Backward research goes forward

Takashi Hasegawa, Yamanashi, Japan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:07:35 GMT

I think the experiment will fail.
Signal B will show whatever the state signal A has at the time of signal B's detection (i.e. before fiddling with signal A).

Backward research goes forward

Darrell Crosgrove — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:15:27 GMT

"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."

Won't work. The act of detecting the state of Signal B will force it to decide upon it's state, thus locking signal A to do the same. You can't just say you are 'really' detecting A first and the detection you previously did on B miraculously fit with A. That is like having the audience member show his card and THEN the magician picks the same one out of his deck--not really all that impressive.

Backward research goes forward

joe — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:17:57 GMT

cool article
posted 7-25-08

Backward research goes forward

Eric Dobbs — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:21:26 GMT

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace to the last syllable of recorded time ..." Hey! How did Shakespeare know the last syllable was recorded? Did he time travel to the ultimate future and then backwards cause himself to write those words? A science-minded English major wants to know.

Backward research goes forward

Bob Roberts, Amityville, NY — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:28:35 GMT

"Timescape" by Gregory Benford

Backward research goes forward

Suri Lemur, Madagascar — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:23:44 GMT

Make a Time Machine! (My cousin Phoobia is the one who discovered how to do this)

You'll need:

* A large box
* Zinc foil
* Electronic stuff, with dials and switches
* A clock

Select a box large enough for you and your time-travelling supplies. Cut a door in one side. Cover it completely, inside and out, with zinc foil. Put your electronics inside the time machine, and connect them to the interior layer of zinc foil. Don't worry too much about wiring diagrams - the design is a robust one, and will work just as well with the electronics in almost any configuration. Connect your clock to the electonics with some wire. Now you have a time machine.

To use it, sit inside and close the door. Now wind the clock, and turn on the electronic stuff. The clock will show your progress into the future. When you've gone far enough, just open the door and exit the Time Machine.

CAUTION: As presently designed, the Phoobia Time Machine can only be used to travel forward in time. Due to this limitation, you should not travel any great distance into the future, since there is currently no way to return. It is hoped that further research will overcome this limitation, as well as enabling the machine to travel faster through time.

Backward research goes forward

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:45:43 GMT

Hi, Alan -- I'm writing this message before any other email is posted. That doesn't make it time-travelin' even if it shows up on the board first.

Anyway, I wonder why a laser beam is required to begin with? Why won't ordinary light do, since it can be reflected and split into two beams too? Why not try three beams and see if an incoherence shows up on one of them or two of them? If your 'fiddling' with the Beam A shows up on Beam B first (that is, backwards in time) could you not forego that fiddling and negate the result on Beam B? Or would that action result in giving the universe the hiccups? the hiccups? the hiccups?

Backward research goes forward

Randy Montgomery IL — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:57:56 GMT

I laughed a little when i read this. I couldnt help thinking maybe this is "Subspace" communication spoken of so much on Star Trek.

Backward research goes forward

T Swanson, Seattle, WA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:04:44 GMT

Time travel films and books are my favorites, especially when the author doesn't rely on previous works' "rules of time travel." It's the unique paradoxes that are exciting. Never thought anyone would actually make a breakthrough in my lifetime. Good luck.

Backward research goes forward

Jerry Clarksville Tn — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:59:51 GMT

Backward research goes forward

Phil Beavers — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:20:55 GMT

"...creeps in this petty pace from day to day..." invokes an ordered progression - not reversing upon itself. "the last syllable of recorded time" would be, of course, the most recent.

Backward research goes forward

Rick — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:22:38 GMT

I wrote this two days from now.

Backward research goes forward

Rick Price — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:59:34 GMT

Seems to me to be a question of an "Uncertain Moment".
Causality in time?! Its like thinking of the future while remembering the past. It is all done in the "Now"!
I do think the concept "Now" is the most interesting.
Just how long is Now? How short?
It is like the first three dimensions, you have them, but you cannot take them with you! Time is also a dimension, not a clock!
There is really no past to go to, and the future is approached one uncertain moment to another, short of like Plank's Constant!

Backward research goes forward

cody mccall, Boston, MA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:19:21 GMT

It's 'logical' to predict that the experiment will fail. It defies all 'logic' and common sense. But, as a boomer who tries to keep an open mind, I'm beginning to sense that anything is possible in this weirdness we call our universe. Logic is a human concept. It works for us at this time and on this planet; but, that by no means insures that our ideas of cause and effect prevail throughout the cosmos. If we ever visit other galaxies it won't be in little tin tubes called rocket ships. We will probably be using some quantum phenomenon like entanglement or its kin to span the vast distances impossible to do in our plodding space craft. So get ready. Anything is possible.

Backward research goes forward

Bill Hitchcock — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:03:15 GMT

Hasn't the falsification of Bell's inequality already settled this issue?

Backward research goes forward

John G, New York NY — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:08:26 GMT

Classic sci-fi story of the 50's - man invents time machine, travels to future, picks up rock, takes rock back. Scientist takes chip off rock, puts rock in glass case in time travel museum (where time traveller picked it up). Does the rock have a chip when he picked it up?

Backward research goes forward

Steve Collins, Coal Valley, IL — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:22:08 GMT

Can we send a message back to October 2003 telling Steve Bartman to stay away from that foul ball?

Backward research goes forward

Patrick Bishop, Caldwell, NJ — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:36:08 GMT

Haven't others already performed this experiment?

I remember reading about the same effect and same experiment in Discover magazine, maybe as long ago as the early 1990s or late 1980s. Big picture of Einstein looking surprised (or maybe w/ his tongue out?) on the cover page if I recall. It struck me as important enough that I saved the issue.

In about 1996 I thought of using a split laser to allow the internal parts of a computer to communicate with each other in a superluminal way, instantaneously. I decided too much time would be lost converting the electronic signals to light and back again for the idea to be of much (if any) utility.

In any eveny, it was the recollection of the article from Discover that gave me the idea about 11 years ago, so how excited should we be about this experiment now? Surely this isn't the first time the experiment has been conducted!

Backward research goes forward

Darrell Messbarger KC MO — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:46:47 GMT

Wow, thinking about the possibilities could give you brain lock. It would be interesting to find out if the fiber optic circuit to delay the first half-beam could be compared to a series of straight line optical circuits and prisms to eliminate or evaluate beam "bending" from the delay.

Backward research goes forward

David, Boston, MA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:03:10 GMT

The comment by Crosgrove above seems correct.

Wouldn't the relative time of the light beams also need to be adjusted? Not just the time when you measure the adjustment.

If you could slow the speed of beam A then change its state you could perform the similar through time communication experiment by measuring when the change occurred to beam B - instantaneously relative to beam B's time or instantaneously relative to beam A's time. Would obviously need multiple experiments.

Backward research goes forward

Patrick Bishop, Caldwell, NJ — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:04:41 GMT

Found it!

Freeman, David H. (November 1990) "Weird Science" _Discover Magazine_

Header - "If you've grown comfortable with particles being in two places at once, dissolving into waves when no one is looking, and communicating faster than the speed of light, then these latest experiments in quantum mechanics won't bother you at all."

Backward research goes forward

Jim Billings, Fort Worth, TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:28:18 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:18:01 GMT

I'm not willing to completely write off this hypothesis, but the main problem I see is that the instrumentation needed to measure the starting and ending conditions is not sensitive enough to accurately record the data. In the example given, a few miles of fiber optic cable probably wouldn't provide enough latency to make a huge enough difference in the experiment; you'd probably need a few hundred miles of cable before the test could be consistently repeatable and verifiable.

My feeling is that, instead of reverse causality, what is being observed is probably an offshoot of J.S. Bell's theorem.

Backward research goes forward

Dennis C. — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:18 GMT

The use of a laser instead of ordinary light as the source is probably necessary because everyday light is composed of many frequencies whereas LASER generated light is in a narrowly defined portion of the spectrum.

I disagree with Mr. Cosgrove's earlier comment because there is no detail on the method of "detecting" John Cramer plans to use. The Photons comprising Signal B may be observed through a small portion of them being scattered at the detector (a visual residual), by the detector itself (such as a photovoltaic panel), or by another "passive" means.

An homage to Erwin Schrodinger's theories is admirable but may not be applicable given the more recent development of lasers and any work after 1956.

The idea that two parallel photons of light could also be non-directly connected by an invisible link needs to be considered as possible. If Photons are connected through links radiating spherically through the "dimension" of time it will certainly be difficult to prove.

Keep in mind the speed of light slows depending on density of the medium it is passing through so John Cramer may delay the Signal B photo by passing it through a medium with aligned molecules and making observations AFTER it impacts the detector. If the Signal B photon has the characteristics of the affected Signal A photon, a link between the two is proven.

Backward research goes forward

joe, houston — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:37:10 GMT

I always enjoy your articles. I have a question, though. Wouldn't the detectors have to be the same time from the split to notice the same measurement, independent of where the two beams were physically loacted some time interval x away from the split? Per the example beam A takes longer to travel through the circuitous route, so measuring it after it exits the cable is too late. Don't the two beams need to be measured at let's say 2 millisec after the split no matter where they're located in space to get the same measurement? Educate me, please.

Backward research goes forward

Daniel Surprenant, Battle Creek Michigan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:05:51 GMT

Is it possible to set the experiment up to fail to prove/disprove the theory.

Since the theory is based on the assumption that manipulating the longer side of the split Laser beam (A) will possibly cause a reaction on the shorter side of the split laser beam "before" it is actually manipulated. Can you set the equipment up that will do the following:

1, Equipment is set to give off a signal when the manipulation is detected from Beam B ( I am thinking of an electrical device that is built that will generate a signal that is connected to the equipment attached to Beam A. As the equipment is engaged to manipulate Beam A if an "occurance" on Beam B is felt the equipment is shut off and effectively stopping the signal from being sent in the first place.

If you can stop the manipulation before it happens, would that not be a paradox in a paradox?

Quantum mechanics opens the door for "backwards casuality", where we can theorize about seeing the effect "before" the cause, but I think on the quantum scale of energies, the ability to "bend" time per se is on a much more grand scale.

Backward research goes forward

saty — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:13:25 GMT

kcul doog

Backward research goes forward

Mike Strub, Waterford, MI — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:18:02 GMT

The experiment will work because of the higher-dimensional nature of space-time revealed by string theory. There are always (at least) two distances between any two events - one that in non-relativistic terms is perceived as the macro-dimensional route, and one which can be stated in terms of the coiled up "micro" dimensions. When a distance is great in the macro dimensions, it is (exceedingly) small in the micro, and vice-versa. Learning to exploit this distance duality is the key to faster-than-light communication.

That's how I'd explain it if I were a science fiction writer.

Backward research goes forward

Christopher Ambler — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:32:37 GMT

It will have going to is working.

Damn. Language is going to has gotten get complicated, quickly.

Backward research goes forward

The Texican, Houston, TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:56:40 GMT

The basic hypothesis is correct. Information can propogate backwards along the time-line, but the result is not detectable until it has occurred in "real time." Thus, as in the Aspect experiment, you can detect and instantaneous state change, but you cannot detect a state change before it occurs.

My biggest criticism of the analysis of Aspect and the Bell Theorem is that it never took the fourth dimension into account. Cramer at least is thinking along those lines. But the B before A test will not work.

Backward research goes forward

D Ramirez, Houston, TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:25:04 GMT

Awesome

Backward research goes forward

Nerd, CA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:09:41 GMT

I am reminded of one of my all time favorite movies, Space Balls.....

Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now, now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

Backward research goes forward

Matthew, Seattle, WA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:13:13 GMT

That's the thing with the observable universe.
Until we observe something, we don't really know it exists.
Just because we observe it, doesn't necessarily mean we understand it.
I'll wait to see the test results.
Whatever they are, it is/will be fascinating.

Backward research goes forward

Rob Carr, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:14:27 GMT

If you have two entangled particles going in opposite directions, affecting one affects the other -- but you can't communicate in time. It turns out the uncertainties all line up such that without a signal being sent along a time-like interval (i.e. normally), you can't tell anything from the experiment.

I'm betting that when the analysis is finally done, we'll find that we can only know what the effect on the past particle was based on something we learn about the present particle when we do the measurement. Information gets sent back in time, but you won't know what it means until the "future" arrives. Thus, there's no way to create a paradox and yet the quantum mechanics will work out.

Backward research goes forward

AM — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:28:52 GMT

This is boundto fail. The basic undertsanding of physics here seems to be faulty. Even the "apparent action at a distance" effect does not say that the effect of measurement will be the same on two beams - even if the quantum state just before measurement is "entangled" and so "same". The "same" single wavefunction could collapse into a "particle" here and a "wave" there, since that is perfectly consistent with QM. The collapse is basically a non-causal phenomenon.

Backward research goes forward

the chairman ny,ny — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:50:13 GMT

time travel for either matter or energy in forward or reverse direction cannot be possible without the effect of creating alternate realities or completely smashing ours. The government sends data signals into the past telling whoever... kill Oswald.. ... jfk lives and alters history .. kill Hitler ... no WW2... history altered.. Osama, Sadam, etc,etc, no way these events wouldn't obliterate our "now" No God would ever permit such a simple way of "ruining" his work.

Backward research goes forward

Tom McDaniel — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:16:29 GMT

Why will it work if just the act of spliting the beam introduces a sort of brownian intrusion, resulting in two separate beams with no comon point past the split?

Backward research goes forward

B. Brister, Panama City Beach, FL — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:34:40 GMT

After double checking my calculations, I have confirmed that Cramer's experiment causes a complete collapse of the quantum loop gravity field and the entire universe instantly vanishes. It will result in the Big Bounce 15 billion years or so ago. I wish he would cut that out!

Backward research goes forward

Darrell Crosgrove — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:55:48 GMT

Again, the fundamental problem with this expirament is the way people are defining it:

1. We are going to measure two beams. But, we are going to measure the second one first, and if it matches the first one, which we will measure second, then the second one (again which we measured first) will have magically obtained future information when we conduct the measurement on the second beam.

However, this is physically identical to:

2. We are going to measure two beams. We will measure one first, and then the second one. We know the two will match, so to make things interesting, let's pretend when we measure the first one that it is the second one, and vice versa. That way, we can say it was time travel.

This, sadly, is as logical as marveling how today's sports page information traveled back in time to make the Yankees beat Toronto 3-2.

(Please note, it was not the sports page post that caused this, but my post here. The NY management owes me a check for causing their win. :)

Backward research goes forward

Brian Fraser, Scottsdale, Arizona — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:56:02 GMT

From "Advanced Stellar Propulsion Systems" at:
http://members.andiamo-tel.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ADVPROP.html

"The underlying explanation seems to be simple. The photons are moving in both space and time. In space they are separating, but because they originated in the same event, they remain in the same temporal location, and that location moves away from the source and carries the two photons. It follows that if I disturb one photon, the other one becomes disturbed because they are both in the same temporal location, even though they are not in the same spatial location. Our spatial reference system is incapable of depicting temporal locations, and so the effect looks like the incomprehensible "action at a distance." "

From "Inverseness, Complementarity, and the Wave/Particle Duality" at:
http://members.andiamo-tel.com/~bfraser/qm/inverseness.html

"Maybe physicists have simply been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking "Is it a wave or is it particle?" maybe they should be asking something like: "How does an inherently rotational entity appear to an observer in a linear, extensional reference system?" It turns out that it would be seen either as a particle or as a wave, depending on the experimental set up. You can read more about this in my article The Origin of Intrinsic Spin."

See also:

http://members.andiamo-tel.com/~bfraser/qm/qmconcpt.htm#OriginOfIntrinsicSpin

Backward research goes forward

Frank Glover — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:37:14 GMT

I saw Cramer discuss this at a science fiction convention in Houston last month. It'll be interesting, no matter what happens...

Backward research goes forward

Larry, Austin TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:06:25 GMT

The question I have is whether can I clean up the mess first? Thinking about this and reading all these reasoned responses just caused my head to explode two seconds from now.

Backward research goes forward

Fred B., Yakima, WA — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:16:58 GMT

Hah! I read this last week.

Backward research goes forward

Darrell Crosgrove — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:46:59 GMT

The more I roll this around the less and less I can believe anyone would consider it a valid experiment. Taken to its logical extreme, why would the 'backwards in time' state determination stop only at the point of our measurement? If the state determination information travels back that far, why wouldn't it travel back to the origin of the particle itself?

Thus, the last observation is the one that determines the initial state, which, of course, makes no sense* in that it would leave the same evidence as if the initial state determines the last observation, which is the normal flow of time.

Simply picking up the cardboard "arrow of time" on your pipes and spinning it 180 degrees does not make information flow in reverse anywhere but in your imagination.

* Although it was an interesting, if humorless, concept in the last Hitchhiker book.

Backward research goes forward

GPhillip, Houston, TX — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:55:38 GMT

I'm sure it won't work. The understanding of why it won't work and the expansion of that understanding into a broader theory could possibly be a valuable result.

Backward research goes forward

Mike Maxwell, Laurel MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:16:22 GMT

If it works, I'm going to send a message back to myself to buy stock in this technology.

Backward research goes forward

Oswald, Ann Arbor, Michigan — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:25:21 GMT

It is dangerous to play with things that you don't understand. Creating such a paradox will most likely result in the collapse of this universe.

Backward research goes forward

James, PHX AZ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:32:43 GMT

I only wonder what might happen if the light in the experiment were to pass into a black hole? Or even just near one, if that would have any effect on the quantum entanglement...

Backward research goes forward

Kyle — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:43:11 GMT

If your getting this message before Sept 15th then it means the experiment was a success and we this post proves it.

Meeoow O&A

Backward research goes forward

Sam Green Bay WI — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:54:32 GMT

Sure it will work I told myself all about it last week.
The future me is skinny, go figure.

Backward research goes forward

Chris, Plano, TX — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:58:24 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Reow — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:16:52 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Eric P, San Jose, California — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:21:00 GMT

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!)

Backward research goes forward

string cheese, xineohpphoenix, zaaz — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:34:32 GMT

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!!!!

Backward research goes forward

string cheese, xineohpphoenix, zaaz — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:43:29 GMT

this is my order for ten thousand shares of cramerica corp. I want my dividends now!!!!!

Backward research goes forward

brian — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:55:23 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Don Joe, Weasel, Sash — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:16:41 GMT

I think this will work. I for one welcome our time travelling overlords from the future.

Backward research goes forward

Adrian, Western Austarlia, Australia — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:27:40 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Peter Boos Holland — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:47:15 GMT

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 ??)

Backward research goes forward

Scott, Buffalo, New York — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:08:22 GMT

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!

Backward research goes forward

London — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:00:57 GMT

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)

Backward research goes forward

Eric W, Portland, Oregon. — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:09:47 GMT

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...

Backward research goes forward

Joe, Statesboro, Ga — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:24:04 GMT

This should work fine as long as he doesn't cross the streams...

http://dc.metblogs.com/archives/2005/09/dont_cross_the.phtml

Backward research goes forward

Jimmy, Cambridge, UK — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:30:09 GMT

Entanglement was confirmed 10 years ago (Aspect et al). This article if full of huge errors.

Backward research goes forward

Philander Kitchingham, not in/from USA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:52:40 GMT

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).

Backward research goes forward

Curious, Boston, MA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:55:26 GMT

How is this experiment different than delayed quantum erasure? That experiment has been done many times before.

Backward research goes forward

Suresh — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:57:18 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Just a guy from Finland — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:03:56 GMT

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?

Backward research goes forward

Neil Jones, Worthing, UK — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:18:50 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Neil Jones, Worthing, UK — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:30:40 GMT

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...

Backward research goes forward

John Doe III — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:46:28 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Chris Wilson, Belfast, NIreland — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:12:19 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

joost, den haag, nederland — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:35:24 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Jon, Hamilton , ON — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:23:09 GMT

Wouldn't an equally likely result be that he won't be able to bend the light as the otehr beam isn't bending?

Backward research goes forward

R. Doger — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:56 GMT

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?

Backward research goes forward

John Dhalgren, South Bend, IN — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:46:39 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Bruce Shaw — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:01:13 GMT

>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"

Backward research goes forward

Bill Barbic, Leesburg, Florida — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:21:37 GMT

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!

Backward research goes forward

ernest reinhart, ridgeway, ontario, canada — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:24:05 GMT

Could any results be achieved at only the sub micro level and not have relevance at the micro level?

Backward research goes forward

Andy, Baltimore, MD — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:34:46 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Tadeu — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:14:33 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

keith butler — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:32:38 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

duse — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:33:42 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Brian, The Future — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:40:32 GMT

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!

Backward research goes forward

Rajesh Warrier, Boston, MA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:00:39 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Don T Bellavue — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:01:57 GMT

Guys and gals, I just got back from the future. The experiment didn't work. Sorry.

Backward research goes forward

Tim Koster, Westlake Village, CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:03:33 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Michael Dennis — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:11:27 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Mike D, St. Louis, MO — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:58 GMT

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!

Backward research goes forward

Drew Robilio, Seattle, WA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:34:19 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Andrew, San Jose, CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:20:50 GMT

This experiment has already occurred. It gives rise to a time loop and now we are doomed to repeat it forever.

Backward research goes forward

Ohmaar — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:38:18 GMT

It already did, Oswald.

(Has anyone seen my dolphin?)

Backward research goes forward

Ralf-Peter, Irvine, CA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:39:03 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Erich Schoedl, Yorkville, IL — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:40:50 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

me — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:44:11 GMT

All of you are freaking me out.

Backward research goes forward

C Eldridge, HBG PA — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:49:39 GMT

"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.

Backward research goes forward

Rob, Seattle — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:04:13 GMT

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

Backward research goes forward

Marc van Lohuizen, Brooklyn, NY — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:48:51 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Anthony D'Auria Brant Beach NJ — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:59:32 GMT

This is possible only in a "holographic" univerese. Perhaps if the experiment is successful the "holographic" theory will be substantiated.

Backward research goes forward

Graeme Cottrell, Brisbane, Australia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:02:24 GMT

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.

Backward research goes forward

Gerry Tubrett Sydney Nova Scotia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:18:02 GMT

hi Alan, good luck with this. IMO this experiment will work, so long as you keep singal A in a different room then signal B so noone can view it. Push further after these result, you will find that information cannot travel fast then light. Lasers can.

Backward research goes forward

Gerry Tubrett Sydney Nova Scotia — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:33:31 GMT

I see why einstien has a problem with this. But I also don't think he could see that intersecting line where the parrells of relativity and quantum finally cross, the holy grail.

Backward research goes forward

vzn, denver, CO — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:55:58 GMT

hi, the entanglement experiments are truly the cutting edge of physics research & its great to see the public start to notice them. we've been discussing them 5 years on the following mailing list, hope to hear from you. we have a "qm2" FAQ with many resources listed.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qm2/

Backward research goes forward

Joseph Capp — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:20:51 GMT

All the critics read here. I think that is what is wrong with the scientist of today, not science, just the scientist of today. Great Science is always practice on the edge. Today we have corporate yes men. The truth is this scientist has vision which most of his critics sadly lack.

Sad state of affairs in the scientist of today.

Backward research goes forward

Jessica, NY, NY — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:33:00 GMT

Nonsense, but it works well as metaphor.

Backward research goes forward

bc, topeka, kansas — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:07:22 GMT

If the beams/waves are solitonic in nature they can pass through each other undisturbed. Even water can travel uphill.

Backward research goes forward

Jimmy — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:48:22 GMT

Very interesting! Don't be discouraged by the people who keep saying it won't work as if they know everything in the universe. You will not know anything if you won't try. At least a failure can tell us a little more about the laws of physics.

Backward research goes forward

Miro Zbiro, Czech Republic — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:29:08 GMT

HI, ENTANGLEMENT DOES NOT MEAN, THAT WE CHANGE THE STATE (e.g. polarisation) OF THE OTHER PARTICLE REMOTELY. It just says, that you measure the correlated states for both entangled particles "in the future". So he will measure the same state independently of the delay of one beam. INFORMATION WILL BE SENT NEITHER FROM FUTURE TO PAST NOR FASTER THEN LIGHT. Simply - no information will be sent at all. It is good that he didnot get funding from regular agencies.

Backward research goes forward

Yann Achard Melbourne Victoria — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:18:26 GMT

Marty ! We have to go back in 1955 again!!!

No seriously, I like the idea of backward causation and it's encouraging to see that a lot of people are ready to spend money to help solve the question, actually that may be (if in the end it doesn't work) the best result of this story.

Backward research goes forward

Jeb — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:52:00 GMT

Can you say "Enders Game"?
Sure you can.

Backward research goes forward

Steve, Chicago IL — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:12:15 GMT

Two words:

Flux Capacitor

Backward research goes forward

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:09:02 GMT

"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."

I think you're right, but perhaps even more interesting was a short story by Larry Niven titled (working only from memory here:

'Rotating Cylinders and their Effect on Global Causalty Violations' the title of which comes from a paper of the same name by real physicist Frank Tipler where he shows that time travel should be possible in the area of a dense (and we're talking neutron star densities) rotating cylinder. (note: you can't go into the past prior to the creation of the device, or into the future past whatever time it's shut off or destroyed)

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

The story involves two warring interstellar civilizations, and they find such a device, built by someone else and mostly finished, but events always conspired to prevent its completion. Clearly, it might have potential as a weapon. However, believing nature (or whatever) would always insure that causalty is preserved, one civilization plans to somehow lure its *enemy* into working on the machine, feeling certain that events will prevent them from finishing it, and thus making their opponents waste resources.

And their basic idea was correct, but causalty preservation exerts itself in an unexpected way that I won't spoil here...

Backward research goes forward

string cheese, Phoenix, Arizona — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:03:59 GMT

I pushed my soul in a deep dark hole and followed in. I saw myself coming out as I was coming in! Gadzooks!The experiment worked! I bought ten thousand shares in this venture in the future. Please send my dividend check back to this point in time.

Backward research goes forward

MCP2012, Fort Worth, Texas — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:58:04 GMT

It would seem that the first two comments are rather cogent. I should be interested to know Cramer's response...

Backward research goes forward

jack spart — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:15:36 GMT

everybody needs to face the fact that you aren't going to "discover or measure" any time shifts using a glorified light bulb. Giant billion dollar accelerators havent revealed squat about any quantum effects, so keep reading your comic books. Time is impossible to alter as it keeps all matter and energy in harmony. our very existance proves that.

Backward research goes forward

glueShoe — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:17:07 GMT

The fundamental nature of Quantum Mechanics defies logic.

Backward research goes forward

Interested Party — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:54:53 GMT

Perhaps I am missing something. As I understand it, according to Quantum Theory, it is impossible to distinguish between the notion of "Fiddling" with a beam and the notion of "observing" a beam. Clearly, observing the beam will alter it. This is a well understood fact of Quantum mechanics. How can this experiment differentiate between whether "fiddling" with the beam at A changed the value observed in the past at B or weather observing the value at B in fact effected the fiddling at "A". I believe it is possible for this experiment to work, without actually proving reverse causality. Any comments from real quantum theorists on this would be welcome.

Backward research goes forward

Alan Boyle — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:30:07 GMT

I would recommend that folks looking for more of the technical details about the experiment should check out Cramer's PDF file about the apparatus, which is linked from the original item:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Nonlocal_2007.pdf

Basically, I'm using the term "fiddling" to describe how Cramer plans to use a switch to put one of the beams through either essentially a single slit or a double slit apparatus, which would lead to a distribution pattern on the detector that is either like particles or like wave interference. The first part of the experiment is simply to see whether switching the circumstances of one detector would lead to the same circumstances being reflected on another detector for the other entangled beam. If Cramer is able to confirm that effect, he would go on to the retrocausality part of the experiment. At least that's the way I understand it. I'd welcome comments from folks who know more about the ins and outs of the excperiment and the underlying physics.

Backward research goes forward

Wayne Honaker, Saxon WV — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:29:53 GMT

I don't buy that Beam B would reflect a change prior to Beam A being "fiddled with". Beam A and B share the same temporal point.
What I would buy is that Beam B would react instantaneously to change in Beam A no matter what the distance between the two points, thus sending a message faster than light.

I don’t see how we would get a temporal result from a spatial experiment.

By the way, I love the Phoobia Time Machine. I going to start building one for my kids.

Backward research goes forward

Matthew, New Haven, CT — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 06:20:46 GMT

Time is a consensual hallucination, an artifact of the human mind.

The concept of time seems intuitive, almost given, which makes perfect sense from the perspective of a biologically evolved organism, yet the body of research supporting the non-essential nature of "time" seems to keep growing. Most of these non-existence theories stem from the Dirac equation, though i doubt this is the nature of non-time.

If one were to examine alternative theories that only necessitate iterated spatial information (one such is the fringe conception of Topological Geometrodynamics, the life work of Matti Pitkanen), it becomes possible to view the question of "spooky action at a distance" as one that does not inquire about cross-temporal causation so much as it necessitates the questioning of our fundamental conceptions regarding the structural connections, and continuity, of space.

I think Mr. Fraser has come about as close to the root of this question as anyone i have had the pleasure of discussing the matter with, but i would ask him how truly linear our extensional reference system must be.

I doubt the experiment will work; we know that the information is instantaneously transmitted at time=observation, but still consider it a projection of information through time rather than a substitution of information in space, which for reasons too long to indulge here will continue to prevent us from gaining any real control of "cross-temporal" control for quite some time.

Backward research goes forward

An Anointed Prophet of God — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 06:50:10 GMT

In my Father's house there are many mansions {universes,strings,quantum states, ad infinitum}. And again, "No eye has seen,nor has the mind of man comprehended the joy which the Father has prepared for those who love Him."

Backward research goes forward

clay, USA, Earth — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:38:14 GMT

I have never been given 40K for any idea that I have came up with.

John Cramer has proven that some things are possible however improbable.
So Mr Cramer Don't listen to all the "Rosters" crowing cock a doddle don't. Go on with your experiment.
You will Not end the world!
You will Not fail!
Columbus proved that contrary to popular belief the world is not flat!
You Will come to a answer that I hope you will share with the rest of us.
As a child I remember watching star trek with their comunicators.
What a far fetched Idea. Oh! Now there are laws aginst using them while driving.
If you split your beam into A & B could you also then split your A into two beams as well? So you will have A & B beams plus Aa beam & Ab beam.

Backward research goes forward

DKBradley, Detroit, MI — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:39:31 GMT

In order for the experiment to succeed it would seem that the experimenter's "intention" towards particle A would have to be binding, which leads, I believe, to an unresolved area of philosophical discussion regarding the power of intentionality. See the writings of Nick Bostrom for some fascinating discussion of these kinds of issues.

Backward research goes forward

Frank Glover — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:11:22 GMT

"It is dangerous to play with things that you don't understand. Creating such a paradox will most likely result in the collapse of this universe."

Hmm...so we must assume that either you're wrong, or there hasn't been even *one* other civilization anywhere in the entire Universe that's tried it yet...

Backward research goes forward

Bill Struve, Wilmington, NC — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:41:24 GMT

Reversing the experiment would allow forward-in-time results (if the backword-in-time works). Time is not just another dimension on the macro-level. You can go up and down, right and left, forward and back in the other three, but not in time. At the quantum level who knows? We don't even know if time is quantized. Measuring quantization of time would be even more interesting to me.

Backward research goes forward

Son of Telstar, Seattle WA — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:28:11 GMT

I think Darryl has hit upon the key objections or criticisms here. Also, Quantum Entanglement effects (simultaneously communication) depend upon quantum coherence. Recent (April 2007, Science Mag.) experiments demostrated that 'decoherence' can occur very easily ('relatively'), resulting in a complete collapse of entanglement.

Backward research goes forward

Phil, Newark, California — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:25:32 GMT

As I understand it, this experiment is not so much defying Special Relativity as it is VINDICTING it. Here is what I mean:

I believe that you are all familiar with time dilation in Special Relativity--the notion that time slows down for a fast-moving object, going slower the closer the object's speed is to "c". However, light itself, which travels at "c" in a vacuum (and travels through matter and forcefields at as close to "c" as anything can) experiences perpetual "frozen time"--light NEVER experiences the passage of time at all, as its relative time is slowed to exactly zero! This is an important aspect of Minkowski spaces and other ideas relating relativity to geometry.

The upshot of all of this is that from the photons' perspective, the instant that the split laser beam exits at point A is the SAME instant that it exits from point B. There is no time travel--just an ordinary relativistic "twin paradox", which is a much better-understood phenomenon--in this case, the "traveling twin" has gone so fast that his time has slowed entirely to zero.

Backward research goes forward

Chris Campbell, Overland Park, Kansas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:02:10 GMT

I think the experiment will work, although it could fail even if my thinking is correct. It seems obvious to me that the space-time continuum is not a fundamental thing; that it is a secondary phenomenon, a projected illusion, a shadow in Plato's cave. That I perceive time and space between, say, myself and the most distant quasar does not change the fact that it and I are both part of a system that, at some level, generates space and time and therefore cannot also be understood in terms of them.

I generally accept the multiverse and block universe concepts, which is to say that I think our notion of time travel is naive. There is no arrow of time. Each so-called now exists forever, has a multitude of futures, and for that matter, has a multitude of pasts. Going back in time and changing something changes nothing, it simply traverses a different thread.

I think the "spooky action" simply underscores the non-fundamental nature of space-time. I think we can eventually develop technologies that realize faster-than-light travel and communications, forward and backward time travel (of a sort), teleportation, and all sorts of other "spooky" things, without ever violating the physics we now know.

Backward research goes forward

Manwith lotof timeonhishand — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:58:17 GMT

I build the time machine above and amazing it worked, infact it is syncronized with the standrad time to the nth degree

Backward research goes forward

vzn — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:37:54 GMT

further discussion on cutting edge concepts in quantum mechanics, including amateur experimentalists

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qm2/

Backward research goes forward

Gphillip, Houston, TX — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:55:03 GMT

Rob Carr of PA above gave one possible explanation.

He said, "I'm betting that when the analysis is finally done, we'll find that we can only know what the effect on the past particle was based on something we learn about the present particle when we do the measurement. Information gets sent back in time, but you won't know what it means until the "future" arrives. Thus, there's no way to create a paradox and yet the quantum mechanics will work out."

This seems very reasonable. It's the same reason that one can't use quantum entanglement to communicate over long distances instantly. Yes, you can have an immediate quantum effect transmitted say from Earth to Mars, but it can't be distinguished from random noise until a "Key" arrives by plain old light speed. This satisfies both Relativity and QM.

But that's why we do the experiments. To find out the outcome. My bet is we never here the outcome of this experiment as the results will be trivial.

Backward research goes forward

Samir, Bizert — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:24:06 GMT

This is a message from the future :)

Backward research goes forward

Robert Richard — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:30:01 GMT

When signal B hits the detector (before the fiddling takes place on signal A) the interference caused by this interaction will have an effect on signal A while it is in the fibre and that is all. The subsequent fiddling with signal A will yield no results.

Backward research goes forward

AJ — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:22:44 GMT

It will not work. Two particles such as photons whose wavefunction is entangled can subsequently have a property such as polarisation measured for one photon. Doing so causes the other photon to return a correlated result (normally, opposite to the first measurement). However the initial measurement returns a random result. Only by comparing the two results can the correlation be seen. However, to get the results together in one place for comparison, a communication channel is needed. This channel can communicate only at the speed of light. Therefore, no 'faster than light' communication is possible using entanglement.

Backward research goes forward

Juan Antonio — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:35:41 GMT

Has the experiment been performed in September 15th as planned? Have tried to find news about this, but with no luck.

Backward research goes forward

Alan Boyle — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:54:16 GMT

Dear Juan: Cramer was able to get more time to do the experiment, so he was no longer facing the Sept. 15 deadline. Check out this item for the update:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/322206.aspx

This is a good argument for backward causality on the Web: An Aug. 17 item influences a July 17 item. ;-)

Backward research goes forward

Peter Allen, Kenyon, Minnesota — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:44:28 GMT

say they do this experiment, and it works. signal b is tested, and shows the change made to signal a, before the change is actually made. now say the delay time was increased to a few minutes. John Cramer is over at station b, testing the signal there, when without his knowledge, some lunatic breaks in to station "a" and wrecks the equipment before the change to signal "a" can take place. One of two things could happen:
1. the change would not be measured from station b. that would seem to indicate that the light beam had actually predicted the future, through some kind of trans-temporal communication with its twin at station "b". This would be equivalent to prescience.
2. the change would be measured. that would seem to indicate that John Cramer's intention to modify the beam, had modified the beam, *without* the help of the equipment at station b. This would be equivalent to telekinesis.
So this isn't just about time travel: it's also about esp.

Backward research goes forward

Sads — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:16:57 GMT

I read a bit and maybe people have already answered, and said what i am about to say.
Basically, the beam is not split, it is two particles which became entangled, which means their information is correlated. It can not be done by a beam of light, because to many photons are going through at one particular time, and the results would be totally wrong. Then the state are not the same all the time, the whole reason for this experiment is that the state is only decided when it is measured and for the time of measurement, the other state collapses. The experiment will not be such a huge step as people believe it to be, it will just show that the future affects the past, it will be big for scientists, but back to the future might happen in decades or never at all.
I think the experiment might work. But it is very complicated so the results might not come out to be good. And if it comes out to be negative, i can live with it

Backward research goes forward

Ty, Ankey, Iowa — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:40:11 GMT

even if the reverse causality aspect of this experiment doesn;t work, this could lead to a new form of zero latency communication with unlimited range, assuming quantum entanglement is something that actualy exsists, and can be harnessed in this way.

Backward research goes forward

Peggy Pitcher, El Paso, Texas — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:11:22 GMT

Hey, the science here flys over my head but if looking at the light of the stars in the sky, which is arriving here years after it really occured,
doesn't that show light takes things into the past, all light?

Backward research goes forward

Richard Anderson. Cleveland, Ohio — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:16:28 GMT

I think that time travel into the past and future has already been done, thanks to the United States Government. My teacher told me that they built one using the technology from Roswell, New Mexico back in 1947.

Backward research goes forward

Harry Hirsch, Berlin, Germany — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:15:11 GMT

So, whats happened to the experiemnt now?
does anybody know?

Backward research goes forward

TERRY FRASER,CALGARY ,ALBERTA — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:08:41 GMT

Hi, I think there is time travel today just that we are not aware of how the system operates.Like plugging a vehicle in a garage to a computure to diagnose the vehicles past and present fuctions is similair to this system at CERN. CERN may create worm holes or black holes by it's system , and creat global power and communications output downloads and uploads that are not being detected.Communications would be recieved by SETI transmitions from outer space. The time travel system would simply be a cell phone ringing receiving a different frequency that the person would not know is happening, except if the person is aware of what may be happening they could choose to select there traveling in the preesent or future if they can remeber what is in effect.Bye.Thanks.Terry.

Backward research goes forward

Josh Harrison, clearwater, florida — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:12:26 GMT

A paradox exist all around you for all time without explanation available in time. Maby to understand this paradox is more spiritual than anything found in experiments. near death experiences may have more answers to the entanglement theory than this experiment. I dont think the same way as a scientist but I am just as curious as one. - josh

Backward research goes forward

Mark Gendala — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:21:26 GMT

Imagine every manifestation of existence as a pencil tip incpable of decoupling itself from the paper it's writing on. Unavoidably, that tip writes a continuous line.
Now any attempt to trace that line backwards - travel
"back in time" as it were, always ADDS to the initial length of the line. It's always MORE, never LESS.

Sincerely,
Mark Gendala,
Melbourne, Australia

Backward research goes forward

Israel Silverman, New York, NY — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:54:57 GMT

It's August 2008. What happened with the experiment

Backward research goes forward

Stink — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:34:53 GMT

Message from the future here:
He was hoping to be done by Sept 15 2007 - anyone heard anything yet?

Backward research goes forward

Robert — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:55:25 GMT

ok let me see if I got this straight...If beam A is traveling from chicago going C+ and 3 photons get off and one gets on...and beam B is heading fron New York.....

Backward research goes forward

Tom Agan, Plymouth, Minnesota — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:23:23 GMT

Ok, it's been sufficient time now to see some results. Anything to report? I saw someone won the 200 million dollar lottery, was that someone standing in for Cramer? Can I try the experiment to confirm the results?

All joking aside, there should be some statement about the results.

Backward research goes forward

David Duncan Orlando, Fl. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:59:03 GMT

In 1999 in Geneva, Suarez and Ginsin uaing a Ferrari at 112 miles per hr. to put Alice and Bob's measuring frames of reference to appear that eash measurement occured before the other one. Results the two photon interferences were still visable. The natural picture that one happens first and influences the other is wrong. Indeed QM just predicts these are correlations are there.

Backward research goes forward

Joseph Papierz Jr, Deerfield Beach, FL — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:41:40 GMT

After reading the article and a few of he comments I wish I could travel back and regain the time I spent. Unfortunately, the researcher in the article needs to get a reasonable project to pursue and lay off the Sci_Fi stuff.

It would be wonderful if I could levitate and then fly off into the distance without any mechanical devices to hinder my movement, much like Superman. Maybe I can get some funding to start experiments?

Backward research goes forward

tzacatzac — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:22:30 GMT

biggest problem with this is that it is predicated on the mistaken belief that time exists.