Message from discussion
What's done is done...or is it?
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!bigfeed3.bellsouth.net!bigfeed!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews4.bellsouth.net.POSTED!490ef355!not-for-mail
From: "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
References: <i5crh2h94mclhka6pbp0fopqk9gev00noc@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: What's done is done...or is it?
Lines: 290
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <A4tTg.24806$8s6.12387@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bellsouth.net
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboadhgeojdijjghppmfonhbmoopppkfjokgpihbmbcfgoajfigjildmiinlclfekacnmoebahngadmnepdapcndkjjfdodiihanahpbbhdpjpghcno
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:05:52 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Service
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:10:09 -0400
"Sir Frederick" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:i5crh2h94mclhka6pbp0fopqk9gev00noc@4ax.com...
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19125710.900-whats-done-is-done-or-is-it.html;jsessionid=HONNHKPKENNB
> What's done is done...or is it?
> 28 September 2006
> Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
> Patrick Barry
>
> How to change the past
>
> Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd
> like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or
> rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed
> of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make
> yourself the winner.
>
> Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's
> done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the
> mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you
> might change the circumstances by which your parents met,
> derailing the key event that led to your birth.
>
> Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can
> affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange
> as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known
> laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in
> the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done
> the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the
> door remains wide open for a demonstration.
>
> It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments
> that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by
> attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke
> black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic
> implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a
> state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar
> tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is
> a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions
> about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
>
> Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are
> generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes
> running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really
> strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his
> theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In
> this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an
> illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an
> unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view,
> the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why
> you can't have causes from the future just as you have
> causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the
> University of Sydney in Australia.
>
> With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of
> particles and events became even less relevant. "Real
> temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says
> Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna,
> Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of
> time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to
> the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter
> equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles
> travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his
> mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they
> worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards
> and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality,
> however, remained elusive.
>
> Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic
> double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons
> through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the
> photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen
> behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if
> each photon travels through both slits and interferes with
> itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the
> slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through
> one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But,
> Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the
> photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could
> suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one
> trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon
> went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after
> the fact.
>
> In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found
> a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an
> interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after
> passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path
> depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind".
> Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first
> blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most
> physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the
> photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no
> unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
>
> That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the
> University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the
> "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts
> to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real
> world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by
> sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards
> and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American
> Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed
> an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal
> influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits
> with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send
> signals to the past.
>
> The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's
> lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.
> Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or
> linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same
> wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer
> converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam
> were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a
> circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed
> through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through
> a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon
> in two different positions.
>
> The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images
> the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while
> in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer
> showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced
> its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
>
> To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a
> coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame
> University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a
> double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of
> measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon
> pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled
> photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at
> least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector
> should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure
> one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a
> set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another
> instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem
> to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
>
> If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be
> better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was
> sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure
> through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable,
> thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that
> the other beam will arrive at its detector before you
> make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are
> indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the
> other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed
> beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle,
> before you have even made it.
>
> That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer
> says they could control the movable detector so that it
> alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over
> time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam
> that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If
> this consistently shifts between an interference pattern
> and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the
> respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would
> support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the
> drawing board.
>
> Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment
> first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in
> photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only
> after performing that would they add in the delay cables.
> "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the
> macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
>
> Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might
> mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment
> just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you
> accept the transactional interpretation, then this
> experiment would show a retrocausal influence." Cramer agrees it is
> speculative, but says the experiment is our best shot at seeing
> retrocausality in action. Because of the implications he is cautious, but
> still positive. "I don't see any show stopper yet," he
> says.
>
> If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the
> door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the
> effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the
> opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers
> have suggested retrocausality can only occur in limited circumstances in
> which not enough information is available for you to
> contradict the results of an experiment.
>
> Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can
> influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair
> is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber
> yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that
> decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk
> about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on
> causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would
> mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we
> cannot change the future.
>
> If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality
> does exist, it says something profound about how the
> universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest
> problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of
> Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and
> "nonlocality" - one particle instantaneously affecting another,
> even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with
> relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than
> light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed
> instantaneously affect the other (New Scientist, 18 June
> 2005, p 32). Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way:
> whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for
> instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not
> violated.
>
> Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled
> particle could send a wave backwards through time to the
> moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move
> faster than light; it could simply retrace the first
> particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the
> two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact
> with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is
> a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe
> says.
>
> While the jury is out awaiting the results of Cramer's experiment, some
> researchers expect reverse causality will play an
> increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm
> going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist
> and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when
> we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a
> theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve
> retrocausality." If it also involves winning yesterday's
> lottery, Cramer won't be telling.
>
> "When we finally find the theory that unifies quantum mechanics and
> relativity, it will involve retrocausality"From issue 2571 of
> New Scientist magazine, 28 September 2006, page 36-39
> Why we are here
> If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the
> universe - exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for
> human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this
> fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of
> universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily
> have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one
> we're in.
>
> Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for
> Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another
> possibility: the universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If
> you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the
> physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise
> as can be calculated from the total information content of
> the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size,
> so just after the big bang, while the universe was still
> infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in
> the laws of nature.
>
> And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious
> observers later in history could exert an influence on those
> first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favourable for life. This
> may seem circular: life exists to make the universe
> suitable for life. If causality works both forwards and backwards,
> however, consistency between the past and the future is all that
> matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's
> nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in
> time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow
> written into the universe at the big bang, there must be some
> sort of two-way link."
> --
> Frederick Martin McNeill
> Poway, California, United States of America
> mmcne...@fuzzysys.com
> http://www.fuzzysys.com
> http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
> *************************
> Phrases of the week :
> "Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life."
> - Omar Khayyam
> "Blank"
> :-))))Snort!)
> **************************************
Where do you get these articles. They are always engrossing...very
entralling...cutting edge stuff. Science can sometimes read like a good
mystery novel...and I hang upon the suspense. Are we still working on that
super collider..I believe it was to be built in Texas? Or did the funding
fall through...can't remember. Sheese...that was ten plus years ago...so I
guess it was not completed. The mystery goes on.
|
