. The annihilated form of it. I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states. I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states.None of that makes a lick of sense. Just forming sentences out of terms from physics in a different order than others isn't new physics.
Let us speculate. Say we have two non antimatter ions Quantum entangled and then separated over a large distance. If anti-matter was the reverse time operator there would be no anti-matter. however, there is anti-matter in the vacuum and that antimatter is never truly annihilated because it can never reach an absolute zero temperature. So when one state collapses the other state instantly collapses.It is the same with photons through the double slit experiment. The photon wave passes through both slit and touches all points on the screen. Even though the wave touches some points on the screen first rather than other points later. At some point the vacuum wave associated with the photon and vacuum thermal fluctuations finds just the right frequency to be absorbed. When it is absorbed the signal can propagate back in time and instantly cancel the wave. The energy is then concentrated at that exact point as a photon.Also with quantum tunneling negative energy swallows the previous particles position. If I remember correctly Quantum tunneling appears to be instantaneous.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 07/06/2018 07:36 pmLet us speculate. Say we have two non antimatter ions Quantum entangled and then separated over a large distance. If anti-matter was the reverse time operator there would be no anti-matter. however, there is anti-matter in the vacuum and that antimatter is never truly annihilated because it can never reach an absolute zero temperature. So when one state collapses the other state instantly collapses.It is the same with photons through the double slit experiment. The photon wave passes through both slit and touches all points on the screen. Even though the wave touches some points on the screen first rather than other points later. At some point the vacuum wave associated with the photon and vacuum thermal fluctuations finds just the right frequency to be absorbed. When it is absorbed the signal can propagate back in time and instantly cancel the wave. The energy is then concentrated at that exact point as a photon.Also with quantum tunneling negative energy swallows the previous particles position. If I remember correctly Quantum tunneling appears to be instantaneous.Your sentences still don't mean anything. There are multiple problems, but one repeated problem is your use of the word "instantly/intantaneous." That word is literally undefined when talking about relativity (It can be defined, but not in an absolute sense like you are using it.) Also, other than containing the word "anti-matter" there seems to be no connection between any of the sentences in your first paragraph.
Quote from: meberbs on 07/06/2018 07:50 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 07/06/2018 07:36 pmLet us speculate. Say we have two non antimatter ions Quantum entangled and then separated over a large distance. If anti-matter was the reverse time operator there would be no anti-matter. however, there is anti-matter in the vacuum and that antimatter is never truly annihilated because it can never reach an absolute zero temperature. So when one state collapses the other state instantly collapses.It is the same with photons through the double slit experiment. The photon wave passes through both slit and touches all points on the screen. Even though the wave touches some points on the screen first rather than other points later. At some point the vacuum wave associated with the photon and vacuum thermal fluctuations finds just the right frequency to be absorbed. When it is absorbed the signal can propagate back in time and instantly cancel the wave. The energy is then concentrated at that exact point as a photon.Also with quantum tunneling negative energy swallows the previous particles position. If I remember correctly Quantum tunneling appears to be instantaneous.Your sentences still don't mean anything. There are multiple problems, but one repeated problem is your use of the word "instantly/intantaneous." That word is literally undefined when talking about relativity (It can be defined, but not in an absolute sense like you are using it.) Also, other than containing the word "anti-matter" there seems to be no connection between any of the sentences in your first paragraph.That is exactly why Einstein called it spooky action-at-a-distance. It was spooky because it was faster than light or instantaneous.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 06/24/2018 02:22 pmHad a moment of confusion. It isn't anti-matter in its real state I think that provides reverse time communication but rather anti-matter in the vacuum state. The annihilated form of it. I think it may provide the reverse time communication to collapse states. I think its that reverse time that provides the bridge that links quantum states. For instance light as a wave passes through two slits. The wave pattern predicts the appearance of the photon but once the photon appears all the energy of the photon is concentrated at the point of absorption. Its almost like the reverse time operator goes back in time and focuses the energy at that exact location. Creating electron-positron pairs in the vacuum in a quantum states of superposition. Its like they were created out of the vacuum but the vacuum has not determined their exact orientation yet, upon interaction the vacuum uses the anti-matter in the vacuum state or the virtual stuff, to determine the final state of the other quantum entangled particle. The wormhole bridge between the two. Tunneling for instance. A particle bangs on a barrier and it has a vacuum wave associated with the particle so particle-wave hybrid. Compound that the vacuum has inherent vacuum energy fluctuations if the particle's vacuum waves passes through the barrier then based on the quantum vacuum energy fluctuation there is a chance the far part of the wave will receive enough energy to re-create the particle on the other side of the barrier. When the particle is created on the other side of the barrier it induces reverse time operators that annihilate the particles previous position via negative energy and the particle exists at its new position. I suspect that the nature of Quantum reality is fundamentally related to the vacuum and negative energy, reverse time operators. Even Richard Feynman diagrams I have been told have reverse time operations. Quote from: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/391/is-anti-matter-matter-going-backwards-in-timeCausal picturesThe notion of going back in time is acausal, meaning it is excluded automatically in a Hamiltonian formulation. For this reason, it took a long time for this approach to be appreciated and accepted. Stueckelberg proposed this interpretation of antiparticles in the late 1930s, but Feynman's presentation made it stick.In Feynman diagrams, the future is not determined from the past by stepping forward timestep by timestep, it is determined by tracing particle paths proper-time by proper-time. The diagram formalism therefore is philosophically very different from the Hamiltonian field theory formalism, so much so Feynman was somewhat disappointed that they were equivalent.They are not as easily equivalent when you go to string theory, because string theory is an S-matrix theory formulated entirely in Feynman language, not in Hamiltonian language. The Hamiltonian formulation of strings requires a special slicing of space time, and even then, it is less clear and elegant than the Feynman formulation, which is just as acausal and strange. The strings backtrack in time just like particles do, since they reproduce point particles at infinite tension.If you philosophically dislike acausal formalisms, you can say (in field theory) that the Hamiltonian formalism is fundamental, and that you believe in crossing and CPT, and then you don't have to talk about going back in time. Since crossing and CPT are the precise manifestations of the statement that antimatter is matter going back in time, you really aren't saying anything different, except philosophically. But the philosophy motivates crossing and CPT.or http://www.johnagowan.org/feynman.htmlAnother example is an electron in orbit around an atom. As it falls in it encounters vacuum polarized electron positron pairs via the atoms electric field. As it falls in it emits energy and it trapped around the atom in a wave state. I think it exist mostly as a vacuum fluctuation. The electron looks like a cloud because it is a cloud of vacuum fluctuation. It isn't actually whizzing around the nucleus, but the vacuum wave is, so hence no radiation. Even radioactive decay. If the distribution of proton and neutrons isn't right this may create points around the nucleus that have electric fields in excess increasing the chance via vacuum fluctuations of particle creation outside the nucleus? Haven't really thought this last one through much but seems plausible. Continued: Relativistic length contraction might be speculated to be a polarization wave in the vacuum where in front of a moving particle, negative energy particles that subtract time build up, while behind positive energy builds up adding time, causing relativistic time travel. General relativity might be speculated to be something similar, where matter polarizes the vacuum where negative energy reduces the local mass distributing it over space - a field. the build up of negative energy near matter, causing lower altitude clocks to tick slower than those higher. Possibly related to the nucleus of atoms polarizing the vacuum. All:You might be interested on Dr. Harold (Sonny) Whites and his Eagleworks team's thoughts on this subject especially about what actually is going on when an electron is in orbit around a nucleus.