2 of 3
2
The Holographic Universe
Posted: 08 November 2007 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1884
Joined  2007-10-28

Doug,

Using the holographic principle, the 4D universe as we know it is also a hologram of 3D reality and the same argument for illusion applies.

Transcend: be or go beyond the limits of (Oxford English Dictionary)

The wierdest link article which I quoted refers to considerable scientific and experimental research being done. Do read it in full before you conclude that I am hyperboling. Here is it again:

http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

fotobits,

In the same article, there is a link to a paper from Imperial College, UK on “Quantum Entanglement in Time”.
Here is the PDF file:

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127v1.pdf

Quantum Entanglement in Time

Caslav Brukner,1, 2,  Samuel Taylor,1, † Sancho Cheung,1, ‡ and Vlatko Vedral1, §
1Optics Section, The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BW, United Kingdom
2Institut f¨ur Experimentalphysik, Universit¨at Wien, Boltzmanngasse 5, A–1090 Wien, Austria
(Dated: March 31, 2007)

The temporal Bell inequalities are derived from the assumptions of realism and locality in time.
It is shown that quantum mechanics violates these inequalities and thus is in conflict with the two
assumptions. This can be used for performing certain tasks that are not possible classically. Our
results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.

[ Edited: 08 November 2007 09:50 AM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2007 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
kkwan - 08 November 2007 09:45 AM

Transcend: be or go beyond the limits of (Oxford English Dictionary)

Right, I know what the definition of the word “transcend” is; I just don’t know what you mean by transcending time and space. Unless you simply mean that our four dimensional spacetime is part of some larger dimensional space.

kkwan - 08 November 2007 09:45 AM

The wierdest link article which I quoted refers to considerable scientific and experimental research being done. Do read it in full before you conclude that I am hyperboling.

Yes, I did read that; what they say is significantly less strange than you are making it out to be. Further, do note the paper you quote. As they say “Our results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.”

If time is a dimension just like the three of space, one should expect that entanglement might have temporal effects as well. But they have a long way to go before demonstrating this conclusively. This is all very speculative stuff. It’s interesting to speculate, of course, but let’s wait for more evidence before we assume what they’re saying is true or even sensible.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2007 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2007-09-14
dougsmith - 07 November 2007 12:43 PM
George - 07 November 2007 12:39 PM

I just though that if time-space was some sort of a substance (ether) and you would affect it in one spot, there could possibly be an instant impact “on the other side” (wherever, or whatever, that would be). I am not talking about transforming information across the universe, but rather to the other side of the universe – because if ether existed it could possibly have two sides, just like a sheet of paper.

ohh

Sorry, not following that.

There’s a lot of way-out speculative stuff in cosmology ... I wouldn’t take any of it very seriously until it’s been backed up by some pretty good experimental evidence, anyhow.


I think there’s an implicit error here - any signal that propagates through or across a medium takes time to do so.  In the case of an ant doing the two-step on a rubber sheet, the limiting speed is the speed of sound through the rubber.  There’s no “instantaneous” effect on the whole sheet.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2007 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9292
Joined  2006-08-29

I was not talking about rubber. I was imagining what it could mean to poke into “ether” – or whatever it is that our universe is made of.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2007 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2007-09-14
George - 07 November 2007 12:24 PM

Hmm, imagine an ant sitting on a sheet of plastic, which is a square 10” by 10” in size. Now, if the ant is sitting in the middle of the sheet, the shortest distance to the middle of the other site is 10”. It would take the ant some time to walk that distance. But if he poked the plastic sheet the impact on the other side would be immediate.

Well slap my knee and call me Myrtle if I didn’t get rubber mixed up with plastic.  Chemistry was never my strength. smile

The point is, any disturbance that transmits information (even as simple as “I happened!”) somewhere else has to get the “signal” from here to there, and that always takes time.

In the case of the ant on plastic, the information is that a small force was applied to the sheet at some distant point.  The fact that it was an ant dancing as opposed to, say, an earwig wiggling or the tip of a pencil poking is not propagated by the disturbance-wave.

Which reminds me that one of the most astonishing things to me is that we can garner so much information about the stars simply by looking at their light.  Someday perhaps we’ll extract a similar wealth of information from gravity waves.

[ Edited: 08 November 2007 07:32 PM by tscott ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2007 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1884
Joined  2007-10-28
dougsmith - 08 November 2007 10:00 AM
kkwan - 08 November 2007 09:45 AM

Transcend: be or go beyond the limits of (Oxford English Dictionary)

Right, I know what the definition of the word “transcend” is; I just don’t know what you mean by transcending time and space. Unless you simply mean that our four dimensional spacetime is part of some larger dimensional space.

kkwan - 08 November 2007 09:45 AM

The wierdest link article which I quoted refers to considerable scientific and experimental research being done. Do read it in full before you conclude that I am hyperboling.

Yes, I did read that; what they say is significantly less strange than you are making it out to be. Further, do note the paper you quote. As they say “Our results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.”

If time is a dimension just like the three of space, one should expect that entanglement might have temporal effects as well. But they have a long way to go before demonstrating this conclusively. This is all very speculative stuff. It’s interesting to speculate, of course, but let’s wait for more evidence before we assume what they’re saying is true or even sensible.

Consider the entanglement in space of 2 particles (A,B) separated by a very large distance,1 billion miles. When A changes state, B instantantly also change state. If A sends a signal at light speed to trigger B, it will take quite some time to get to B. Particles A and B transcend space and time.This is what I mean and it is one of the mysteries of quantum mechanics. The other is superposition which is also very strange.

Regarding the “Entanglement:The weirdest link” article, and your comment that you find it less
strange than what I make it out to be, consider these:

http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

Thomas Durt of Vrije University in Brussels also believes entanglement is everywhere. He has recently shown, from the basic equations that Schrödinger considered, that almost all quantum interactions produce entanglement, whatever the conditions. “When you see light coming from a faraway star, the photon is almost certainly entangled with the atoms of the star and the atoms encountered along the way,” he says. And the constant interactions between electrons in the atoms that make up your body are no exception. According to Durt, we are a mass of entanglements.

But these problems may be nothing compared to the bombshell that Caslav Brukner of the University of Vienna has just dropped. As if our current understanding of entanglement between widely separated particles were not sketchy enough, Brukner, working with Vedral and two other Imperial College researchers, has uncovered a radical twist. They have shown that moments of time can become entangled too

They achieved this through a thought experiment that examines how quantum theory links successive measurements of a single quantum system. Measure a photon’s polarisation, for example, and you will get a particular result. Do it again some time later, and you will get a second result. What Brukner and Vedral have found is a strange connection between the past and the future: the very act of measuring the photon polarisation a second time can affect how it was polarised earlier on. “It’s really surprising,” says Vedral.

This entanglement between moments in time is so bizarre that it could expose a hole in the very fabric of quantum theory, the researchers believe. The formulation does not allow messages to be sent back in time, but it still means that quantum mechanics seems to be bending the laws of cause and effect. On top of that, entanglement in time puts space and time on an equal footing in quantum theory, and that goes sharply against the grain.

In other words, Brukner’s result suggests that we might be missing something important in our understanding of how the world works. Maybe that shouldn’t surprise us. After all, entanglement between two spatially separated objects already tells us that space doesn’t really have the form that classical physics says it does: instantaneous cause and effect across cosmological distances is not something that any theory of the universe can cope with. And now Brukner’s result seems to extend this “impossibility” to events separated in time as well.

Regarding the paper “Quantum Entanglement in Time”, the main topic was to show entanglement in time and they have shown that. What they said was “Our results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.”, not that their results was a possibility.

I will end this post with the famous quote from J.B.S. Haldane:

My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

[ Edited: 09 November 2007 09:48 AM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2007 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
kkwan - 09 November 2007 09:45 AM

Consider the entanglement in space of 2 particles (A,B) separated by a very large distance,1 billion miles. When A changes state, B instantantly also change state. If A sends a signal at light speed to trigger B, it will take quite some time to get to B. Particles A and B transcend space and time.This is what I mean and it is one of the mysteries of quantum mechanics. The other is superposition which is also very strange.

Yes, but entanglement is not a new phenomenon in QM. It’s been known about for quite some time. It is odd, yes, but since it cannot be used to transmit any information, the “transcendence” (as you call it) of time and space is of limited use.

kkwan - 09 November 2007 09:45 AM

Regarding the paper “Quantum Entanglement in Time”, the main topic was to show entanglement in time and they have shown that. What they said was “Our results open up a possibility for introducing the notion of entanglement in time in quantum physics.”, not that their results was a possibility.

Well, I think we are reading that differently, and I don’t agree with your interpretation. It’s intriguing stuff, but speculative.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2007 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

The same reasons why someone would find this article interesting are the same reasons why many people buy into “The Secret”.  Wouldn’t that be wonderful?  Don’t you want to be apart of this new discovery?  Don’t you want to be special?

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2007 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1884
Joined  2007-10-28

On the illusion of time, here is an interview in the Edge website with Julian Barbour, a British physicist who wrote “The End of Time: The next Revolution in Physics”:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html

I suggest that our belief in time and a past arises solely because our entire experience comes to us through the medium of static arrangements of matter, in Nows, that create the appearance of time and change.

I’m more optimistic and I am by no means completely alone in thinking that the appearance of time can arise from an essentially timeless universe. There is a quite long — standing regular research program involving at least twenty recognized physicists devoted to the problem. One of Hawking’s main papers contributed to it about 15 years ago. The aspect of the problem that most excites me is that it might abolish the dichotomy between laws of nature and the initial conditions that you have to add to them before you can make any predictions.

The string theorists will probably not take it very seriously, because I’m tied to a certain approach to attacking the problem and they will perhaps just say well he’s doing the wrong thing. But I don’t worry too much about that, because certain approaches can become unpopular for a long time and then come back in again. There are certainly people who do think about the fundamental issues of how you describe the world and these very basic questions of what is motion and so forth; they should be sympathetic to my approach. The people who will not like me are the people who don’t want to take the many — worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics seriously, and who are trying to modify quantum mechanics so as to banish that specter. I don’t think Roger Penrose would take it very seriously, because he doesn’t like any form of the many — worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking might be quite sympathetic, because he’s been basically working along those lines for many years now. Other people who I would not expect to be sympathetic are Murray Gell — Mann, Jim Hartle, and several others who have developed the so — called consistent histories approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. They start out by taking a complete history as being a fundamental concept, whereas for me the Now is the starting point. They start with a string of Nows.

Here is the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time

If a universe is composed of timeless instants in the sense of configurations of matter that do not endure, one could nonetheless have the impression that time flows, Barbour asserts. The stream of consciousness and the sensation of the present, lasting about a second, is all in our heads, literally. In our brains is information about the recent past, but not as a result of a causal chain leading back to earlier instants.

The illusion of time as series of instants of “nows” is very similar to the Buddhist concept:

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhism_and_the_illusion_of_time.htm

“Our minds and the whole universe are like that. This world is impermanent. Everything is always changing, changing, changing, moving, moving, moving, nonstop. Even one second of our lives seems full of so much movement and change in this world that we see. But your mind—right now—is like a lens whose shutter speed is one divided by infinite time. We call that moment-mind. If you attain that mind, then this whole world’s movement stops. From moment to moment you can see this world completely stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Like the film, you perceive every frame—this moment—which is infinitely still and complete. In the frame, nothing is moving. There is no time, and nothing appears or disappears in that box. But this movie projector—your thinking mind—is always moving, around and around and around, so you experience this world as constantly moving and you constantly experience change, which is impermanence. You lose moment-mind by following your conceptual thinking, believing that it is real.”

You can picture this “Now”—which is your own Buddha Mind, your own natural Awareness—as a vast blue sky, and the world of time and change is just a little tiny cloud passing within it. The “Now” is eternal and still; it never changes or moves, since it is the infinite clearing or space in which all change and movement happens. The cloud arises, the cloud stays a bit, and the cloud goes, but the vast empty sky remains untouched by it.

This is exactly how your present experience is: you are the vast empty sky and this whole universe is a tiny cloud within you. Through the blinding power of innate ignorance, however, you have forgotten your true nature as the motionless sky and mistakenly identified yourself as the ever-changing cloud (or a small part of the cloud). A Theravadin-level enlightenment will reverse this mistake by showing you that you are really the empty sky, and a Mahayanin, nondual Enlightenment will show you that the sky and the cloud are not separate or different. The cloud arises out of, and within, the sky, and is ultimately made of “sky essence,” so to speak. (It’s the same as the old “mirror” analogy: your mind is perfectly clear mirror, and the world is reflected in it. You first must discover that you are the mirror and become free of the reflections; then you must discover that the reflections are not separate from the mirror. At that point you become Free as the Absolute Unity of mirror-and-reflections together.)

[ Edited: 10 November 2007 07:35 AM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2007 04:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
kkwan - 10 November 2007 07:17 AM

On the illusion of time, here is an interview in the Edge website with Julian Barbour, a British physicist who wrote “The End of Time: The next Revolution in Physics”

In the modern era, the argument that time is an illusion was perhaps best formulated by the philosopher JME McTaggart, in 1908. If you want to read more about his argument, I’d suggest checking out THIS page, particularly part 4, “McTaggart’s Argument”.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5943
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 11 November 2007 04:33 PM
kkwan - 10 November 2007 07:17 AM

On the illusion of time, here is an interview in the Edge website with Julian Barbour, a British physicist who wrote “The End of Time: The next Revolution in Physics”

In the modern era, the argument that time is an illusion was perhaps best formulated by the philosopher JME McTaggart, in 1908. If you want to read more about his argument, I’d suggest checking out THIS page, particularly part 4, “McTaggart’s Argument”.

I just checked the page out, I was interested to see the growing universe theory there.

One of the ways I think about time is to imagine the big bang as the centre of the universe and how far we’ve expanded as the outside edge and consider everything from the middle to the outside edge as existing, so the present and past exist but not the future.

One of the reasons we consider time to be different than space is that we can’t visit the past.

But to think this is a difference between space and time is to think that we can visit the same bit of space twice.

But we can’t do that either can we?

If I go back to my sisters house, as the universe is expanding, it will actually have moved to another place, it’s just that I don’t notice.

So can I go back to the bit of space it did occupy, any more than I can visit the past?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

fotobits,

kkwan is completely misrepresenting the atomic switch

as of August 2006 scientists at NIST said the atomic switch is “still futuristic.”

though its implications and usage does not seem to be that stuff Star Trek was made of, or that of the supernatural or paranormal.

so far they have succeeded at moving an atom within a cobalt molecular chain.

I also dont see how this will allow for travel faster than the speed of light because you still need to A) be aware of the atoms you want to “communicate” with and B) will need to rely on not only the precision but the speed of light when you shoot electrons its way. Also, how will shooting electrons at atoms on one side of the universe transport something from here to there? The claim is totally inconsistent with the concept behind quantum entanglement as I know it, which is admittedly limited.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 November 2007 08:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1884
Joined  2007-10-28

Doug,

Thanks for the link, I have read the article. Here is the paper by JME McTaggart:

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

Our conclusion, then, is that neither time as a whole, nor the A series and B series, really exist. But this leaves it possible that the C series does really exist. The A series was rejected for its inconsistency. And its rejection involved the rejection of the B series. But we have found no such contradiction in the C series, and its invalidity does not follow from the invalidity of the A series.

    It is, therefore, possible that the realities which we perceive as events in a time-series do really form a non-temporal series. It is also possible, so far as we have yet gone, that they do not form such a series, and that they are in reality no more a series than they are temporal. But I think—though I have no room to go into the question here—that the former view, according to which they really do form a C series, is the more probable.

This is how Julian Barbour and the Buddhists think of “time” as instants of “nows” like the C series which creates in the mind the illusion of flow by “persistence of moments” like the illusion of motion created in the mind by persistence of vision.

StephenLawrence,

You might be interested to check out Julian Barbour’s Platonia:

(Part 1) http://www.morgenwelt.de/futureframe/010122-platonia1.htm

Albert Einstein once referred to time as a “persistent illusion.” Julian Barbour takes this literally: “It may sound paradox, but in order to understand the mysterious arrow of time, we have to give up time itself.” Barbour’s universe contains neither time nor movement - only an unchanging haze of probabilities, bunched together in “time capsules” here and there.

But even Einstein was unable to explain the origins of the “persistent illusion” of this different-ness of time. Because, says Julian Barbour, Einstein did not keep going down the path he had set out on: removing all un-quantifiable quantities from Physics, a step demanded by Austrian Ernst Mach as early as 1872. Thus, the basis of reality lies not in absolute space and absolute time, but in the relationship between things.

Barbour calls his world “Platonia,” after the Greek philosopher who insisted that reality consists only of perfect forms. Likewise, in Barbour’s world model, form determines reality. Platonia is the sum of all possible ways of arranging the particles in the universe in relation to each other. This “configuration space,” as physicists call it, can be described mathematically as a multi-dimensional pyramid. The tip of the pyramid - Barbour calls it “Alpha” - corresponds to a very special arrangement: the state in which all particles that make up the universe are in one and the same place.

(Part 2) http://www.morgenwelt.de/futureframe/010129-platonia2.htm

Yet, if you look at the elementary physical processes, at the collisions between atoms and molecules as the gases move and flow, they by no means show a preferred chronological direction: the laws of physics apply even when time is reversed. Thus, at a microscopic level, it would no longer be apparent whether the movie is running forwards or backwards.

But how can chronologically symmetrical processes result in a chronologically reversible result? The solution lies in the improbability of an orderly state. When you shuffle a sorted deck of cards, you get a disorderly deck. The reverse process - although there is no law of nature that prohibits it- will not occur, because there is a virtually endless number of disorderly states, and only a single orderly state.

And what about the beginning of it all - how can the universe, i.e. not just matter and space, but time as well, have a beginning? “The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time. There was no time before the world,” St. Augustine once described the beginning of reality - an explanation that appears astonishingly modern when compared to the picture that physicists and cosmologists now paint of the beginnings of the world.

Our universe, according to Joel Primack of UC Santa Cruz, is embedded in a larger multiverse, which is in a chaotic state that can only be described with quantum mechanical equations. In this quantum chaos, time changes its direction unpredictably, runs forwards at times and backwards at others.

Random fluctuations in this “quantum froth” give rise to occasional calmer regions, in which time suddenly appears to run in only one direction: then, a Big Bang occurs - the creation of an expanding universe with a “normal” space-time structure.

Of course, if you ask Julian Barbour, such explanations are superfluous - as there is no such thing as time, the question of the origin of time disappears. Nor is the Big Bang itself anything but a vast illusion. Again, it is thanks to the shape of Barbour’s Platonia that those arrangements are most probable whose structures contain a “memory” of the Alpha point, i.e. of that arrangement where all particles are in exactly the same place - and which we in our ignorance have always comprehended as the Big Bang and as the beginning of time.

You can see a video of Julian Barbour HERE

truthaddict, you wrote:

fotobits,

kkwan is completely misrepresenting the atomic switch

I did not post anything about the atomic switch. My only reply to fotobits was to quote from a paper on “Quantum Entanglement in Time”

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2007 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
kkwan - 12 November 2007 08:27 PM

I did not post anything about the atomic switch. My only reply to fotobits was to quote from a paper on “Quantum Entanglement in Time”

one is a theory and the other is a device being used to put the theory to test.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2007 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1884
Joined  2007-10-28
truthaddict - 13 November 2007 07:15 AM
kkwan - 12 November 2007 08:27 PM

I did not post anything about the atomic switch. My only reply to fotobits was to quote from a paper on “Quantum Entanglement in Time”

one is a theory and the other is a device being used to put the theory to test.

I have read the article you mentioned at NIST about the atomic switch:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/atomic_switch.htm

GAITHERSBURG, MD –Scientists at the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have used a beam of electrons to move a single atom in a small molecule back and forth between two positions on a crystal surface, a significant step toward learning how to build an “atomic switch” that turns electrical signals on and off in nanoscale devices.

This is the paper on “Quantum Entanglement in Time” from which I quoted:

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0402/0402127v1.pdf

Conceptually, as well as mathematically, space and time are differently described in quantum mechanics. While time enters as an external parameter in the dynamical evolution of a system, spatial coordinates are regarded as quantum-mechanical observables. Moreover, spatially separated quantum systems are associated with the tensor product structure of the Hilbert state-space of the composite system. This allows a composite quantum system to be in a state that is not separable regardless of the spatial separation of its components. We speak about entanglement in space. On the other hand, time in quantum mechanics is normally regarded as lacking such a structure.

Because of different roles time and space play in quantum theory one could be tempted to assume that the notion of “entanglement in time” cannot be introduced in quantum physics. In this letter we will investigate this question and we will find that this is not the case.

Finally, we show that entanglement in time can save on the size of classical memory required in certain computational problems beyond the classical limits.

The difference between the spatial and temporal structure may ultimately be fundamental, or it may be an indication that we need a deeper theory in which the two need to be treated on a more equal footing (quantum field theory does not suffice in this sense). Either way, it appears that the next step should lie in exploring the consequences of combining entanglement in space and time in order to study how they relate to each other.

There is nothing in the article at NIST on the atomic switch which is remotely related to the paper on “Quantum Entanglement in Time” from which I quoted in reply to fotobits. So, how is it possible that “kkwan is completely misrepresenting the atomic switch” which you wrote in an earlier post? Whether “one is a theory and the other is a device being used to put the theory to test” is not the issue here or are you refering to the same theory in both cases. If so, what theory is that?

I understand and share your concerns regarding promoting a new theory as correct without adequate experimental evidence supporting it.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
‹‹ TED & Edge      Google Authors ››