Rollin' Like Sisyphus

Physics As Performed By Abbott & Costello — Part 7

Posted in Who's On First? by Huckleberry on June 13, 2014



In our world, the physical world, you can rise from your chair, walk across the room, open the front door and step outside with a full understanding of the chain of events that led you from one state (seated in a chair indoors) to another (standing outside). Each action clearly and neatly flows from the preceding action.
This is our world, and how we’re used to processing it. We don’t expect you to already be standing outside before you’ve risen from your chair, yet the Wheeler experiment – and quite a few others – show that at the quantum level, something is occurring that makes the result seem like it’s occurring before the catalyst.
We’ve already covered that time doesn’t work as we know it at the quantum level, and that the Observer Effect operates in a way that should make you shudder if you think too long on it. It would be easy to just dismiss the phenomenon as a quirk of reference framing, but the fact that the observer is clearly seeing verifiable evidence of a result determining it’s cause from the perspective of the observer needs to be reconciled.
Enter the concept of Backward Time Interpretation, and several experiments attempting to ferret out retrocausality. The initial follow up experiment proposed by Shih and his team involved the same basic setup and premise as the Wheeler experiment, but swapping mirrors and detectors for microprocessors, and swapping the coherent light beam supplied by a laser with fiber-optic cable sending a few bits of information – hard data – through the two separate paths to see if in some instances the result arrived before the premise was sent. The experiment that ultimately ended up being performed you may have heard of. It broke in the news a few years ago as “physicists break light barrier” or some such – as the information was seemingly received across an entangled photon pair separated across a room about 50 milliseconds before it was sent.
However, instead of replicating the experiment, the team flooded everyone with some pie-in-the-sky math that they suggested showed the backward-time communication channel as an artifact of a broken supersymmetric model, and that one of the older theories of causality at the quantum level was still at play – that anti-particles flow through spacetime backward while their complements flow through forward.
Yes, we’ve come full-circle here.
The great thing about this idea is that it sounds plausible and it’s completely impossible to test.
Entropy is the driving force of forward time progression, both practically and in any experimental setting. We have no way of propagating energy backward in time, in direct conflict of the entropic principle. Imagine a laser with a beam that gathered energy as it shot through the experiment, instead of dissipating energy.
Probably not in the cards for a good long while, so there’s really not much further to go with that idea. You either accept it or you don’t. While the progenitors of Backward Time Interpretation insist that the theory’s math explains retrocausality while conforming to Bell’s Theorem, all it does is provide a dead end while re-enforcing the same conundrum we’ve bumped up against time and again. Just about every other theory of quantum entanglement leads you down the same basic path toward the same overall result without explaining the nature of the still-impossible-to-fathom communication method between each part of a photon pair.
And with that, we’re just about done.
I’ve gone on and on with what I think is not, so it’s put-up or shut-up time.
I’ll get into my crackpot theories next week.


2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Giraffe said, on June 13, 2014 at 13:11

    I’m starting to wish Abbot and Costello really were physicists.

  2. Doom said, on June 14, 2014 at 05:50

    Look, I enjoy the sciences, along the lines of poetry. If it’s interesting, I might decide to look around. My problem is that the experts, many of them, most of them, who are knowledgeable and well taught… aren’t actually very good at science. If one happens, even, to set up an experiment and run it correctly? They, often, then, take the absolute worst conclusion of those possible. Or even one that shouldn’t even be a possible conclusion, as when they were doing the gene mapping and thought that would help them understand all of mankind, and maybe women too. I laughed so hard, when I heard this group of scientists thought they would figure most of it out with one mapping, I almost wet myself. It amazes me to watch over and over again. I am frustrated with experts, for the most part. Yeah, I figure this is your area? Still, if it’s crackpottery? It might actually be worth the read. Because the mainstream stuff is far too often simply bogus. Oh, and besides the problem of setting up a good test, and deciphering the results, there is a huge problem with bogus numbers and false results being papered in. At least I lost it as a religion before I realized how deep the rabbit hole of wrong went. No offense, unless you’ve tied yourself to that anchor… then… bombs aweigh. :p


    They are. Well, they and many physicists/scientists can make me laugh beyond bladder control anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: