Scientists Now Believe Quantum Entanglement May Apply to Time Itself

Sonix

Sonix

Member
www.naturalblaze.com

Scientists Now Believe Quantum Entanglement May Apply to Time Itself

Quantum entanglement is so bizarre that Albert Einstein refused to accept it as true for many years.
www.naturalblaze.com

More fully explained here:
www.sciencealert.com

If You Thought Quantum Mechanics Was Weird, You Need to Check Out Entangled Time

In the summer of 1935, the physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger engaged in a rich, multifaceted and sometimes fretful correspondence about the implications of the new theory of quantum mechanics.
www.sciencealert.com www.sciencealert.com

Paper being referenced is actually from 2013.

Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted

The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any part of a quantum system that has finished evolving can be measured immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, regardless of...
journals.aps.org journals.aps.org
 
Last edited:
Is it possible for someone (because of time, money...) to print a book with all we have written in this forum (& timetravel com) ?
 

It is good news that this is more often on the news. It is also good for this forum.

I am thinking that is clear for all people on this site, who are interested in time-travel.

The Schrödinger equation says nothing different since years. The Schrödinger equation and other quantum equations has the imaginary time in it what is nothing different than two dimensional time.

Here is a picture of the Gaußian number plane. That is a system that helps to illustrate the concept of the imaginary number i that is in the equation. That is how I and I think most others on this site see time:
gaussscheebene.gif

I am thinking the imaginary part of the particle is in another time realm.

I think that are the possible timelines. So the electrons in the atoms are always connected to time.
 
SanicHotdog said:
I wonder if one could use light as a means of sending information back in time using entanglement
Click to expand...
Yes, it is possible, yet impossible to track any events in the same timeline. It also would take a huge amount of energy and a pretty complicated machine to control that energy, as it basically would create almost stationary gravitational waves that exist only for a ridiculously short time in the timeline where they were created (sub-planck fractioned wavelength), the rest of the gravitational waves being “deflected” in equal amounts to many other timelines that result from the split caused by the event. In those resulting timelines, it would be also impossible to track anything because after the same ridiculously short time they would all collapse back together. So, the only observable parameter would be that a huge energy release was triggered (and consumed) .. practically into “nothing”. An almost unobservable short spark of light would be created in all the resulting timelines, but as they all collapse back together, they all would be perceived as only one (if detectable) and occurring in a very short past.
A much, much, easier way is to retrieve information from the future in this manner, that is, not to send from the future back to the past, but to retrieve into the present from the future. The base concept is completely different in this approach and it “behaves” completely different – the further into the future one wants to reach, the more time it takes. Further more, the “device” used in this case, must not be stopped after its initial start, otherwise it would lead to a “reset” of the whole process and would have to be started again. Just to make an idea of the scale – if someone wants to retrieve information for the order of minutes from the future, the “device” must run for the order of years. Whenever the “device” is stopped, the destination shift (future) is reset to zero and it must be started again and wait for the same time again to reach the specified shift.
Anyway, this is a much more practical approach, because it would cause only occasionally, only 1 split (2 timelines) and only in very special conditions (involving causality). It is also nondestructive, having no risk of any danger to occur, whatsoever.
 

Top