Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Time travel on the quantum level is widely accepted. The following article is a recent example of this.
In this case, they seem to feel that the god particle is elusive, because it is a clever little devil, and plays hide and seek, passing laws, crashing accelerators, and etc. (?!)
Could the Large Hadron Collider be sabotaging itself from the future? That's the suggestion of a couple of reasonably distinguished theoretical physicists, which has received a fresh airing in the New York Times today.
Actually, it's the Higgs boson that is doing the sabotage. Apparently, among the many singular properties of the Higgs that the LHC is meant to discover could be the ability to turn back time to stop its cover being blown.
Or as the New York Times puts it:
"the hypothesized Higgs boson... might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."
Reading the first paper from a couple of years ago and the follow-up last week, it's not quite clear to me how or why the Higgs contrives to influence the minds of Congressmen, or cause LHC magnets to overheat from its point of discovery some time in the future. Even trying to consider how it would achieve such feats makes my own magnets overheat.
The authors clear up some of the mystery by describing their model as starting with "a series of not completely convincing, but still suggestive, assumptions".
Even more fun is Nielsen and Ninomiya's suggestion of how their theory might be tested: with a card game.
First, take a million or so cards, each scribbled with a future fate for the LHC. Make them overwhelmingly read "carry on", but add just one or two saying "shut the thing down".
If you pull one of the "shut down" ones at random, you have pretty good proof that the Higgs is trying to tell you something from the future.
I'm not sure anyone in charge needs my advice on this, but I'd be tempted to go ahead with the LHC restart anyway, just on the off-chance Nielsen and Ninomiya are wrong.
If the thing keeps on failing to work, at least you have the perfect excuse: it wasn't me, it was the Higgs.
"
Of course they are only a few physicists, but many do agree that time travel, one way or another of course, is involved in the quantum level.
As funny as they are, the thread is about why this all is a mystery. I propose that if the future and past are in a different state, then, naturally, things that travel through time, if they leave the present to a great degree, will have some weirdness. At least weird from the perspective of only our rules!
The evidence mounts.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Shesh, Dad, its just a hypothesis. You seem to gloss over this bit of their statement:
" The authors clear up some of the mystery by describing their model as starting with "a series of not completely convincing, but still suggestive, assumptions".
__________________ John Lennon--"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? Reality leaves a lot to the imagination."
Although I am an avowed atheist I believe in Jesus' message. Therefore I consider myself a Christian;
- tanzanos (defunct member)
If necessity is the mother of invention then Macgyver is the father.
I'll give you a hint - don't get your physics from the Daily Mail.
Besides, I'm pretty sure this was meant as a joke. The original paper was put on arXiv, and I'm pretty sure no peer-review board in the world will touch it with a ten foot pole.
I helped test components for the LHC and I've followed the safety analysis and the initial start up for a while - and anyone's who's worked with superconducting magnets before knows that a magnet quench comes with the territory. You don't need to invoke time travelling particles to explain it.
I'll give you a hint - don't get your physics from the Daily Mail.
Besides, I'm pretty sure this was meant as a joke. The original paper was put on arXiv, and I'm pretty sure no peer-review board in the world will touch it with a ten foot pole.
I helped test components for the LHC and I've followed the safety analysis and the initial start up for a while - and anyone's who's worked with superconducting magnets before knows that a magnet quench comes with the territory. You don't need to invoke time travelling particles to explain it.
As I pointed out, my point was that time travel is accepted as part of the quantum world by many physicists. The way these guys tried to apply it, to the accelerator is all that people in the field might question, not time crossing itself. No?
So, that leaves my point completely intact, and that is an explanation for the weirdness. A theory of everything if you will, that covers the quantum level as well as GR.
Perhaps another article will bring out the point better.
"
The proper mathematical description of the wave function actually includes a mixture of both ordinary ("real") numbers and imaginary numbers -- those numbers involving i, the square root of minus one. Such a mixture is called a complex variable, for obvious reasons; it is written down as a real part plus (or minus) an imaginary part. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron.
But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part -- if it was + it becomes -, and vice versa. The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. For equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is equivalent to reversing the direction of time!
The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrdinger equations, one describing waves that move forward in time and the other representing waves that move backward in time.
The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrdinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it. There is no problem at all with the mathematics of Cramer's interpretation of quantum mechanics, because the mathematics, right down to Schrdinger's equation, is exactly the same as in the standard Copenhagen interpretation. The difference is, literally, only in the interpretation -- Cramer accepts that the wave flowing backward in time is real, and should be taken seriously, not ignored. The way Cramer describes a typical quantum "transaction" is in terms of a particle "shaking hands" with another particle somewhere else in space and time. One of the difficulties with any such description in ordinary language is how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned. Cramer does this by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudotime. This is no more than a semantic device -- but it certainly helps to get the picture straight."
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
As I pointed out, my point was that time travel is accepted as part of the quantum world by many physicists. The way these guys tried to apply it, to the accelerator is all that people in the field might question, not time crossing itself. No?
And my point was that it's a lot more likely, given the number of superconducting magnets involved and how temperamental they are, that it was simply a magnet quench.
So, that leaves my point completely intact, and that is an explanation for the weirdness. A theory of everything if you will, that covers the quantum level as well as GR.
Inasumuch as your explanations are ever such for whatever you claim, sure, why not.
Perhaps another article will bring out the point better.
"
The proper mathematical description of the wave function actually includes a mixture of both ordinary ("real") numbers and imaginary numbers -- those numbers involving i, the square root of minus one. Such a mixture is called a complex variable, for obvious reasons; it is written down as a real part plus (or minus) an imaginary part. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron.
But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part -- if it was + it becomes -, and vice versa. The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. For equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is equivalent to reversing the direction of time!
The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrdinger equations, one describing waves that move forward in time and the other representing waves that move backward in time.
The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrdinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it. There is no problem at all with the mathematics of Cramer's interpretation of quantum mechanics, because the mathematics, right down to Schrdinger's equation, is exactly the same as in the standard Copenhagen interpretation. The difference is, literally, only in the interpretation -- Cramer accepts that the wave flowing backward in time is real, and should be taken seriously, not ignored. The way Cramer describes a typical quantum "transaction" is in terms of a particle "shaking hands" with another particle somewhere else in space and time. One of the difficulties with any such description in ordinary language is how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned. Cramer does this by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudotime. This is no more than a semantic device -- but it certainly helps to get the picture straight."
This is quantum wavefunctions being spoken of here - not necessarily the particles themselves.
Additionally, even a wavefunction is localised in space - if there is some time fluctuation, there could likely be localisation limits in time as well, i.e. a particle can't necessarily arbitrarily nerf the LHC from an unspecified point in the future.
Perhaps another article will bring out the point better.
"
The proper mathematical description of the wave function actually includes a mixture of both ordinary ("real") numbers and imaginary numbers -- those numbers involving i, the square root of minus one. Such a mixture is called a complex variable, for obvious reasons; it is written down as a real part plus (or minus) an imaginary part. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron.
But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part -- if it was + it becomes -, and vice versa. The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. For equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is equivalent to reversing the direction of time!
The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrdinger equations, one describing waves that move forward in time and the other representing waves that move backward in time.
The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrdinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it. There is no problem at all with the mathematics of Cramer's interpretation of quantum mechanics, because the mathematics, right down to Schrdinger's equation, is exactly the same as in the standard Copenhagen interpretation. The difference is, literally, only in the interpretation -- Cramer accepts that the wave flowing backward in time is real, and should be taken seriously, not ignored. The way Cramer describes a typical quantum "transaction" is in terms of a particle "shaking hands" with another particle somewhere else in space and time. One of the difficulties with any such description in ordinary language is how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned. Cramer does this by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudotime. This is no more than a semantic device -- but it certainly helps to get the picture straight."
No. I like peer-review. When I read something from a peer-review periodical, I can feel confidant that there won't be awful errors, debunked science, procedural error etc.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
No. I like peer-review. When I read something from a peer-review periodical, I can feel confidant that there won't be awful errors, debunked science, procedural error etc.
Your article doesn't even cite primary research!
Thats nice. Apparently you think quantum time breaching is something way out there. How telling.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
And my point was that it's a lot more likely, given the number of superconducting magnets involved and how temperamental they are, that it was simply a magnet quench.
Considereing quantum probabilities, I won't hazard a guess on what is likely.
Inasumuch as your explanations are ever such for whatever you claim, sure, why not.
Not that you would disagree that time travel is widely acknowledged to be involved.
This is quantum wavefunctions being spoken of here - not necessarily the particles themselves.
Right.
"There is no more mystery about the quantum mysteries at all -- provided you can live with waves that go backwards in time."
Same link
Additionally, even a wavefunction is localised in space - if there is some time fluctuation, there could likely be localisation limits in time as well, i.e. a particle can't necessarily arbitrarily nerf the LHC from an unspecified point in the future.
I see you are addressing the issue of the LHC again. But it seems that some feel that it isn't all that far removed from the particles and photons of this world.
"It is a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics that entities described by the quantum equations are not simply particles or waves, but exhibit a mixture of wave and particle properties. Light, for example, will behave as a wave in interference experiments, with two sets of waves interacting with one another to form a new pattern, just as ripples on a pond (or in your bath) interact with one another. On the other hand, in other experiments light will behave as a stream of tiny particles, called photons. "
same link
In this article it mentions that quantum effects were clocked 10,000 times faster than light.
" The photons were indeed entangled, the group reports in Nature. But in reality, no experiment is perfect, so what they end up with is a lower limit on how fast the entanglement could be traveling: 10,000 times the speed of light.
To appreciate the weirdness of entanglement, consider that the outcome of a single quantum measurement is random. By all tests, a photon *has* no definite polarization until it hits a detector capable of measuring it. So it's like the entangled particles share one big quantum state."
If the past and future states are different that is no surprise, if time travel is involved. After all, light got here from far stars at speeds nowhere near present light..!
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Linear Mode
