Retrocausality. I don’t have a lotta time to go into details here, but this is probably the most amazing idea I’ve heard in a long time. From NewScientist, they are trying to send information (via quantum entaglement) into the past using the experiment setup below. The idea is that spacetime is just a big 4D block, and particles send out waves of information without breaking relativity to eachother, by retracing their path over space-time to their counterpart. It also mentions something about antimater / positrons etc, being the same particles but travelling backwards in time instead of forwards. Anyways – if you have troubles interperting what this experiment hopes to accomplish, please let me knoww
IMAGE OF EXPERIMENT IN LJ CUT
(edit 11:54am)
Ok now that I have more time to go over this, here’s the skinny. First read Ah-ha! So light doesn’t know where it’s going to go before it goes there! so you understand (loosley used) quantum entaglement. The particular way this experiment works is similar in nature, if we had the same experiment without the KM of fibre, when you moved the movable detector from the position where you detected a wave to the position where you detect a particle, it affects what the other detector detects as well (instantly). John Cramer proposes the “transactional interpretation” of quantum mechanics, stating that basically particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards and backwards through real ‘time’. Or more to the point, no ‘necessarily’ forwards or backwards, but that they freely travel through space-time. The thing about quantum mechanics (in the math anyways) is that time really doesn’t play a big role as far as shaping what can and cannot be done. So quantum ‘entanglement waves’ theoretically should traverse all space-time. Therefore, in this new experiment, when you move the movable detector to a specific position (particle or wave position) the other detector should already be telling you what position you’re going to move it to.
Now this experiment hasn’t been compelted yet, as there is a lot to do to set it up, and to remove noise from the experiment, but it is expected to be completed over the next few months.
3 replies to "Retrocausality by Cian Kenshin – The MindHacker"
The thing to remember is that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory.
There still isn’t really any evidence supporting any proposed mechanisms that drive what happens on the quantum level.
Are things inherently probablistic, with now actual causal mecanisms? Or is there actually something happening that we don’t actually understand?
Is there really entaglement happening, or is there some quality regarding the particle/wave duality that is set up at step one that we don’t really understand?
Yeah the whole ‘physical-wave’ thing still has me a little skeptical. I understand that we’re trying to prove a mathematical theory using empirical data, and that even if that happens, we still won’t really know what the specific mechanism is…but at least we’ll know something is there. My question is, if it happens, and actually works, we’re (laymen, people who don’t belive in causality either way) going to have to start thinking about spacetime a little differently.
I mean, go into the experiment and decide – particle, just before you configure it as such the other detector detects a particle.
If we could delay it enough, would we be able to change the state after we had detected the state of the original one? Or, if we did that, would we not detect anything at all? The logic of the situation seems to break down for me a bit – which brings me to the next point I guess…would we even be able to delay it long enough to change the experiment to try and mess with retrocausality???? Perhaps there is some physical limitation that will prevent this case.
Either way, I can’t wait until we get the results!
Because the time difference between the two observation is so small, the way that “spooky action at a distance” experiments are usually done is by measuring both things at very close to the same time.
At least having the time difference beween measurments less than the time light would need to get from where one is measured to the other.
Then the results are compared to show that both measurments coincide more often than is statistically probable.