Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Feb 19, 2013 by Lisa Zyga feature
(a) A closed timelike curve, in which p2 is a chronology-respecting system, and p1 is a time-traveling system that can jump from point tA to the past point tB through a spacetime wormhole, has the ability to interact with itself in the past. (b) In an open timelike curve (OTC), the system cannot interact with itself in the past. In the new study, physicists have theoretically shown that OTCs can violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provided p1 is entangled with p2. This proposal could be tested by performing experiments on entangled systems in Earth’s gravitational field. Credit: J. L. Pienaar, et al. ©2013 American Physical Society

(Phys.org)—If an object traveling through spacetime can loop back in time in a certain way, then its trajectory can allow a pair of its components to be measured with perfect accuracy, violating Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This new finding involves a particular trajectory called an open timelike curve (OTC), which is a special case of a closed timelike curve (CTC), a theoretical concept that has previously provoked controversy because it raises the possibility of traveling backwards in time.

According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, measurements of any pair of variables must have at least a minimum amount of error. The most well-known example of the pair of variables is position and momentum, but the principle applies to any two variables that have a mathematical relationship which makes them conjugate variables. The uncertainty principle is thought to be an inherent property of due to their wave-particle duality, rather than any observational limitations. Although previous studies have found that CTC models can theoretically violate the uncertainty principle, nobody knew that this could happen for the special case of an OTC.

Now, physicists Jacques Pienaar, Tim Ralph, and Casey Myers at The University of Queensland in Australia have theoretically shown that OTCs can allow scientists to measure a pair of conjugate variables of a to an arbitrary degree of accuracy forbidden by the uncertainty principle. The finding could have implications for quantum gravity and change the way that scientists view quantum uncertainty.

"There is some speculation that the might be different in a future theory of quantum gravity," Pienaar told Phys.org. "However, most of these studies suggest that quantum gravity will introduce more uncertainty. Our model suggests the complete opposite: that a theory of quantum gravity might actually remove the uncertainty of ."

This perfect measurement ability arises from the nature of OTC trajectories. As the physicists explain, OTCs are the simplest and most normal type of CTCs. Whereas CTCs form closed loops in time that allow systems to affect events in their own past, OTCs form open loops in time and do not allow systems to interact with previous versions of themselves. These interaction-free OTCs overcome some of the paradoxes associated with time travel, such as the grandfather paradox in which a time traveler kills their own grandfather, preventing their own existence.

Despite such paradoxes, CTCs in general are compatible with general relativity; however, they are not compatible with quantum mechanics. One way to make them compatible is to extend quantum mechanics in a way that resolves the paradoxical aspects of CTCs. An example of such an extension is the Deutsch model, which makes the mathematics of quantum mechanics nonlinear, allowing for CTCs. Previously, scientists have shown that this nonlinearity leads to some unusual properties, such as the possibility to build a super quantum computer that can quickly solve some complex problems called NP-complete problems, a task that would take trillions of years using today's computers.

In the new study, the physicists have shown that the Deutsch model's nonlinear mathematics also applies to OTCs, where there is no interaction between the past and present, provided that entanglement exists between the time-traveling system and an external system. To reach this conclusion, the physicists calculated what happens when quantum states travel through a quantum optics circuit that contains an OTC. In this theoretical situation, two quantum states are "squeezed" in orthogonal directions. After the states cycle through the circuit several times, the scientists found that they could measure the orthogonal components with arbitrary accuracy.

Another interesting feature of these OTCs is that they resemble time dilation in general relativity, in which two clocks measure different times under different gravitational conditions. In a similar way, OTCs create a time difference between two initially synchronized trajectories. As the scientists explain, this resemblance means that an experimenter observing an OTC system and a time dilation system might not be able to tell whether the time difference was due to the gravitational curvature of general relativity or to the trajectory of an OTC. This finding suggests that modeling gravitational time dilation as an OTC effect could have implications for a theory of quantum gravity.

"Deutsch's model describes the strange quantum effects that we might see in the presence of CTCs, within a future theory of ," Pienaar said. "However, if there are no CTCs in the universe, then we would not expect to see the effects. But since the slowing of time due to gravity looks just like the effect of an OTC from the outside, and since OTCs still lead to strange effects (as we have shown), we suggested that these effects might turn up in strong gravitational fields, even without any closed loops in time. If so, then they would allow us to violate the Heisenberg and clone coherent states of light without needing a full-blown time machine.

"Of course, the connection between OTCs and gravitational fields is still very speculative and might turn out to be wrong. We hope to flesh it out into a more complete theory in future research."

The physicists propose that testing this possibility—by testing the Deutsch model's nonlinear effects—could be done with current technology by performing experiments on entangled systems in Earth's gravitational field. As the scientists explain, this kind of experiment would serve as an alternative to experimenting with real OTCs, which are rather hard to come by.

"The circuit itself is easy to build; it's coming up with an OTC that's the problem!" Pienaar said. "Strictly speaking, we would require an actual machine in order to build that circuit, which we obviously don't have. However, if our analogy between OTCs and gravity is correct, then we could make do with just an ordinary gravitational field like Earth's. In that case, the circuit certainly can be built; there is already a group working on sending entangled beams of light up to a satellite in orbit. This would then provide an experimental test that could either prove or disprove our claim about gravity behaving the same as an OTC."

Explore further: Longer distance quantum teleportation achieved

More information: J. L. Pienaar, et al. "Open Timelike Curves Violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle." PRL 110, 060501 (2013). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.060501

4.5 /5 (56 votes)

Related Stories

Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox

Jul 21, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The possibility of going back in time only to kill your ancestors and prevent your own birth has posed a serious problem for potential time travelers, not even considering the technical details ...

Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle

Sep 07, 2012

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form, it says that it is impossible to measure ...

More certainty on uncertainty's quantum mechanical role

Oct 04, 2012

Scientists who study the ultra-small world of atoms know it is impossible to make certain simultaneous measurements, for example finding out both the location and momentum of an electron, with an arbitrarily ...

Recommended for you

WEGA fusion experiment passed on to the USA

20 hours ago

The small WEGA fusion device at Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics (IPP) in Greifswald is being handed over to the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. The "Wendelstein-Experiment in Greifswald ...

Researchers design plasmonic cavity-free nanolaser

21 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers at Imperial College in London has designed a new type of laser, one that could be made much smaller than today's models because it would be cavity-free. In their paper ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (25) Feb 19, 2013
this kind of experiment would serve as an alternative to experimenting with real OTCs, which are rather hard to come by.

...gets my vote as "the understatement of the year".

But it's certainly a good example of lateral thinking (and maybe it turns out not to be 'loopy' thinking). Can't wait how the tests will turn out.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
Pretty interesting, but is this such an unexpected result? It's already well known that nonlinear systems can violate the uncertainty principle and its various analogs. This doesn't happen in quantum mechanics only because all the operators are linear.
Job001
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
Requiring a time machine to prove ones conjecture is audacious! Perhaps they shall show the necessity of time in nature vs the necessity man's presumption. Timeless Hamiltonian proof might result. http://en.wikiped...equation
Raygunner
3.3 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
I'm pretty convinced that time is purely a measurement tool - nothing else. There is just a "now" and time is a human illusion. But I'm sure mathematical formulas will be formed and shaped to prove what the researchers and theorists want to prove. The universe in general has always resisted inserting a time element into equations and there must be a good reason for this - probably because it doesn't exist in the first place. I am encouraged at the growing acceptance of "no time". Its an element that complicates the universe tremendously and I can't see nature going to all that trouble. Just a layman's two cents!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
Requiring a time machine to prove ones conjecture is audacious!

If (and that is still somewhat of a big 'if') their model turns out to be spot on then gravity itself would provide an analog for these OTCs.
It still wouldn't mean that OTCs exist, but it would mean the mathematical model of an OTC would be a valid representation of a physical reality (gravity). And THAT in turn is an indication that looking into 'real' OTCs might not just be a flight of fancy.

Who knows - there may be other ways of checking for OTCs than buildnig time machines?
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (24) Feb 19, 2013
The uncertainty principle is obviously wrong, else the universe itself and it's components would have no laws.

The universe "measures" forces and distances and their relationships ALL THE TIME for every particle, wave, or other entity, and if there were any uncertainty in these "measurements" the laws would not work. In fact, nearly every entity in the universe is "measuring" nearly every other entity at every instant.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
@Lunker
The uncertainty principle is obviously wrong, else the universe itself and it's components would have no statistical laws. - L


Tell me if this sabotages or reinforces your original statement.
(The added word 'statistical')


Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2013
Could this be Einstein's "hidden variables"? I'm skeptical, but it would be big fun to see the man vindicated after he struggled with it for so many years.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
This is the difference between math and reality. Describing a system using math does not mean it actually exists or can exist.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
Could this be Einstein's "hidden variables"?

It would certainly make for a much weirder universe.
(Though I hasten to point out that "weird" equates to "even more interesting" in my book)

I'm pretty convinced that time is purely a measurement tool - nothing else.

This conviction is based on...?

But I'm sure mathematical formulas will be formed and shaped to prove what the researchers and theorists want to prove.

You prove by experiment - not by 'forming and shaping formulas'.

FIRST you make a formula.
THEN you see what this would predict.
THEN you test this against experiment/observation

The universe in general has always resisted inserting a time element into equations

Relativity does seem top work rather well with time components (so do the Maxwell equations). I'd say ALL the major equations have very little problem with the 'inserted' time element.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (18) Feb 19, 2013

FIRST you make a formula.
THEN you see what this would predict.
THEN you test this against experiment/observation



Actually:

First, you make an observation.
Second, you make a formula to attempt to describe the observation.
Third, you make a prediction from the formula for all phenomena it's intended to describe.
Fourth, you look for confirmation or exceptions to these predictions to either prove, disprove, or revise the formula.

The problem with String Theory, for example, is that it skips the first step, and the fourth step can never be achieved...

Anyway, I stand by my position that the "universe" and everything in it, at a fundamental level, actually does and must make absolutely accurate measurements. If it does not, then the "laws of the universe" mean nothing, as anything at all could conceivably happen for no apparent reason or non-reason...
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
First, you make an observation.

Sometimes that observation is something new where you say "here's something that isn't captured by current theory". Sometimes the observation isn't needed and it's just the act of making up a theory that interprets already existing observations in a novel way.

An example of this would be relativity - where the method/formula was developed well in advance of any observation which diverged from the pre-relativity model.

String theory is another of these endeavours that aims to look at what we already know in a new light (though string theory currently fails on the 'prediction' part - since it predicts nothing that the current model doesn't also predict)

as anything at all could conceivably happen for no apparent reason or non-reason

But observation stongly indicates that that is not the case. At the very least the likelyhood of 'anything' is not equally distributed among all possible events - and that means we can have laws.
rkolter
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
If the experiment suggested in this article turns out to produce evidence that UTCs and gravity fields are similar, it would be both huge and exciting. Gave this article a 5/5.
Jo Blas
4 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
@ mrlewish "This is the difference between math and reality. Describing a system using math does not mean it actually exists or can exist."

You should talk to Max Tegmark. He has some interesting ideas about that.

rkolter
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
@Raygunner -
A moment of honesty here. I usually discount what you write. but I think someone was too quick to give you 1/5 stars this time.

I'm pretty convinced that time is purely a measurement tool - nothing else. There is just a "now" and time is a human illusion.

What you are describing is the hypothesis that time is not a dimension per say, but an emergent property that only exists so long as there is something to measure. It's very hypothetical, but it is not only in the domain of the people who build unity devices and are convinced entanglement causes ESP.

Until we find a way to show either that time IS an emergent property, or that math without time produces results that jive with observation and make successful predictions, you should be careful about being "convinced" about it. Be curious. Be interested. But don't be convinced until evidence worthy of the word come about.

Cheers.
LariAnn
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
I'm pretty convinced that time is purely a measurement tool - nothing else. There is just a "now" and time is a human illusion.

I concur with this point of view and wrote essays about this in 2005 and later. What we are seeing on an analog clockface is a movement in space that can be measured along the traditional spatial dimensions. When that movement is used as a reference and compared to another movement, such as a runner doing a quarter mile race, you have two measurements in spatial dimensions being compared one with another. Where is the "time"? Just calling the space between two "minute" marks on a clockface a measure of time doesn't make it time. IMHO, so-called time is a ratio of one change along spatial dimensions (ca) to another change along spatial dimensions (cb), i.e. (ca/cb). Without the reference, nothing meaningful can be measured. In my personal musings, I refer to time as a hyperdimension, like space. Space cannot be measured either without references.
adwarakanath
3.4 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
@ Lurker - What you describe is data driven theorisation. What antialias_physorg is describing is the theory driven approach. One can always debate the merits of the two approaches in comparison to each other, but in the end it comes down to what kind of an understanding of the world you want to base your research on. Biologists, because of the inherent complexity of the systems under investigation, tend to prefer the data driven approach whereas physicists tend to prefer the theory driven approach. Arguably, some of the greatest paradigm changing ideas have come about because of serendipitous discoveries.

Oh also, no one gives a shit about what you have to say from your poor and inherently flawed understanding of science, Lurker.

@ antialias_physorg - Mate, can we PLEASE stop feeding trolls like him and zephyr and natello and the rest of the kooks?
Phil DePayne
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
We are not kooks! I have definite proof since I have come from the future via a laboratory experiment in topological supergravity !
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Requiring a time machine to prove ones conjecture is audacious!

That may depend on how audacious the conjecture itself is!
embram
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Perhaps it will turn out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is still valid in such cases because the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true and spacetime may be configured such that an object looping back in time can enter only timelines in which its past trajectory is such that the two trajectories cannot meet, this keeping the uncertainty principle from being violated.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
can we PLEASE stop feeding trolls like him and zephyr and natello
CTCs were proposed for violation of superluminal speed in warp drive, so that the time loops will probably violate all determinism of all theories, not just quantum mechanics - simply because all these theories were derived under humble consideration that the time cannot run in reverse. The backward time violates every causality thinkable.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
The field of study concerning quantum entanglement is so young that I think it premature to formulate these ideas when we are not even sure that we can entangle photons across gravity inequalities, eg. between Earth's surface and the zero gravity region of space. Do the words gravity field density strike a chord amongst any here?
odinfinnson
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
I suggest we encrypt a binary message encoded with the entangled photons and send it back through time to Heisenberg and see if he alters his uncertainty principle so the greatest minds of his space time can create an alternate reality and re-write the history of Quantum Physics to include this violation of his uncertainty principle renaming it the certainty principle of Quantum gravity and see how our reality changes to a different multiverse scenario;) LOL
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Perhaps it will turn out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is still valid in such cases because the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true and spacetime may be configured such that an object looping back in time can enter only timelines in which its past trajectory is such that the two trajectories cannot meet, this keeping the uncertainty principle from being violated.


It remains to be seen if a mathematical formulation can, in fact, be implemented to constrain physical reality so as to result in predictability.

The "relativistic" effects predicted as a result of the process would seem to be, on the simplest level, merely due to the time of translation from one end of the so-called wormhole to the other, and whether the particle, or qubit or what-have-you is accelerated, decelerated or travels at constant velocity during the translation.

Since we don't have any wormholes handy, demonstration will be difficult, and a stand-in won't provide validation.
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Time is a very interesting thing. The question of the existence of time as a fundamental aspect of the universe is one that I have gone back and forth on many times.

My sticking point is the measurement of time. The only way to measure time is in a relative way by comparing the number of "changes of state" in one part of the universe with the number of changes of state in another part of the universe. What constititutes a "state change" depends on your definition of a "state". One part of the universe is the clock and the other part is the thing being timed. Time is the number of state changes that occured in the clock before one state change was made by the thing being timed. Without an apriori notion of time you can only demonstrate accuracy by showing that the ratio of state changes is consistent over multiple measurements. Finer resolution is achieved by choosing clock systems that change states a large number of times relative to the thing being observed. It hurts my head.
vacuum-mechanics
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ….
….As the scientists explain, this resemblance means that an experimenter observing an OTC system and a time dilation system might not be able to tell whether the time difference was due to the gravitational curvature of general relativity or to the trajectory of an OTC….

It is interesting that we are familiar with' curvature of general relativity', but the problem is that we do not understand 'how empty space could be curved'? Maybe this physical mechanism could help to visualize how it works.

http://www.vacuum...18〈=en
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
In general relativity the existence of time loops is actually impossible, as it would violate all postulates of general relativity. But the general relativity is just four-dimensional theory, i.e. the approximation of everyday reality which is highly dimensional in accordance to dense aether model (all forces violating inverse square law and all refractions/reflections/polarization of light are hyperdimensional effects). In hyperdimensions we indeed can have time loops in particular subspace embedded into hyperspace, which simply means, in some less or more isolated physical system the experiment is done repeatedly. And we already have many experiments in which Heisenberg uncertainty principle was violated, which used the tomographic approach of so-called weak measurement. So that this seemingly highly abstract work actually describes the situation, which has been already realized in experiments like this one.
Argiod
1 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
All this uncertainty about the Uncertainty Principle is making me uncertain about science. Are they certain the Uncertainty Principle is certain? Or is it uncertain if it is a certainty at all?
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
In science you can be sure with anything. The principle of scientific theory is, it cannot be proved true, only verified or falsified. The people, who are saying we can be sure with something are priests, not scientists.

The situation with uncertainty principle isn't so complicated. This principle is valid for single pass observation. When this observation is repeated, you can avoid the uncertainty principle limit arbitrarily. It's analogy of observation of falling droplets under the stroboscope: the single observation affects the path of droplet, so it cannot be measured reliably anymore. But you can wait for another droplet and measure its location a bit later. The droplet will be indeed affected again, but you can repeat the same experiment again and again along whole path of droplet and to detect its path unaffected with measurement in this way. But the repeating of experiment under very same conditions is what the closed timelike curve for physical system actually means.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
The fact, that theory for some experiment was developed after this experiment was already done independently indicates, there is an increasing barrier between theoretical and experimental physics: due the counterintuitive nature of formal rigor the theorists don't understand, what the experimentalists actually doing and vice-versa.
Tausch
1 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
Von Neumann is correct. You can not preempt information.
Why?
Like energy, information isn't created or destroyed.
So is there a mysterious relation between the two?
A relation yes. Mysterious no. More then one? Yes.
One aspect of both is both are timeless concepts.

Guardians of time are not upset about the timelessness of energy so adding information to the mix is hardly going to ruffle any guardians' feathers of time soon. Setting the quardians of time aside for the moment, what was the 'more the one' hint?

Well, von Neumann turned (churned?) out the quantum analogy to the entropy of information - (the obsolete wording Schrödinger use to describe in his book 'What is Life?' was 'order' and 'disorder' to what later became called 'negative entropy' (in the context of defining life.)

So there you have it. In a nutshell.
Bypassed the guardians of time. Defined life beyond chemistry and biology. And Information enjoying all the advantages of a thermodynamic life.
Quit complaining.
Kron
1 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
The probabilistic nature of reality would be disproven (and a fully deterministic universe realized) if a single experiment was observed to yield same results on multiple readings.

If you take a coin and flip it and it comes up heads, and you return back in time to view the flip again (preserving consistent conditions), if the flip continuously lands on heads we've proven that given experimental consistency, the resultant outcome is same.

In the case of a single photon emitted in double slit experiment, the probabilistic distribution (interference pattern) is predicted. A single photon will land somewhere in the predicted pattern. Returning back in time, if the single photon lands on the same point on the screen, you prove that the interaction with the screen is not probabilistic. If the conditions are the same (which a return in time would ensure), and the photon lands on the same spot on the screen, the universe is deterministic in nature.
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
That was the spoiler alert. Stick around for the end and leave the rigor for us. What we do best. Far away and removed from commentary.
We'll keep you posted.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle …


Curves in spacetime violate common sense principle...
Steven_Anderson
1 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
I would be interested in hearing more about the possibility of building a computer that can solve NP problems with an adaptation of this theory! http://rawcell.com
BishopBalderdash
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
"...an experimenter observing an OTC system and a time dilation system might not be able to tell whether the time difference was due to the gravitational curvature of general relativity or to the trajectory of an OTC" resembles the kind of complementary that we see near the vicinity of an event horizon.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
For us or anything to 'go back in Time' there has to be 'something' to gack to! We use clocks etc to measure Time but what are we measuring? Just one moment to the next that's all. 0.5a(tsq)etc only describe an event at a certain point in the future and WE can choose a t=0. The universe isn't going to recognise what we call 20 Feb 2013 (or 20 Feb 2556 if you live in Thailand) Our idea of Time is simply record counting. If one wants to go back to particular event then we have find out how the UNIVERSE records that event and what 'slot' it is given. What I'm saying that there may actually be a Time Dimension that itself is of a composite nature and definite law(s) by which it functions. The famous 'the arrow of time only points forward'. Now since that goes for all angles just what direction is 'forward'. For record purposes we need not change but we have to search for another 'Time law' and formulate it if we wish travel through it. Perhaps the quantum world is made of this 'Stuff'.
uhjim
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2013

Time is a number
GONE TO HELL
ROBTHEGOB
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2013
There is no such thing as time.
LarryD
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
ROBTHEGOB
There is no such thing as time.


uhjim
Time is a number
GONE TO HELL


Oh Great, then can't waste it can we! Or is that the Devil has got the lot. Who are these guys anyway?
Bring on the 'the guardians of time' I say, cos I've got a couple of bones to pick with them. Er, I'm stupid I know, but where do they Live? On top of the Fraxinus Excelsior with Odin?
ValeriaT got it right about priests though. The trick is trying pin down 'God' and trying to find out how fast 'God' moves at the same time, priests seem to have no trouble at all with that certain uncertainty (or is uncertain certainty).
zaxxon451
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
I've discovered a way to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, but it requires a theoretical Thermoviolator. I'm sure we'll figure out how to make one someday.
donavanbadboy
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
Time is what stops everything from happening at once, or moreover c is < infinity, therefore things take time to happen. I'm sure it's also got something to do with planks constant being non-zero.

Or you could think of time as equivalent to relative distances between objects, you are 1 light year away from a star one light year away because given the value of c is constant, it takes 1 year to get there.

I don't know why people find this concept so hard to understand and why it's not totally obvious if you understand anything about relativity.

donavanbadboy
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
@zaxxon451 Such a thermoviolators http://peswiki.co..._Motors. The time-like curves can violate way more laws, than just uncertainty principle.


The energy "permanent magnet" motors use to keep running is derived by increasing the entropy in the order of the magnetic moments in the "permanent magnets". I.e. the magnets are not "permanent", and given enough time all the order in the magnetic moments will de-align, increasing entropy of the system as a whole, to the point where it will eventually stop working.

LarryD
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
donavanbadboy
Time is what stops everything from happening at once


Er, no I don't think so, that is just a 'poetic quote'. If that qote were true it would cause more problems that it solves. At one extreme there is no evidence that we haven't been here before and at the other extreme it would mean that a photon or 'quantum
constants' would be different. An Electron continues to do the same thing over and over again, and we depend on that. Or perhaps you have evidence that Electrons DO change. Thought experiment;put a hydrogen atom in a concealed apparatus and leave it for a week. Will that atom be different the next?
donavanbadboy
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013

Er, no I don't think so, that is just a 'poetic quote'. If that qote were true it would cause more problems that it solves. At one extreme there is no evidence that we haven't been here before and at the other extreme it would mean that a photon or 'quantum
constants' would be different. An Electron continues to do the same thing over and over again, and we depend on that. Or perhaps you have evidence that Electrons DO change. Thought experiment;put a hydrogen atom in a concealed apparatus and leave it for a week. Will that atom be different the next?


I realise the statement is simplistic, to the point that strictly it's not true. However, it's a good starting point, and seems trivially true to me, otherwise we would not have time to have this conversation.

About your thought experiment: All composite phenomena are impermanent, so your hydrogen atom is not the same, in fact wait long enough and it will decompose naturally, although the time scale would be enormous.
LarryD
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
donavanbadboy, so you have evidence that electrons and hyrdrogen atoms decompose naturally? Pray tell where is that info. Under forced conditions maybe...what does an electron (naturally)decompose into?
Kron
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2013
This is all theoretical of course, but some hypothesized scenarios (such as the big rip) predict that the universe will one day be a cold dark place. All matter will eventually break down. Hydrogen atoms will decay into thermal energy. The proton is hypothesized to have a half-life on the order of 10^36 years. So hydrogen atoms, even protons, will one day cease to exist.

In a hydrogen atom: the proton decays into a positron and a neutral pion. The neutral pion decays into thermal energy (2 gamma photons). The positron and electron annihilate and 2 more gamma photons are produced.

Nothing but thermal energy remains.
LarryD
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
This is all theoretical of course, but some hypothesized...

Nothing but thermal energy remains.


Thanks, Kron. I am aware of these 'hypotheticals' but I was considering actual physical events.
donavanbadboy comment '...All composite phenomena are impermanent...'
is okay hypothetically but there is only evdence, so far, that the proton/electron ratio, for example, is unchanging.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2013
donavanbadboy comment '
...All composite phenomena are impermanent...'

is okay hypothetically but there is only evdence, so far, that the proton/electron ratio, for example, is unchanging.


That "hypothetical" has been discarded. The proton is the most stable composite matter particle. Left alone, it will probably never decay.

Your thought proton-electron ratio being constant is spot on. The conservation of charge is one of the fundamental axioms of physics. It's been verified in thousands of experiments in accelerators and in nature.

Protons are converted into neutrons in many reactions, but it requires great kinetic energy to get them to move that fast, ie as in the Sun's fusion process. But a free neutron will decay back to a proton in a few minutes, in either process, charge is always conserved.

That 10^36 yr half-life number quoted to ya? Now thought to be so much greater than that there is no number to quantify it. One of those pesky infinities we hate.
jaketweeks
not rated yet Feb 20, 2013
While the uncertainty principle has universally withstood the test of experiment, the need to modify its mathematical framework should not be discounted if an OTC was experimentally verified. I would also like to know more about how the boundary conditions of this system compare to those of a CTC.
LarryD
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2013
Q-Star, y'know I am only a layman and second at that, but the whole universe, nature and the way we try to understand astounds me. You and the others seem so much better at these topics than me but I'm not afraid to stand up. May they forever keep experimenting and may there always be guys like you to question.
But there is one thing that continues to bother me. If certain fundamentals are so 'constant' at what point do things become changeable and why. For example, the electron on its journey through other sytems/reactions, apparently goes through a quasi-particle/wave state. Under entanglement would that not present a problem for another electron? Also, with regard to the present discussion when a electron pairs with another they cant both have the same quantum properties, are they 'flipping' through Time according to what they were before? That is to say that time has the 'record' of 'before' and electrons can access the record and thus behave accordingly.
Tausch
1 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
Electrons occupy space. Every electron has it's own space.
Strictly one room only and only enough room for only one electron. Electrons are identical twins.
The twins are never together in one room. Too little space for anything except for themselves.
The space where they find space to share everything is in the hallway space that joins their two rooms.
I can not tell the twins apart. Their rooms are the same also.
I can tell their rooms apart because their rooms are apart - (location, space.)

Twins or more identicals have amazing hallways. Special hallways have special names. One is labeled 'superconductive'.

If you magic marker the twins to tell them apart(states), then when they swap their rooms they swap the markers I made on them. ('Flipping' is one of the magic markings.)

I can not tell if the twins have 'histories'.
I can not tell the twins apart even if I knew their histories, their past, their present and their futures.

Q-star will set you straight. I dream a lot.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2013
Tausch, I wouldn't worry about dreaming some of the best ideas in our real world have come from dreams. Like the 'poem' though, kinda sums things up for me because you mention 'twins' and that's strange. 'Twin' has a special meaning to me (no I'm not a twin). But that's another story.
Maybe there aren't many electrons but just one moving in and out of everything...yeah now who's dreaming eh? But at least it would get rid of the problem of why electrons are identical and maybe it would travel through time causing a mirror image...a positron.
Sorry about that, fellas. What's your thought Q-star?
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2013
But there is one thing that continues to bother me. If certain fundamentals are so 'constant' at what point do things become changeable and why.


I wouldn't let that bother ya over much,, the "why" is a philosophical question. If enough people continue experiment and observe, someone will come up the answer to "at what point". But hopefully that will lead to another question to work on.

For example, the electron on its journey through other sytems/reactions, apparently goes through a quasi-particle/wave state. Under entanglement would that not present a problem for another electron?


Think Pauli, "exclusion".

Since the time of Newton & Huygens physicists have been arguing over the wave-particle thing. They still do. I would suggest just use which model works fits the problem at hand.

I'm only tangentially involved in quantum theory, I don't have an obsessive side in the ongoing debate. I use the applicable model for the problem at hand.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2013
Thanks Q-star. 10.31pm...time I wasn't here...I mean there...I mean...oh heck it's 10.34pm wish I could stop time to finish this...
Tausch
1 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2013
Anything less than duality will not work for human thought.
We don't know what Nature does. We need 2 or more to tango.
sjm
not rated yet Feb 22, 2013
I need to spend a specific amount of mental energy for an unknown amout of time to think through this. Heisenberg at work!
Tausch
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2013
You can look at events labeled independent and say if there is no way to manipulate independence, then that ratio is maintained.

If, for example, when one aspect of noise is label random, then there is no way to cancel noise or attenuate noise.

You can see this aspect (labeled randomness) leads to a contradiction, if you assert the existence of independence.

That applies to all observables.
This also applies to abstractions.
Any act of math is deterministic.

A juggle (struggle?) between determinism and indeterminism leads to a theory labeled chaos. A pathological theory.

Gödel will assert any world that is deterministic or consistence will lead to a world that is indeterminate and inconsistent. The catch is, as soon as a world becomes inconsistent and indeterminable his theory is no longer applicable. And deterministic and consistence worlds are labeled incomplete until then.

So, how can casinos exist? They manipulate what you once thought to be an independent event.
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
So, how can casinos exist? They manipulate what you once thought to be an independent event.

This is sad but true everywhere and for everyone, except for casino operators for whom it is not sad, but still true.

As for how we think about life the universe and everything: evolution first made us into naive realists then let us evolve language and the ability to ask questions about it all. Q-star rightly points out that the answers to the eternal questions are philosophical.

It is worth remembering that philosophy = 'love of wisdom', despite what much of modern academic philosophy produces. Wisdom, ultimately, has got to be about the principles of surviving which of course is about continuing to exist.
More below: ...
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2013
.... conintued:
The stuff in the article about OTC and CTC probably makes sense to about 0.0001% of people on Earth. I am not one of those.

My resolution about how and why things are relies on the idea that existence entails enduring and change. Underlying everything are the existence of difference/s and changes. I do not think that Tegmark or Machal style mathematical ontology can cut it because they just *assume* existence then say that numbers make it all happen.

A better idea is that there are existents, that is to say, entities which simply *are* but are different from each other and which mutually exclude each other although it is possible that not all exclude - or recognise - each other. What we call "Universe" is the emergent properties of the boundaries between them, the surfaces where they meet but resist mutual absorption.
And Yet More below ..
A_Paradox
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2013
Space-time must be the surface of meeting of at least two existents. I tend to think that each such surface will be like some sort of vector, an intrinsic property that uniquely and comprehensively manifests the difference between the two existents in contact. On the other hand it may be that the locus of contact of three existents is needed to manifest the kind of space-time we find ourselves in.

If you think about it, this idea of a boundary or surface of interaction leads immediately to the idea of wave motion as an intrinsic property. Perhaps c, the speed of light is the primary characteristic of the Yin-Yang boundary, and waves of every magnitude are always propagating. "Things" which exist in that boundary because waves, knots, and pinches of other existents [Yoni, Yeti, Yogi, Yingtong, etc]impinge on it are better thought of as wavicles, rather than particles.
It's bedtime here.
Moebius
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
Paradox implies incompleteness or just plain wrong. Complete understanding must remove paradox because there is no such thing.
Tausch
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2013
Wonderful thoughts to accompany dreams. Day or night. G'Nite.
My hobby is feeding double negatives guardians of the universe:
Nothing is so wonderful that it can not be repeated.
Bon appetite!
Tausch
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
@Moebuis
I agree.

I do not seek complete understanding.

That goal is out of my reach.

I seek exact understanding. I seek an exact language to do this.
Exact understanding is incomplete. Exact language will give you the exact understanding to know this.

If there was a canonical form that made a relationship between inconsistency and incompleteness equivalent, then Gödel's incompleteness theory can not apply.

Most theories have at least one inconsistency. So they remain immune to Gödel's incompleteness theory.

One inconsistency in an otherwise complete, perfect universe protects you from the big bad wolf.

Yes. There are no true paradoxes.
(Didn't want the philosophers feeling left out, so I add that here.)
baudrunner
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Existence is the system, time is the container. Time, from beginning to end, is merely the necessary persistence of the fractal expression that creation is, while it is slowly (relatively speaking) unraveling into the inevitable nothingness from whence it originated. Like an orgasm, it is there, and then it is gone. We are the temporary afterglow.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Space-time must be the surface of meeting of at least two existents.
This is how the space-time is modeled in AWT (the same under higher magnification). Motion across time dimension. When the galaxies collapse and evaporate, they actually travel across large time dimension randomly. The same happens at the quantum scale. It's not true, that time travel across entropic time arrow is impossible: every expansion and collapse is an example of such local time travel.
rebelclause
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2013
This stuff is never boring, so I'm going to risk getting flamed by throwing down my two cents. I think the principle stands since spatial distortion outside the point limits a supposed refutation of the principle as instantaneous rather than by eigenvector, and that in all likelihood even at sub-Planck resolution, the lack of a continuous wave analog prevents unknowable states from being determined for both the object and target. Without parity of spatial determinants with time beyond an instantaneous single factor the 'shape' of the location at the time you start compared to that of the predetermined past are different depending on your vector relative to everything you can observe, even as it changes self-similarly by observation of new interactions within a given frame of reference at both the point of departure and arrival. To me, quantum and relative views say change & self-similarity within a frame of reference 'is' inconsequential when said css is insignificant to the observer.
BishopBalderdash
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2013
In general relativity the existence of time loops is actually impossible, as it would violate all postulates of general relativity.

False: Goedel showed how CTLs can exist consistently as solutions ot GR field equations.
donavanbadboy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2013
The energy "permanent magnet" motors use to keep running is derived by increasing the entropy in the order of the magnetic moments in the "permanent magnets". I.e. the magnets are not "permanent", and given enough time all the order in the magnetic moments will de-align, increasing entropy of the system as a whole, to the point where it will eventually stop working.
They don't stop working, in addition the energy of magnetization is very low. This is all just a silly theory of yours and it doesn't work. Surprisingly, the magnetic motors even don't get cold during their run - so they don't collect the heat energy from their material in observable way.


You propose to operate a machine which contravenes the first law of thermodynamics, and then accuse me of having a "silly theory", ROFL. I wasn't referring to the entropy in the heat energy, I was talking about increasing entropy of the magnetic moments.