ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Backward research goes forward

Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:41 PM by Alan Boyle

University of Washington physicist (and science-fiction author) John Cramer is moving forward with his experiment in backward causality, thanks in part to tens of thousands of dollars in contributions sent in by his fans. Although Cramer emphasizes that his lab is looking at “nonlocal quantum communication” rather than backward time travel per se, the gadgetry he’s assembling could settle a controversy surrounding a seemingly faster-than-light effect that Albert Einstein thought was downright spooky.

Boiled down to its basics, the experiment involves splitting laser light into two beams, so that characteristics of one beam are reflected in the other beam as well. That's an example of what physicists call quantum entanglement. Specifically, Cramer has been planning to fiddle with one of the entangled laser beams such that it takes on the property of waves or particles. If one beam behaves like particles, the entangled photons of light in the other beam should behave like particles, too.

So what happens when the beams go their separate ways, and you conduct a wave-vs.-particle measurement on one beam? When someone else checks the other beam, the same measurement should yield the same result. In fact, you could visualize using the wave-vs.-particle toggle as a means for communicating information, sort of like Morse code. Theoretically, you could check one beam to receive a message instantaneously from whoever is fiddling with the other beam - even if you're separated from the receiver by millions of light-years.

That's what Einstein considered "spooky action at a distance." Such an effect could send information faster than light beams could travel, running counter to special relativity - and thus Einstein thought the effect was impossible to achieve. However, the evidence is mounting that quantum entanglement actually happens.

Cramer planned to start out by testing this kind of communication through quantum entanglement - that's the "nonlocal communication" part of the experiment. If that worked, Cramer would go even further: He would send one of the entangled beams (call it Signal A) through a circuitous detour - say, a few miles of fiber-optic cable - then fiddle with it when it came out of the cable. If the principles behind nonlocal communication held true, the evidence of that fiddling should be detected at a corresponding place in the other entangled beam (call it Signal B).

Now brace yourself for the backward-causality part: Because Signal B followed a shorter route to its detector, the fiddling in Signal A could theoretically show up in Signal B before Cramer actually fiddles with Signal A. It would be as if Cramer's actions had an effect that worked backward in time.

If Cramer detected that effect, the findings would raise the kinds of paradoxes you might see in science-fiction novels or "The Twilight Zone." What if you detected a signal from the future, but then decided not to send the signal? (That's called the "bilking paradox"). What if you received the text of a best-selling manuscript from yourself in the future, had it published, then saved a copy so you could send it to yourself in the past? (Cramer calls that the "immaculate conception paradox.")

"Perhaps the fact that there are such paradoxes is nature's way of telling us that our experiment isn't going to work," Cramer said.

Nevertheless, Cramer is anxious to find out whether it might work - and if not, why not. He suggested the framework for the experiment a year ago, and no one could come up with a reason why it should fail. Except for the money problem. ...

For months, Cramer struggled to find the funding he needed to buy the equipment for the experiment, to no avail. Then an article about his plight came out in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer - and within weeks, thousands of dollars flowed in from foundations and private donors who, for one reason or another, wanted to find out what kind of answers Cramer could come up with.

Cramer said the fund now amounts to $40,000, and now that he's back from a tour of duty at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, he's moving forward with the laser experiment. "If that laser holds out, then I think we're in pretty good shape," he told me today.

He's hoping to complete the experiment by September, when the equipment he's using will have to be moved someplace else to make room for remodeling. "It would be very nice if we could finish up by the 15th of September, but I don't know if we'll be able to do that or not," he said.

Cramer is grateful for all the donations, but he admitted that he's "a little uncomfortable" about the way things have gone so far. Usually, physicists work in obscurity, get some funding, conduct an experiment, publish the results - and only then does the publicity come, if the results are spectacular enough. The way Cramer sees it, there's been a heck of a lot of publicity already about an experiment that has yet to be done.

"We seem to be doing it sort of backwards, in a sense," he said. Then, realizing that he's been talking about backward causality, he added with a chuckle that "it may be relevant to the experiment we're trying to do."

Cramer, who is the author of two science-fiction novels and a regular columnist for Analog magazine, said the experiment represents "a rare opportunity to push the envelope of quantum mechanics." No matter how it turns out, the results will be put to good use, he said.

"If this experiment we're doing works, then I will follow up and push it as hard as possible. And if it doesn't work, I will write a science-fiction novel where it does work," he said. "It's a win-win situation."

Feel free to add your thoughts about backward causality and time travel in the comments section below, or visit our discussion board. And if you've already come up with a solution for backward time travel, fill me in on the secret ... yesterday.

Update for 8:52 p.m. ET Jan. 9, 2008: Here's an example of future developments affecting past postings: It turns out that Cramer was given more time to do his backward-time experiment, and as of early January he was still setting up the apparatus.

Update for 11:50 a.m. ET May 21, 2009: Another example of Internet time travel ... Cramer is gearing up for "phase 3" of the experiment, but still no results.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The job of a scientist is to discern the nature of reality with the goal of furthering our understanding of the universe. In order to discern this reality, one must test all possibilities (likely and unlikely) to fully verify the truth. Whether Cramer's experiments prove or disprove his theory he will advance science, no matter how great or small that advance is.

This is science at its best, and I think even if you're sure in theory that he's wrong that you should be excited about this experiment. If it proves you're correct, that's fine. But if it proves you wrong in some strange way, imagine the possibilities. I can't wait to see the results. :-D
It may work, but won't prove a reliable system of intertemporal exchange. Bilking paradox is irrelevant - you didn't send the laser back, yourself in a parallel state ('universe') did. Keep working on it, you're close.
Time is an abstraction invented by the human mind, it doesn't actually exist. The human mind requires sequence, so we try to put things in an order, and then define increments of mortality to each step.

Cramer already performed this experiment and the result is complete, unfortunately my human mind is incapable of comprehending it "now".

Or, he never went through with the experiment, given the tumultuous events of August 2007 (which we cannot remember now, but will never forget!)
this experiment has inspired me to write the following lyrics to a song i just wrote and made into a hit back in the 60's "I pushed my soul in a deep dark hole and followed in. I saw myself crawling out as I was crawling in. I tripped on a cloud that was eight miles high. I ripped my brain on a jagged sky. I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in..... .. ..   .... "  Want to hear it? Here it goes!!!!
this is my order for ten thousand shares of cramerica corp. I want my dividends now!!!!!
A scientist I spoke with says the only way you can
get entanglement is two photons produced from a
collision between a positron and an electron which
self destruct due to their opposite charges (negative
and positive).  The writer's article seems to suggest that there could be some kind of entanglement between
two lasers beams which have many photons in a coherent stream and which where not produced from such
an anhilation between a positron and electron.            
I think this will work.  I for one welcome our time travelling overlords from the future.
Sheesh, i'm surprised that noone's commented on the fact that either result from the experiment is equally valid.

Stop trying to write off the experiment as a failure through logic. Thats more philosophy than science. Science is about prediction, testing, observation and refinement. It doesn't matter if the experiment succeeds or fails, its one more piece of information to use when puzzling out the universe around us.

Nice idea for an expiriment altough.
I wonder if it would work.

Think of schrodinger cat, as soon a dual reality has colapsed to a single reality. then that reality is what our universe (was) made of.
Using a laser split and long optic wires, will not change this behaviour. The first measurement determs

And what reality you will see depends on wich multiverse you live in (might be like that) or it might be that QM has an urge to become one common reality always. But there is no way to verify that


But just maybe the expiriment will learn us more about collapses of multiple QM realities to our single reality observed nature..

(ehm that is you and i dont see the same rainbow to if we look to one, it's based from where you look at it.. multi universe ??)
The experiment will fail from the perspective of the outside world, those of us not involved with the experiment; but, will succeed from John's point of view.  Unfortunately, he will gain a unique perspective on the time-space continuum which he will be unable to transmit to humankind or existence in general.  He will be forced for the rest of eternity to see the universe the way the Tralfamadorians did in Kurt Vonnegut's books.  A sad day, indeed.  Good luck, John Cramer!
I think The Smiths had this covered in their prescient song "How soon is now", the last verse goes:

When you say it's gonna happen now,
Well, when exactly do you mean?
See I've already waited too long
And all my hope is gone

But seriously, there is an excellent description of the physics behind this in Brian Green's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos".  It is totally counter intuitive, but the I think phyiscs community will fully expect the results to match theory as there have been earlier experiments starting with Alain Aspect in the 1980s that demonstrated Quantum Entanglement (but not the backwards in time element)
The experiment is in two parts

#1 An attempted proof of nonlocal communication through entanglement.
If that works it would be huge for signal communication's in general.

#2 Changing the relationship of entanglement.
That, by quantum entanglement theory, should be impossible...
The action is nonlocal.
How could -anything- slow it down or speed it up?
Any change will be recorded the instant its made regardless of "location",...
if it works at all...
This should work fine as long as he doesn't cross the streams...

http://dc.metblogs.com/archives/2005/09/dont_cross_the.phtml
Entanglement was confirmed 10 years ago (Aspect et al). This article if full of huge errors.
Yes, we all know it's dangerous to play with things that you don't understand. However, humans in general do it on a daily basis. Not many understand how a remote works (apart from the simplistic "I push button, TV does something" thingy), yet it is very widely used.

Also, even if a paradox is created and even if it results in the collapse of this universe, we wouldn't know. A reversal effect might occur, restoring the universe as it was (or at least somewhat close to that) before the paradox took place whilst also changing some underlying basics so that the paradox cannot take place in the future (not unlike a programmer fixes a bug in the code and jumping back to the section of the program where the bug appeared to test whether the bugfix works or not).
How is this experiment different than delayed quantum erasure?  That experiment has been done many times before.
Please clarify: When you split light into A & B, send B on a multi-circular long trip & back, will A be sent on a multi-circular short trip? You cant stop/store A till B is back.
To me there is a major flaw in thinking at this experiment.

As I understood the route with Signal B is shorter to the detector than Signal A. So, this assumption does say, that wave particles in Signal B will reach detector earlier than in Signal A. And it does say, that entagled particles might react to each other at the same time even if they would be light years away from eact other.

Now, if particle in A is modified after the same particle in B has arrived to the detector, why on earth should the particle in B do anything before it arrives to the detector. I mean, how could the particle know that it is in shorter route than the other and it should do something in advance.

Can someone give better explanation?
I look forwards to reading the results of the experiment (although I too doubt any backwards causality will be exhibited). It doesn't matter how long the delay between the two halves of the split beam is - if you can send information even one pico second back in time and then loop that information back onto the 'input' of the device, then you can send information back from any time in the future existence of the device - could be interesting, I for one would start recording the output immediately the device was started....(but I suspect impossible). I agree with other posters that the results of the experiment may shed some very necessary insight on the phenomenon of quantum entaglement.
I have just had another thought -

Photon A is entangled with photon B

if photon A follows the short path and B the long path then photon A will be detected while B is still on route. The entangled state would collapse and B would continue on its way (now un-entangled).

By the time B arrives 'in the future' the entanglement will have been broken by the previous observation of photon A. So 'reverse causality' will never work, although 'spooky action at a distance' might...
the following explains a lot as well as why it wont work (most likely. Also known as the Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen paradox (EPR)

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
My main question is - how can you prove that any distortion in B is actually being caused by tampering in A if B is detected first.  Surely you face possibility of distortion of one kind or another, lasers are good but not flawless.

The concept is possible but proving the cause and effect results is possibly going to be up for large amounts of speculation - I hope all goes well John Cramer.

I also think its a shame that such a potentially important experiment is getting pushed aside for a remodel....whats the world coming to.
I hope it will work...

am fascinated by all the scientists here that claim it won't work though...you just saved him aprox. $40k
Wouldn't an equally likely result be that he won't be able to bend the light as the otehr beam isn't bending?
Let me see if I undersand this.  Our input light beam is split into beam "A" and beam "B".

Beam "A" is fiddled with at distance "X" after the split.

The length beam "B" travels is "X + Y".

The length beam "A" travels is "X + Z", where "Z > Y".

We see the effect on beam "B" before beam "A", which is not surprising because we accept entanglement, and we acknowledge that beam "A" has longer to travel.

But wait.  According to this researcher, it is suprising, because seeing the effect in "B" before "A" shows a backwards causality?

Huh?

Beam "A" has longer to travel than beam "B".  Of course you're going to see the effect first for beam "B".

Am I missing something?
I think it's sort of silly to claim that you know what results the experiment will produce.  It's clear from the interest in the issue that we don't know.  The point of the experiment is to find out.  Now, it strikes me personally that logical contradictions are rather unlikely, likewise paradoxes.  But the useful applicable nice bit of this experiment is the demonstration of instantaneous communication at a distance.  If you get something ansible-like out of this work it will undeniably be valuable to society.  Imagine a zero-latency network, or the ability to communicate with the mars rover in real time.
>Didn't Isaac Asimov write a short story about a substance that was so soluble it would dissolve BEFORE water touched it.  I recall that nature made SURE of causality.

That would be  "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline"

I need to select a topic for my Natural Health PhD dissertation.  How about this title:  "Can time travel reverse the aging process?"  

Interested?  Be the first to get the conclusions.  Send your donation to fund the study now!
Could any results be achieved at only the sub micro level and not have relevance at the micro level?
Professor Cramer is the one who created the Transactional Interpretation where the collapse of the wavefunction is 'atemporal'.  Here is a link: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
I think it will not work... Quantum Entanglement is not instantaneous, the information travels with the same speed of light (c)

Maybe you can send a message to a different space-time (e.g., arriving from Earth to Mars some minutes before it would arrive by conventional means), but not to a past time in the same space.
James Blish, I believe, in the fifties wrote the short story "BEEP".
Read that, then re-read this article. Instead of looking for something he is going to send he should look for the beep.
 Hate to spoil it for you but you need to know...

You're next novel is pretty good but it needs a little more suspense
hey, just letting everyone know that the experiment was a success and to remind myself to send a comment on this page when I find out the results of the experiment.  Hope I don't forget!
Moment you measure 'B', the wave function would collapse and you won't get a expected result from comparing 'A' & 'B'.

i.e The measurement obtained after fiddling with 'A' would not be the same as you would find in 'B'; hence no travelling backwards in time. I'm not sure how Cramer (or anyone for that matter) could overlook this concept ;-)

I maybe wrong and Quantum physics could surprise me but in either case dont be surprised if you don't get a positive answer from "this" experiment.
Guys and gals, I just got back from the future.  The experiment didn't work.  Sorry.
Tachyonic Anti-Telephone
by Dana Koster

Time travel
for the unmotivated.
Hypothetical particles
exceeding C
heaving through
tetraspace
to your receiver.
More boring
than the Delorean,
no Wellsian clock and lever.
You can't dial back
past 1876
or they think
you're the Savior.
It may not replace
the time machine
but it's briefer
and there's less
maintenance.

I haven't used it.
I don't know
who to phone.
I might find
family skeletons
or thwart my own
conception,
but I guess if someone
took the time
to call me,
I'd probably answer.
Common sense is often wrong.  Common sense tells me the results will be negative, i.e. no ability to detect information sent back in time.  However, relativity, particularly as it relates to time and simultaneity, is stellar insult to common sense, yet its effects are measurable, largely testable, and widely accepted.

Let’s say, for fun, that the experiment has a positive result, i.e. the effects of manipulating the older part of the beam “A” is instantly detectable at younger beam “B” (Remember that as entangled beams, they are in many ways –the same beam-). This positive result would still only allow effects back in time to the moment the “young” receiver was placed. This means there would be no effect possible back in 1957. Rather, if the result is positive, and if it could be used for signaling, then messages could only be sent back in time to time-space-locations where a receiver had been placed in-advance.

Evidence for quantum entanglement isn’t mounting any more than evidence is mounting that the Earth is round.  Quantum entanglement is pretty sound.  However, there has not yet been found a way to use “spooky-action-at-a-distance” as a vehicle for signaling. It may very well not be possible.  If it is possible, then we will eventually lean the solutions to the time-travel paradoxes, because we’ll see them play out.

If you set up such a machine, in your living room, with a spectacularly long optical-delay-line (perhaps using fiber-optic cable) you might be able to signal yourself in the past…

Make sure you check the device once-a-day, or twice-a-day (can’t get much done if you just watch it all day, you’ll never witness events that require your attention, in order to message yourself about them).  If you stumble across an event you want to tell your younger self about, use the device in your living room to send the message.  Your younger self would get the message at the next-scheduled-reading.  This is grossly oversimplified.

The distance back-in-time you could send the message would be fixed based on the time-delay of the optical delay line.  If your fiber coil only delayed the beam by 5 seconds, you’d only be able to send a message 5 seconds back in time.

It’s much more useful as a “subspace radio”.  The delay-line is simply the distance between Earth and the spacecraft or planet.  Two beams, one originating form Earth, the other from the spacecraft, are need for bidirectional communication.

But, it’s still likely impossible.

Peace out!
Miykayl
-Solo Dei Gloria
Of course the state determination will travel back to the origin of the particle, hence in the observable universe the experiment itself then becomes event one in a closed loop of possibilty. Sort of like putting a child in a round room and telling them to go stand in the corner...there, I just saved everyone several nanoseconds of labor. Please remit the balance of $40K!            
This will not work.  In quantum mechanics there is the "no broadcast" theorem which is a subset of the "no cloning" theorem.  Quantum states cannot be reliable locked down.  "Spooky action" is true, but cannot be used to transmit classical information.  Reading the quantum state of the receiver will change the quantum state.  Sort of like the observer effect.
This experiment has already occurred. It gives rise to a time loop and now we are doomed to repeat it forever.
It already did, Oswald.

(Has anyone seen my dolphin?)
Roger Penrose explains this type of experiment in "The Road to Reality."
Basically, "before" and "after" is meaningless - you can always find an inertial frame [moving at close to c] where the two will be reversed. A and B will be correlated, and that's it.
If you imagine the split photon following both paths as a single event (it's still one photon even though it's wavelike nature has potentially passed through 2 different routes), then you will realize that once you force an interaction to test for a particle-like behavior or wave-like behavior, the "rest" of the photon you are trying to send farther away (to use as the switch to send information back in time) then adopts the same quantum state from the reference frame of the wave splitter.  However, The event is NOT a backward in time transfer of information from the perspective of any sub-light, true reference frame.  
All of you are freaking me out.
"That's what Einstein considered "spooky action at a distance." Such an effect could send information faster than light beams could travel, running counter to special relativity"

Just a SMALL little hole in relativity, eh?  :)  I'm very happy his experiement is going forward.  I had forwarded it to Scientific America to see if they were willing to fund it... Not sure what happened.  I'm rather surprised the experiment wasn't funded by people and universities more interested in this or by a larger University itself.  I mean geez... it seems like a no brainer to try and test this at very little cost.

I think only the interconnectedness of space - the fact that we 'bubble up' from lower simpler dimensions allow for such transgressions could explain this type of action.  
It will not work.  The entangled photons in Signal B will be past Signal B's detector when they change and they will always be past it as they are changed.  In the experiment Signal B will seem to never change.  This is only because of the location of the detection point.  My 2 cents
I have doubts that this could work. The so-called "measurement" problem is often simplified in terms of a conscious (i.e. usually human) agent being involved somehow in the measurement, but the modern idea of decoherence theory, which is widely accepted, suggests that a conscious measurement is not what "collapses" the so-called "wave function", but rather that the particle or particles in a superposition become inextricably linked with the quantum states of a larger physical system (the "measuring device", which may be merely be a wall that no one ever consciously looks at), causing "decoherence", a statistical effect, whereby quantum systems, statistically, seem to conform more to classical systems.

So if a measurement (even not "seen" by an observer) is made on B prior to one made on A, it follows that A will conform to B, and not vice versa.

Alternatively, if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is accurate, then a measurement of A might appear, through retro-causation, to affect B, but rather what will be happening is a forking of different universes at the speed of light, and through a principle of consistent histories, we will only observe B in a state that corresponds to a consistent history of what we've already observed.

All of this is simplified physics-speak, but the points, I think, are valid. I think the experiment might be highly valuable, if even it only helps us to rule out one or more so-called "interpretations" of quantum mechanics, some of which are more or less favourable for the development of practical applications, such as quantum computing.

Also, let's all keep in mind that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics makes it very clear that no useful information can ever be transmitted via this so-called "spooky action at a distance", so even if retro-causation is not ruled out in the experiments to come, it should be celebrated as a means to say "hi" to the past, unless we later discover that everything we know about quantum mechanics turns out to be merely an approximation of a more successful future theory that allows such weirdness.
This is possible only in a "holographic" univerese. Perhaps if the experiment is successful the "holographic" theory will be substantiated.
I think it's great that a whole lot of people with a few  bucks to spare stepped up to the plate and provided funding for Cramer's research.  It's not the sort of thing you see very often.  There should be more of it.  


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=274531

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google