• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Scientists show that only photons that don’t kill themselves can go back in time!

Analog

Lifer
(PhysOrg.com) -- Among the many intriguing concepts in Einstein’s relativity theories is the idea of closed timelike curves (CTCs), which are paths in spacetime that return to their starting points. As such, CTCs offer the possibility of traveling back in time. But, as many science fiction films have addressed, time travel is full of potential paradoxes. Perhaps the most notable of these is the grandfather paradox, in which a time traveler goes back in time and kills her grandfather, preventing her own birth.

In a new study, a team of researchers has proposed a new theory of CTCs that can resolve the grandfather paradox, and they also perform an experiment showing how such a scheme works. The researchers, led by Seth Lloyd from MIT, along with scientists from Piazza dei Cavalieri in Pisa, Italy; the Tokyo Institute of Technology; and the University of Toronto, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The concepts in the study are similar to an earlier study by some of the same authors that was posted at arXiv.org last year.


In the new theory, CTCs are required to behave like ideal quantum channels of the sort involved in teleportation. In this theory, self-consistent CTCs (those that don’t result in paradoxes) are postselected, and are called “P-CTCs.” As the scientists explain, this theory differs from the widely accepted quantum theory of CTCs proposed by physicist David Deutsch, in which a time traveler maintains self-consistency by traveling back into a different past than the one she remembers. In the P-CTC formulation, time travelers must travel to the past they remember.


Although postselecting CTCs may seem complicated, it can actually be investigated experimentally in laboratory simulations. By sending a “living” qubit (i.e., a bit in the state 1) a few billionths of a second back in time to try to “kill” its former self (i.e., flip to the state 0), the scientists show that only photons that don’t kill themselves can make the journey.
To demonstrate, the scientists stored two qubits in a single photon, one of which represents the forward-traveling qubit, and one of which represents the backward-traveling qubit. The backward-traveling qubit can teleport through a quantum channel (CTC) only if the CTC ends by projecting the two entangled qubits into the same state.


After the qubits are entangled, their states are measured by two probe qubits. Next, a “quantum gun” is fired at the forward-traveling qubit, which, depending on the gun’s angle, may or may not rotate the qubit’s polarization. The qubits’ states are measured again to find out if the gun has flipped the forward-traveling qubit’s polarization or not. If both qubits are in the same state (00 or 11), then the gun has not flipped the polarization and the photon “survives.” If the qubits’ states are not equal (01 or 10), then the photon has “killed” its past self. The qubits’ states were always equal, showing that a qubit cannot kill its former self.
 
This reinforces my notion that time travel will actually be possible, but essentially start a new "year 0" for time travel. You'll never be able to go back in time before your "time machine" existed, simply because it never existed in the first place. Anything farther back than that point in time would be "destructive".
 
Wait does this imply that you can only go back if you don't kill yourself, or you can only go back if you don't change anything in the past? Or unknown?
 
This reinforces my notion that time travel will actually be possible, but essentially start a new "year 0" for time travel. You'll never be able to go back in time before your "time machine" existed, simply because it never existed in the first place. Anything farther back than that point in time would be "destructive".

so i won't be able to send messages to myself 5 years ago 30 years from now?

damn
 
This reinforces my notion that time travel will actually be possible, but essentially start a new "year 0" for time travel. You'll never be able to go back in time before your "time machine" existed, simply because it never existed in the first place. Anything farther back than that point in time would be "destructive".

But what if you put a time machine into your time machine?
 
But what if you put a time machine into your time machine?

Normally, I'd have just chuckled over that suggestion. But, having watchend Inception a couple of nights ago (not that it's a realistic movie) is probably the reason I pondered your suggestion a little more.

And, I think that yes, you'd have to put a time machine into your time machine, otherwise, how could you return to the present time other than one second at a time?
 
But what if you put a time machine into your time machine?

No. Because as I said, NOTHING can exist farther back then it existed in the first place. Hence the second time machine didn't exist at any point in time before it existed.

To further what I'm saying, YOU physically could hypothetically go back in time to the point you were conceived, but no further. However this wouldn't be possible, because the time machine that takes you back would have to have existed at the point you were conceived as well, which as of this moment (that we know of) it doesn't.

What I'm trying to say is as far as backwards time travel goes, you can't go back farther in time than the time machine's particles existed in the state they're in. Essentially, this hypothesis implies time travel is impossible, because no particle is ever in exactly the same state over any given time interval.

A final note, say the time machine existed since you were born. You could hypothetically go back in time to the point where you were conceived. The problem is, the particles that make up you now aren't the same particles that existed then. Even if they did for some reason happen to be the same, there were a whole lot less of them in the state they exist now. So every instant in time you travel backwards, the particles in a non-symmetric state that you're in right now would cease to exist (according to the OP), leaving you as holey as swiss cheese, to the point where you disintegrate into nothingness as you cross the threshold that you were born.
 
Uhh, and the whole concept is based off something measuring what can be done and can not be done. What is doing the measuring? Fallacy premise to being with.
 

The premise is that quantum materials are being "selected" if they are capable to go back in time is the residing premise behind the theory.

They then go on to an experiment based off other quantum mechanic experiments that deal with quantum teleportation and coupling. Using possibly observable that those quantum particles that don't "hit" their themselves in the past are the only ones to travel to the past.

What should have been the conclusion was that if you do go back in the past and kill your grandfather, you are now in a different quantum reality or alternate timeline in the multiverse. Only those that go back have a chance of staying in the same reality.

But even then, the premise of knowing that they did go back isn't correct, because the timing of the measurable particles is inaccurate at best.

Does that clear it up for you?
 
If the results never change, couldn't that more likely mean the gun doesn't work, doesn't work as intended, or otherwise has no effect? Seems they picked the conclusion before the experiment and didn't bother to evaluate the data without bias.
 
If the results never change, couldn't that more likely mean the gun doesn't work, doesn't work as intended, or otherwise has no effect? Seems they picked the conclusion before the experiment and didn't bother to evaluate the data without bias.

They are reproducing another experiment that has very specific set of directions to reproduce, but with their own twist and hypothesis. The observable outcome could very well be what their hypothesis states, but it could be something else. However, their hypothesis is somewhat in light with other hypothesis from other experiments where those hypothesis have more evidence backing them up. This is just a start on this theory and it is a small one at best.
 
Back
Top