Earthpages.org

The Real Alternative


1 Comment

You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time

In the summer of 1935, the physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger engaged in a rich, multifaceted and sometimes fretful correspondence about the implications of the new theory of quantum mechanics. The focus of their worry was what Schrödinger later dubbed entanglement: the inability to describe two quantum systems or particles independently, after they have interacted.

Until his death, Einstein remained convinced that entanglement showed how quantum mechanics was incomplete. Schrödinger thought that entanglement was the defining feature of the new physics, but this didn’t mean that he accepted it lightly. ‘I know of course how the hocus pocus works mathematically,’ he wrote to Einstein on 13 July 1935. ‘But I do not like such a theory.’ Schrödinger’s famous cat, suspended between life and death, first appeared in these letters, a byproduct of the struggle to articulate what bothered the pair.

The problem is that entanglement violates how the world ought to work. Information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, for one. But in a 1935 paper, Einstein and his co-authors showed how entanglement leads to what’s now called quantum nonlocality, the eerie link that appears to exist between entangled particles. If two quantum systems meet and then separate, even across a distance of thousands of lightyears, it becomes impossible to measure the features of one system (such as its position, momentum and polarity) without instantly steering the other into a corresponding state.

Image – Wikipedia

Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?

The answer, as it turns out, is yes. Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.

Here’s how they did it. First, they created an entangled pair of photons, ‘1-2’ (step I in the diagram below). Soon after, they measured the polarisation of photon 1 (a property describing the direction of light’s oscillation) – thus ‘killing’ it (step II). Photon 2 was sent on a wild goose chase while a new entangled pair, ‘3-4’, was created (step III). Photon 3 was then measured along with the itinerant photon 2 in such a way that the entanglement relation was ‘swapped’ from the old pairs (‘1-2’ and ‘3-4’) onto the new ‘2-3’ combo (step IV). Some time later (step V), the polarisation of the lone survivor, photon 4, is measured, and the results are compared with those of the long-dead photon 1 (back at step II).

Figure 1. Time line diagram: (I) Birth of photons 1 and 2, (II) detection of photon 1, (III) birth of photons 3 and 4, (IV) Bell projection of photons 2 and 3, (V) detection of photon 4.

The upshot? The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.

What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.

Lest this scenario strike you as too outlandish, Megidish and his colleagues can’t resist speculating on possible and rather spooky interpretations of their results. Perhaps the measurement of photon 1’s polarisation at step II somehow steers the future polarisation of 4, or the measurement of photon 4’s polarisation at step V somehow rewrites the past polarisation state of photon 1. In both forward and backward directions, quantum correlations span the causal void between the death of one photon and the birth of the other.

General relativity time and space distortion – Wikipedia

Just a spoonful of relativity helps the spookiness go down, though. In developing his theory of special relativity, Einstein deposed the concept of simultaneity from its Newtonian pedestal. As a consequence, simultaneity went from being an absolute property to being a relative one. There is no single timekeeper for the Universe; precisely when something is occurring depends on your precise location relative to what you are observing, known as your frame of reference. So the key to avoiding strange causal behaviour (steering the future or rewriting the past) in instances of temporal separation is to accept that calling events ‘simultaneous’ carries little metaphysical weight. It is only a frame-specific property, a choice among many alternative but equally viable ones – a matter of convention, or record-keeping.

The lesson carries over directly to both spatial and temporal quantum nonlocality. Mysteries regarding entangled pairs of particles amount to disagreements about labelling, brought about by relativity. Einstein showed that no sequence of events can be metaphysically privileged – can be considered more real – than any other. Only by accepting this insight can one make headway on such quantum puzzles.

The various frames of reference in the Hebrew University experiment (the lab’s frame, photon 1’s frame, photon 4’s frame, and so on) have their own ‘historians’, so to speak. While these historians will disagree about how things went down, not one of them can claim a corner on truth. A different sequence of events unfolds within each one, according to that spatiotemporal point of view. Clearly, then, any attempt at assigning frame-specific properties generally, or tying general properties to one particular frame, will cause disputes among the historians. But here’s the thing: while there might be legitimate disagreement about which properties should be assigned to which particles and when, there shouldn’t be disagreement about the very existence of these properties, particles, and events.

Image – Wikipedia

These findings drive yet another wedge between our beloved classical intuitions and the empirical realities of quantum mechanics. As was true for Schrödinger and his contemporaries, scientific progress is going to involve investigating the limitations of certain metaphysical views. Schrödinger’s cat, half-alive and half-dead, was created to illustrate how the entanglement of systems leads to macroscopic phenomena that defy our usual understanding of the relations between objects and their properties: an organism such as a cat is either dead or alive. No middle ground there.

Most contemporary philosophical accounts of the relationship between objects and their properties embrace entanglement solely from the perspective of spatial nonlocality. But there’s still significant work to be done on incorporating temporal nonlocality – not only in object-property discussions, but also in debates over material composition (such as the relation between a lump of clay and the statue it forms), and part-whole relations (such as how a hand relates to a limb, or a limb to a person). For example, the ‘puzzle’ of how parts fit with an overall whole presumes clear-cut spatial boundaries among underlying components, yet spatial nonlocality cautions against this view. Temporal nonlocality further complicates this picture: how does one describe an entity whose constituent parts are not even coexistent?

Discerning the nature of entanglement might at times be an uncomfortable project. It’s not clear what substantive metaphysics might emerge from scrutiny of fascinating new research by the likes of Megidish and other physicists. In a letter to Einstein, Schrödinger notes wryly (and deploying an odd metaphor): ‘One has the feeling that it is precisely the most important statements of the new theory that can really be squeezed into these Spanish boots – but only with difficulty.’ We cannot afford to ignore spatial or temporal nonlocality in future metaphysics: whether or not the boots fit, we’ll have to wear ’em.Aeon counter – do not remove

Elise Crull

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

For the insulting science bots at davidbowie.com

Just before David Bowie’s death I was active at davidbowie.com. At first, I thought I had found some interesting people. And some of the participants were. But others seemed like science bots, parroting trends without really thinking about them.

Being me, I mentioned the possibility outlined in the above tweet way before it hit the headlines (I tend to be like that). My suggestion was met with insults, ridicule, attempted shaming and scorn. For some, just thinking freely is a major sin.

It seems these lost followers of Bowie have become the Diamond Dogs, themselves. Easy living hypocrites saying all the right PC things while living the life that capitalism affords.

Embed from Getty Images


2 Comments

Interpretation Bias in Climate Change? (Don’t Tell Me How to Think!)

A recent article (tweeted below) says the3% of “Climate Change Denier” scientific studies are flawed. While reading it I couldn’t help but think… okay, so we are supposed to stop thinking and blindly accept both the findings and interpretation of the 97% Climate Change Affirmer” studies?

I just can’t. It’s too stupid and dictatorial.

Science is a human enterprise and ALWAYS involves bias, selectivity and interpretation.

For the record, I do accept that human activity could be a significant contributing factor. But what about other sources of heat? Like inside the Earth. Nobody really talks about that.

More important, however, is the FACT about interpretation. Most everyone sees the temperature increase as a bad thing. But I can’t help but think of a possible counterexample. I’m no scientist or geologist so please take this hypothetically instead of factually.

Origin of Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Remains a Mystery – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Let’s say something from space hits the Earth. An asteroid. This causes all sorts of junk to fly into the atmosphere which blocks out the sun and forces the Earth’s temperature to drop drastically. Some believe this was the cause of the last ice age.

So in this hypothetical scenario, the fact that we are a little bit warmer now might be a good thing down the road. Who knows, it might save us.

Admittedly, this is pretty far out and probably not scientifically predictable. But the point I’m trying to make is that we cannot know for sure how current warmer temperatures will affect us down the road.

So although mankind might be contributing to climate change, it is a matter of interpretation about how that pans out in the long run.

This isn’t complicated thinking. I think most people – even children – could follow the argument. But what disappoints me is that most adults won’t even consider it.

See – What Killed the Dinosaurs?

and – Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?

Exhibit Museum Replica Urtier Prehistoric Times

Don’t DENY the possibility. Check the links.


Leave a comment

Solar Eclipse – Don’t look at it!

I didn’t research this thoroughly but a quick search revealed that even sunglasses won’t properly protect your eyes from a solar eclipse. And everyone is at risk for eye damage.

https://www.nasa.gov/eclipse2017


1 Comment

Solar eclipse looms large


2 Comments

I know it was a little dry – Take Two on the Multiverse!

Recently I updated an older post about parallel universes that was just barely adequate. A lot has happened around the world since I wrote the early piece. So I decided to give it an overhaul.

And I did. But it wasn’t easy. Theories about the multiverse can get pretty dense. And trying to make that accessible without totally misrepresenting what people are saying is a challenge.

The outcome was quite good but a bit dry. I knew that I really should have written a light intro and conclusion. But I just ran out of steam. And, wanting to get it out there, posted it as is.

Image by CollegeDegrees360 via Flickr

Today I’m in a lighter, refreshed frame of mind so wrote a touch more for the intro and conclusion. No other changes. But I think my tweaks really help. So that’s why I’m formally introducing the revised version here at earthpages.org.

Earthpages.ca is like a testing ground. I can tell who my true supporters are. They like my stuff for its content, even if the writing style sometimes is a bit uncool. So I thank you for your early “likes.” Your support means a great deal to me.

Earthpages is a labor of love. But it feels pretty stale if it doesn’t connect with anybody at all. If I wanted that kind of life, I could have been academic with rows of snoozing students, totally not caring about learning and, instead, calculating the minimum grade they need to get where they want to go.

Don’t laugh. I was a TA. That’s how it can be.

With the exception of two or three bright lights, most of the students seemed pretty uninspired and uninspiring.

Thank God for the internet and a much bigger fish pond! 🙂

English: Multiverse, a light sculpture by Leo ...

Multiverse, a light sculpture by Leo Villareal featuring 41,000 computer-programmed LED nodes, located between the National Gallery of Art’s East and West Buildings, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Wikipedia)

 Northern Lights from Space! Astronaut Captures Aurora Over Europe (space.com)


Leave a comment

Today’s Top Tweet – Earth at night

OPINION

Part of me is tempted to go into the usual New Age preachy theme about how we’re all one and if we just came to realize this, there would be no war, no senseless killings, no crazed truck drivers, no hostages fearing their death…

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

But honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. I believe there is evil in the world and that it furiously wants to sow discord. All you science-bots out there who think a new pill can save humanity can believe what you want. But I think you’re wrong. I don’t believe evil will ever be eradicated. And those who can recognize the difference between good and ill must take a stand.

Jesus talked about prayer and turning the other cheek. And in the ultimate sense he’s probably right. But in the course of history, if every good person merely prayed and turned the other cheek, I don’t think humanity would last that long. Evil would sweep the globe in a very short matter of time.

While no one perspective can solve our global problems, I do believe that the total dynamic is tilted toward the good. That means all the forces in existence, taken together, including pacifism and activism, will turn things out the right way.

This isn’t blind belief. I have reason to believe in an all-powerful God. Yet I realize not everyone does. To me, that’s their poverty, not mine.