Quantum paradox experiment may lead to more accurate clocks and sensors

University of Queensland

A clock moving in superposition of different speeds would measure a superposition of different elapsing times -- in a quantum version of the famous 'twin paradox' of special relativity. Credit: Magdalena Zych
A clock moving in superposition of different speeds would measure a superposition of different elapsing times — in a quantum version of the famous ‘twin paradox’ of special relativity. Credit: Magdalena Zych

More accurate clocks and sensors may result from a recently proposed experiment, linking an Einstein-devised paradox to quantum mechanics.

University of Queensland physicist Dr Magdalena Zych said the international collaboration aimed to test Einstein’s twin paradox using quantum particles in a ‘superposition’ state.

“The twin paradox is one of the most counterintuitive predictions of relativity theory,” Dr Zych said.

“It says that time can pass at different speeds for people at different distances to an enormous mass or travelling with different velocities.

“For example, relative to a reference clock far from any massive object, a clock closer to a mass or moving at high speed will tick slower.

“This creates a ‘twin paradox’, where one of a pair of twins departs on a fast-speed journey while the other stays behind.

“When the twins reunite, the travelling twin would be much younger, as different amounts of time have passed for each of them.

“It’s a mind-blowing effect – featured in popular movies like Interstellar – but it’s also been verified by real world experiments, and is even taken into consideration in order for everyday GPS technology to work.”

The team included researchers from the University of Ulm and Leibniz University Hannover and found how one could use advanced laser technology to realise a quantum version of the Einstein’s twin paradox.

In the quantum version, rather than twins there will be only one particle travelling in a quantum superposition.

“A quantum superposition means the particle is in two locations at the same time, in each of them with some probability, and yet this is different to placing the particle in one or the other location randomly,” Dr Zych said.

“It’s another way for an object to exist, only allowed by the laws of quantum physics.

“The idea is to put one particle in superposition on two trajectories with different speeds, and see if a different amount of time passes for each of them, as in the twin paradox.

“If our understanding of quantum theory and relativity is right, when the superposed trajectories meet, the quantum traveller will be in superposition of being older and younger than itself.

“This would leave an unmistakeable signature in the results of the experiment, and that’s what we hope will be found when the experiment is realised in the future.

“It could lead to advanced technologies that will allow physicists to build more precise sensors and clocks – potentially, a key part of future navigation systems, autonomous vehicles and earthquake early-warning networks.”

The experiment itself will also answer some open questions in modern physics.

“A key example is, can time display quantum behaviour or is it fundamentally classical?” Dr Zych said.

“This question is likely crucial for the ‘holy grail’ of theoretical physics: finding a joint theory of quantum and gravitational phenomena.

“We’re looking forward to helping answer this question, and tackling many more.”

###

The research is published in Science Advances (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8966).

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
107 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Lowe
October 16, 2019 2:23 am

I’d like to read Peter Ridd’s opinion on this, otherwise will feel compelled to toss it in the WPB along with other things from that “University”! Although this may seem to be a little unfair, it reflects my opinion of that “University” formed as a result of their shocking treatment of P.R.

Peter Hartley
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 16, 2019 3:12 am

Different university. Peter Ridd was at James Cook in Townsville Queensland. This one is in Brisbane Queensland

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Peter Hartley
October 16, 2019 4:44 pm

James Cook (Townsville) started life about 1960 as a college of the University of Queensland (main campus, Brisbane). The two were later made independent by a political decision, but in every day Life they remain closely connected. So Peter is correct, but there are complications. Geoff S

Big T
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 16, 2019 3:56 am

Was this “study” done with the normal 2 million dollar grant? Useless bull shit would be a better caption.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Big T
October 16, 2019 6:22 am

First, it’s not a study, it’s an experiment. Second, it hasn’t been conducted yet, it’s still in the planning stage.

NZ Willy
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 16, 2019 11:17 am

Yes, let’s see their experimental outcome, which (if they get an answer at all) is likely to be a real state and not a superposition. As with Mach’s Principle, there’s likely to be preferred reference frame of some kind, such as a hitherto unknown dimension. Physics is incomplete.

Claude
Reply to  NZ Willy
October 16, 2019 2:54 pm

Wait a minute, folks. You live in a classical universe. The experiment has already been done in one superpositional state, and gotten an answer. It has not been done in the other superpositional state, but we know from climate models that the opposite answer is correct. Any questions?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  NZ Willy
October 17, 2019 10:04 am

@Claude;

Very droll, +1 for you!

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Big T
October 16, 2019 9:03 am

Big T while you may not realize your need for precise time measurement, I assure you, you do benefit from it enormously. Almost all advance navigational systems rely on GPS. Without very accurate and precise time measurement the system would not function with any accuracy we’ve come to rely upon. There are many other examples of how accurate time is used beneficially.

This type of experiment has been done before and it has proven the effect. High altitude ‘atomic clocks’ traveling at high speeds were compared to their earthbound stationary partners. The effect was predictable and measureable. That is good science.
All they are attempting is to improve the accuracy yet again. I do have some misgivings as to the effects of superposition being able to measure this effect as it involves only one entity that cannot be in two places simultaneously but whose exact position is not knowable as to which of either states it presently exists.

My conjecture is that the atom will be in either one state or the other and all that may be determined from the experiment is what percentage of its time it spent in each of the states, and the net time difference will be 0.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 16, 2019 7:17 pm

About 1 nanosecond per foot at light speed.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 17, 2019 8:42 am

DARPA has been developing optical comb timers that are now accurate to 10E-15 seconds, and will soon be accurate to 10E-18 seconds. The latter would allow construction of a synthetic aperture optical telescope with optics orbiting the Sun at somewhere between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter, being able to read the license plate on a car (if such a thing existed) at 100 light years distance.

Geoff
October 16, 2019 2:26 am

Right.
In the meantime I have a leaking tap washer to fix.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Geoff
October 16, 2019 6:45 am

Talking of leaking taps, I had one the other day and instead of unscrewing it and popping in a new washer I had to call in a plumber and have the whole tap replaced.
In terms of a quantum clock which process was travelling the fastest?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
October 16, 2019 8:56 am

The money leaving your wallet.

Curious George
Reply to  Geoff
October 16, 2019 9:18 am

Your new quantum tap will be in a superposition of “leaking”and “not-leaking” states.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Geoff
October 16, 2019 10:14 am

Might as well fix the tap dryer while you’re at it.

TonyL
October 16, 2019 2:30 am

the quantum traveller will be in superposition of being older and younger than itself.

“This would leave an unmistakeable signature in the results of the experiment, and that’s what we hope will be found when the experiment is realised in the future.

What happens is that you will get the complete and total annihilation of the entire universe due to the quantum gravity temporal equivalent of a Divide-by-Zero error.
I guess you could call that an “unmistakable signature”. Perhaps.

dom
Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2019 2:52 am

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Stevek
Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2019 8:23 am

My theory is no intelligent life has been found in universe because at some point they reach a level to do quantum experiments and shortly after that one of their experiments creates a black hole or some other effect that instantly destroys them.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2019 12:40 pm

So Heisenberg and Schrodinger were cruising down the highway when they were pulled over by a traffic cop.
The cop says to Heisenberg, the driver: “Do you know how fast your were traveling?”
to which Heisenberg replies, “No, but I know where we are.”
The cops replied back, “you were going over 90 mph!”
To which Heisenberg replies, “Oh Great! Now were lost!”
Schrodinger who had until then been quiet blurts out, “Don’t look in the trunk!”

TonyL
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 16, 2019 2:45 pm

{Cop’s partner looks in trunk}
It’s dead, Jim.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  TonyL
October 16, 2019 10:16 pm

That is where zombies exercise: at the It’s Dead Gym

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  TonyL
October 27, 2019 10:35 pm

Gravity is not fabricated by whatever instance.

It’s there where there’s mass.

Carl Friis-Hansen
October 16, 2019 2:44 am

Didn’t US do an experiment in the 60’s or 70’s with two atomic clocks?
One clock was ground based, the other was flown all the way around the globe, and it resulted in a time difference.

Geoff Withnell
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 16, 2019 3:31 am

Yes, with two different clocks. This is the SAME particle, in a superposition of two different states.

John McClure
Reply to  Geoff Withnell
October 16, 2019 8:35 am

“Optical Clocks
Scientists are currently developing a device that is even more accurate than the current atomic clocks. The optical atomic clock uses light in the visible spectrum to measure atomic oscillations. The resonance frequency of the light rays is about 50,000 times higher than that of microwave radiation, allowing for a more precise measurement. The expected deviation of the new optical clock is 1 second in 15 billion years”

Isn’t 1 second in 15 billion years close enough for the research?

MikeyParks
Reply to  John McClure
October 16, 2019 8:41 am

Who wants to reset his clock every 15 billion years?

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  John McClure
October 16, 2019 11:07 am

Today’s clock may deviate one second in 1,400,000 years. So yes, I am looking forward to the new more accurate clock coming on sale in major outlets.

Federico Bär
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 17, 2019 8:05 am

When my wristwatch resumed ticking after our watchmaker proved his expertise, I ckecked its accuracy, and turned out to be the proud owner of a clockwork with a deviation of 17 seconds per month. Less than a year thereafter, I lost it in a robbery…..

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John McClure
October 16, 2019 9:13 pm

Rubidium or Cesium clocks , IIRC, make use of the atomic spin to time spaces between info bytes fed into in optic cables and that wsa good for 2 seconds in 10,000 yrs acuracy.

Crosspatch
Reply to  Geoff Withnell
October 16, 2019 1:35 pm

I would be curious what happens to two separate particles that are “entangled ” when one particle experiences a different spacetime environment. Quantum entanglement apparently has no notion of distance and what happens to one happens to both.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 16, 2019 3:33 am

Yes they did but it didn’t add up correctly. The end result was they had to take as a reference point NOT the stationary clock (which was actually rotating with the earth) but a point high above the North Pole.

This is a proof that while general relativity is real, something else is going on. They should not have had to select as the “stationary point” something other than the clock that didn’t travel.

I believe the assumption is there is either frame dragging near heavy objects, or my suggestion which that there is dark matter and a superfluid ether as a third type of matter capable of transmitting waves (pulses etc). There are multiple suggestions the universe is not as simple as Einstein and other have envisaged it.

Jeff Yeates
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 16, 2019 4:20 am

So how did they keep a clock stationary high above the North Pole long enough for a plane to circumnavigate the globe?

JimG1
Reply to  Jeff Yeates
October 16, 2019 6:05 am

There is no “stationary” as everything is moving relative to other reference frames somewhere. Where would the ultimate stationary point be located? The earth is moving around the sun, the sun is moving within the galaxy, etc.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  JimG1
October 16, 2019 6:43 am

everything is moving relative to other reference frames somewhere.

Exactly, …… and all the billions of galaxies are “speeding” to and from and every which way from one another yet the astronomers claim they can measure their ages ….. and those ever changing distances, plus or minus a few light years..

Reply to  JimG1
October 16, 2019 9:31 am

Me. I am the stationary point at the center of the universe.

Schitzree
Reply to  JimG1
October 16, 2019 11:56 am

The speed of light is supposed to be a fundamental constant. Shoot a photon in 2 directions simultaneously. If one gets to its target faster then the other, then it’s target must have been moving ‘toward’ or in the direction of the emitter, relative to a stationary point in absolute space…

Unless space itself is moving, or EXPANDING. But you get the idea. It should be relatively easy with today’s technology to figure out a place’s true velocity and vector in an absolute sense.

~¿~

Reply to  JimG1
October 16, 2019 7:25 pm

Schitzree,

In an absolute sense it can’t be done since there is no universal point of reference.

It is ALL relative. As far as we know. At this time.

Jerry
Reply to  JimG1
October 20, 2019 3:19 pm

Stationary relative to the cosmic background radiation (i.e. no Doppler shift in any direction) would be a truly stationary absolute reference frame.

David
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 16, 2019 7:51 am

That would suggest the experiment was highly flawed. The proper way to test time dilation would be with a clock stationary, and the orbital clock in geosynchronous orbit above it.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  David
October 16, 2019 9:09 am

David, they do that continuously with every geostationary satellite. It’s called synchronization with earth bound transmitters. The accuracy has served them well so far.

Brian
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 16, 2019 10:21 am

With the Earth’s equator moving faster than it’s poles wouldn’t it build up an imbalance resulting in a time potential? And please don’t say entropy.
Also, thank you for correcting me a couple days ago. My information was from a trusted source and I didn’t think it through.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 16, 2019 9:18 pm

I’m in bed right now, but, nevertheles Im moving at the speed of light or so t’is said.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 17, 2019 3:58 am

How fast is one who lives at the equator “moving” at this moment?

The earth is rotating at almost 1,000 miles an hour.
Earth orbits the Sun at an average speed of 67,000 mph.
Our galaxy is moving at 90,000 mph toward the center of our Local Galaxy Group.
Our Local Galaxy Group is moving at 1,350,000 mph toward the Virgo Cluster.
Which is a total of ….. 1,508,000 mph

Source: https://stardate.org/astro-guide/faqs/how-fast-earth-moving-through-space

SMC
October 16, 2019 2:51 am

Cool.

Ron Long
October 16, 2019 3:17 am

“A quantum superposition means the particle is in two locations at the same time, in each of them with some probability, and yet this is different to placing the particle in one or the other location randomly” is the Quantum Mechanics theory that led Einstein to say “the Old One does not play dice with the universe”, which was widely cited as a declaration by Einstein that he believed in a God (the Old One). Einstein then wrote an essay detailing his religious beliefs, and this essay sold at auction some years ago for a large sum of money. Einstein also referred to the Quantum Mechanics idea of “spin pairs” as “spooky action at a distance” and that has been previously debated here at Watts, especially as regards dark matter and dark force (not Darth Vader type dark force, the other kind). It appears to me that only about half of Quantum Mechanics has continued forward in scientific experimentation, whereas the “spooky action at a distance” aspect has not. Who is pushing the idea of better clocks? The statements like “we only have 12 years to the tipping point” are surely not needing this level of accuracy?

commieBob
October 16, 2019 3:44 am

Why is it called Einstein’s paradox?

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect and naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each (twin) should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. link

Marty
Reply to  commieBob
October 16, 2019 8:37 am

Because it is a direct consequence of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. But it’s not actually a paradox. That’s a confusing label that muddies the science. What happens is that time passes more slowly for the twin who is traveling near the speed of light (or who is in a strong gravitational field) than it does for the twin who remains on earth.

(It is all logically a consequence of the unexpected experimental discovery in 1887 by Michelson and Morley that the speed of light is a constant in any direction no matter how fast the observer is moving in any direction. Regardless of your motion you will always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum .)

twolf
Reply to  Marty
October 17, 2019 9:26 am

But Michelson and Morley did NOT find that, regardless of what we have been told. MM found a result of about 8km/s (+-2 within a 99.9% confidence interval). It was just they had been expecting something around 30km/s.
Also SRT is heavily flawed from the beginning: http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf

Reply to  commieBob
October 16, 2019 10:15 am

Extremely naive application. The important part is acceleration of the time dilated twin.

A very common misunderstanding, unfortunately. (The one that made me bang my head on the wall once was when someone expressed the belief that the return trip would reverse the dilation – i.e., the “traveling twin” would grow older faster than the “homebody twin” on that part of the trip.)

jtom
Reply to  Writing Observer
October 16, 2019 6:32 pm

Yes. I was wondering if someone would point out that the difference was caused by one twin accelerating while the other did not. Acceleration is an absolute property; you can detect and measure it absent anything else, just by the forces that are experienced. Constant velocity requires no force, nothing can be measured UNLESS it is a compared with another object; how fast it is moving relative to another body.

That, essentially, is the basis of relativity. If two objects are pass each other at constant velocities, there is no zero reference frame to determine each one’s velocity. You can assume one is stationary and the other is moving, or that each is moving at any velocity that will produce the same result. Your velocity is only relative to another’s reference frame. All the mathematics modeling the event must therefore be equivalent, which means each person on each object must experience time passing at the same rate (i.e., if one were aging slower, then an outside observer could differentiate between the two bodies, absent any difference in forces, which should not be possible). Only when there is a force applied resulting in acceleration will there be a time dilation.

Jeff Yeates
October 16, 2019 4:33 am

“If our understanding of quantum theory and relativity is right, when the superposed trajectories meet, the quantum traveller will be in superposition of being older and younger than itself.”

“This would leave an unmistakeable signature in the results of the experiment, and that’s what we hope will be found when the experiment is realised in the future.”

What unmistakable quantum measurement can tell you the age difference between superposition particle(s)? The particle is probably a photon, is there a measurable decay?

DocSiders
Reply to  Jeff Yeates
October 16, 2019 6:08 am

Two different elapsed times for a photon traveling in 2 different superpositional paths infers 2 different velocities for a velocity that is a universal constant…so they should arrive “back home” at different times somehow. Presumably the photon will slam into the back end of itself creating a collision…followed by an argument.

But seriously, I wish they’d described the “Unmistakable” event.

Reply to  Jeff Yeates
October 16, 2019 10:46 am

Here’s the only way that I can think of for this experiment to be worked. Definitely not photons, either; they do not decay.

One of the proofs for time dilation involves particles that do decay (if I recall correctly, the reported one involved pi muons). The proof of dilation was that the particles at a high (relative) velocity had a much longer lifetime (for pi muons, that is about 26 nanoseconds “normally,” it would have been something like 100 nanoseconds for an extremely high velocity).

What I can envision is that if you have a superposition, you would see two different decays for the same particle. That would definitely be a signature.

Note, this is quantum physics, so it is statistics all the way down. What you would actually see is two peaks in the decay products – particles have a half-life. This also has to be done with particles that 1) have a charge, allowing acceleration; 2) a relatively short half-life; and 3) a low mass, allowing quick acceleration.

Oh, it would also be good to have a particle where the decay products are easily detected and quite distinctive. Otherwise, it would be rather hard to prove non-contamination by other things going on in your accelerator and/or target.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Jeff Yeates
October 16, 2019 7:14 pm

This could also be a test that separates QED and SED. They are fundamentally different but 100 years of experiments haven’t been able to say which is right:

QED-quantum electrodynamics- the Copenhagen Interpretation based – wave superposition

SED – Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) – an extension of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics – a pilot wave controls the movement a true particles.

SED doesn’t use superposition a single particle wouldn’t experience 2 different times.

Reply to  Greg Freemyer
October 16, 2019 8:25 pm

Nicely put. Now, while I lean towards SED being the more correct, I remember that a negative result from such an experiment may poke a largish hole in QED – it doesn’t necessarily prove SED correct.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Writing Observer
October 17, 2019 5:40 am

As I’m sure you know, no scientific theory can be proved correct.

But they can make testable conclusions that allows them to be proven wrong.

To me the proposed test seems very important, and if a billion dollar test facility is needed to run the test, it is worth the expense. But I don’t have the background to know how big a hole this test really could poke in QED.

BallBounces
October 16, 2019 4:35 am

I’m of two minds about this.

Stephen Rasey
Reply to  BallBounces
October 16, 2019 9:25 am

+1

Stevek
Reply to  BallBounces
October 16, 2019 2:39 pm

At one point I was both older and younger at the same time. It was during my mid life crisis.

Patrick MJD
October 16, 2019 5:02 am

We just went through daylight savings, maybe they, in Qld, are confused?

kivy10
October 16, 2019 5:58 am

Stationary is a relative term.

Coach Springer
October 16, 2019 6:02 am

Perhaps the term holy grail is not appropriate. I’ve seen it used on other phenomena.

Smart Rock
October 16, 2019 6:07 am

It was a long time ago, in my student days, that I read about the US Air Force and the two atomic clocks. It was front page news in the Manchester Guardian (climate change activism was far off in the future). I was intrigued by it all and I spent some time tinkering with the twin paradox, using Einstein’s own equations. I came up with the triplet paradox. This is what I recall.

One triplet stays at home, one triplet goes on an interstellar circuit and returns, and the third triplet goes on a similar interstellar loop, but in the opposite direction. The end result is that both of the traveling triplets are now younger than the stationary triplet by the same amount, but that each traveling triplet is younger than the other traveling triplet by a larger amount (I think it was 4 times their difference with the stationary triplet).

This was more or less the point where I decided that physics was not for me and I had better stick with geology.

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 16, 2019 11:03 am

You had a poor physics teacher. (Don’t worry, I did too, as actually most people did. It took a brain the size of Richard Feynman’s to straighten me out…)

It is not the relative speed, or the vector (which, combined, we call velocity). It is the acceleration that causes the difference. That, with the realization that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, is what led to the obvious conclusion that gravitation must cause the same effect. The effect is not detectable in common circumstances (for instance, if you make a trip to the store while the spouse stays home, you will age less than her, as you are accelerating away from home and also accelerating towards home).

However, there was a comment above about an observer on the ground and an observer in a geosynchronous orbit. Assuming the orbit is directly above the ground observer, the orbiting observer has a slower time rate – which is just barely detectable by comparing extremely precise clocks.

jtom
Reply to  Writing Observer
October 16, 2019 6:49 pm

Re your last paragraph: your observers are experiencing different angular acceleration.

Len Werner
October 16, 2019 6:31 am

What requires that the twins age at the same rate relative to a clock that travels with them?

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Len Werner
October 16, 2019 12:30 pm

The fact that both clock and twin are moving in the same frame of reference and not accelerating away from each other.

Len Werner
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 16, 2019 7:49 pm

Well–allowing that a geologist might have to bow to a rocket scientist on this one–I can still see that a biological entity might not have its aging process tied to the oscillations of the clock it carries. I have unfortunately discovered that I continued to age, for example, several times in life when my clock stopped.

As I learned of the paradox in university physics, which admittedly was in the 60’s, the theory was all tied to the difference in the clock speed. I’ve never been able to positively tie the aging rate of the astronaut to the clock speed; it was just assumed. And I’ve learned well before reaching 70 that ‘assumed’ made an ass of at least me a time or two.

Robert W Turner
October 16, 2019 7:15 am

How does a quantum potential keep time?

David
Reply to  Robert W Turner
October 16, 2019 7:59 am

Oscillations

Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2019 8:02 am

Interesting. So when time flies, it slows down.

TheLastDemocrat
October 16, 2019 8:16 am

Claiming the quantum particle is in two places at once requires sophisticated equipment and extensive theoretical understanding.

Or, just the declaration that it is in two places at once. They “know” where a quantum particle is by developing a set of probabilities of where it might be. So, they will somehow get two sets of probabilities of where it might be. With such wiggle room on the one side of the equation, I am sure they will find the results they expect to find on the other side of the equation.

Marty
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 16, 2019 8:47 am

Or instead of the quantum particle being in two places at once, the quantum particle is nowhere. It does not “exist” until it is measured. All that exists is a probability of where you will find the particle if you measure it. I don’t want to get too far out here (and these are not my ideas) but does the particle actually “exists” before a conscious observer makes a measurement?

Reply to  Marty
October 16, 2019 11:09 am

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears, did it really happen?

That is, of course, a rather mild expression of the hubristic philosophy that infects quantum physics. It was Walker that said the Universe as we know it did not exist until he and his colleagues imagined it.

That we do not have more institutionalized quantum physicists is amazing – especially when they hit the chicken and egg parts of the theory.

Marty
Reply to  Writing Observer
October 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Reply to  Marty
October 16, 2019 8:43 pm

I certainly do know what I am talking about. However, I apparently do not know what the hell my fingers are doing some of the time… John Wheeler, not Walker. Phaugh.

Quote (book Some Strangeness): “…acts of observer-participancy – via the mechanism of the delayed-choice experiement – in turn give tangible ‘reality’ to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.”

As for the chicken and egg paradox that this notion presents – there are only two ways out of it: absolute solipsism, or alternate worlds theory (as postulated by Hugh Everett). Neither one, of course, is at all testable.

Curious George
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
October 16, 2019 9:22 am

Never underestimate probabilities. You don’t need a set of probabilities, or even two sets; one probability is enough.

Jerry Gustafson
October 16, 2019 8:29 am

In the twin paradox one twin would have to accelerate relative to the other. As I understand it that is then the traveling twin that will age less.

Stevek
October 16, 2019 8:31 am

The time dilation can be explained by imagining a computer program is running the universe. The act of acceleration is to have computer program run that object on a faster thread relative to first object. The faster thread then does same amount of work in less time than the initial thread. If we then equate the work done by both to be the same, the only way this can happen is that the initial thread must have aged more.

Brian
October 16, 2019 8:35 am

Robert Heinlein wrote a kids book “Time for the stars” long ago that talked about this very supposition. I read it in Junior High school. I don’t know the science, never got past high school geometry, but I read everything I can get my hands on from sites like this one because I was a born skeptic. Especially from anyone wanting something from me.

Hoyt Clagwell
October 16, 2019 8:54 am

If it is accepted theory that time moves differently for different objects relative to gravity or velocity, then how is it possible to have an “accurate” clock at all?

jtom
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
October 16, 2019 6:41 pm

I have to believe they are referring to the measurement of time at a constant velocity (regardless of what that is), which should be the same in all such reference frames.

Serge Wright
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
October 16, 2019 11:05 pm

That’s a good comment.

Because time is relative it means that every clock will maintain a different time, albeit very slightly if they are all on earth. In short, there can be no reference time whatsoever aside from a single clock source being compared with other single clock sources elsewhere and if you think a bit more then time can be considered as imaginary from the perspective of a photon.

Olen
October 16, 2019 8:55 am

Always a need for better measurements. And better GPS.
Where in space is the stationary reference point from which time can be measured for everything else in the universe. Or does it matter?

ATheoK
October 16, 2019 9:20 am

““This creates a ‘twin paradox’, where one of a pair of twins departs on a fast-speed journey while the other stays behind.

“When the twins reunite, the travelling twin would be much younger, as different amounts of time have passed for each of them.”

Finally, the real reason the hoi polloi ignore their alleged beliefs in favor of international jet travel. It’s their age and appearances that takes priority.

Clay Sanborn
October 16, 2019 10:10 am

The perspective of God of the Bible should be considered by quantum physicists. As I understand it from the Bible, time has no constraint for Him at all. If you asked Jesus, “Do you exist at the beginning of time, the end of time, or somewhere in-between?”, His answer would be, “Yes”. He knows all outcomes regardless of time.

Christopher Paino
October 16, 2019 10:34 am

Is a particle in a superposition state really and truly in both positions simultaneously or is it switching so fast we can’t measure the fluctuations?

And if the clocks are only “relatively” running at different speeds, is time really moving differently for each?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Christopher Paino
October 16, 2019 3:43 pm

Christopher, my understanding is that it isn’t really that a particle is in both positions at once, it is simply that the act of observing the particle can affect its position, such that we cannot know the true position of a particle at any given moment. This led to Schroedinger’s famous cat thought experiment where he ridiculed the idea of a particle being in both positions at once by imagining a cat in a box with poison, and not being able to observe whether the cat had eaten the poison and died, or not eaten it and was alive, it would be ludicrous to pretend that the cat was both alive and dead simultaneously within the box before it was opened. Anyone please feel free to correct me if I’m remembering incorrectly.

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
October 16, 2019 7:45 pm

The paradox arises because you are comparing a “significant” object with a quantum particle. The cat can’t be alive and dead. The particle can be here AND there.

Here is a thought. If the cat is in the process of dying (its heart has just stopped) is it alive or dead? An intervention could revive it. Left alone it dies.

Karlsberg
October 16, 2019 11:27 am

Is Mr. Hyde only superposition of Dr. Jekyll?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Karlsberg
October 27, 2019 10:26 pm

“Karlsberg October 16, 2019 at 11:27 am

Is Mr. Hyde only superposition of Dr. Jekyll”.

There’s a daily Dr. Jekyll who at night gets Mr. Hyde.

Joel O'Bryan
October 16, 2019 11:30 am

Quantum entangled particles are “ageless” whilst they are in a superposition state.
“the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

First, what is time? And adult could tell a child, “time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.”
In that simple statement is a profound understanding.
Time (entropy increase) spreads those things out. If we didn’t have time, you would be born and die in the same instant.
From a thermodynamics standpoint, time is the irreversible increase in entropy due to the flows of energy.
Quantum entangled particles are in state of superposition because the information about their individual states is unknown, this is von Neumann entropy, and the particles have a joint entropy.
But when the quantum entanglement collapses (decoherence), and the quantum states resolved, information is exchanged, entropy increases.

And in this experimental “relativity” setup, one particle will be “younger” and the other “older.” This is essentially an outcome that quantum information within the universe is conserved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information#Quantum_information_theory

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 16, 2019 3:50 pm

“First, what is time?”
Time is an artificial frame of reference that describes the rate at which change occurs. No change, no time. Time does not exist unto itself in the same way width or depth does not exist alone, but only in reference to an object. An empty universe has no dimensions, or time.

EOM
October 16, 2019 12:18 pm

From what I calculate (on a cocktail napkin) we do not see time advance on a beam of light, since w/r to us, it is moving at the speed of light: IOW, an event we see now, 300,000 light years away, is occurring now. However, if we send a message to a planet 40 light minutes away, and it is returned as soon as it is received, such as light being split by a prism and focused back, 80 minutes will elapse, since that planet’s speed w/r us is very slow.

So, do we ever see an object moving toward a black hole actually enter it? Most objects would miss, with the closest ones being accelerated toward the speed of light as the balancing outward Coriolis acceleration approaches the speed of light and the decreasing tidal length, l, grinds the object out of existence, releasing both a weak force and a strong force normal to the object’s motion, in a high-energy beam normal to the plane of its orbit.

I hope I didn’t change the subject to the point of being insulting.

whiten
October 16, 2019 12:58 pm

In consideration of physics and quantum principia, Einstein happens to be the “father” of it all.
Where, Newton may happen to be the grandpa… 🙂

It is very bizarre and quite tormenting to seriously consider in the environment of science that the proposition of actually;

t=nt happens to be true. (where “t” the standard of time)

No way to directly identify or prove this condition, due and through observations or measurements,
of any kind, outside the means of Quantum modeling-experiments or Quantum modeling processes or Quantum working systems., where Quantum experimental modeling, or Quantum workable systems happen to be the only proposition for adjustment and correction to other experimental models there in science… or correction for other systems there in this latest technological evolution clause.

Regardless of anything else, the moment that instant communication, in the consideration of delta “t” in communication or signal synchronization considered as relatively zero (0) and achieved,
then the quantum process is to be considered as really engaged and true in propagation… still even when still then no a direct poof there… but still indisputably a”life”… and bizarrely productive… under the consideration.

The moment that instant communication, or instant signal synchronization achieved, the Quantum processes will have to be considered as real and true in engaging… regardless of all else there… and to be taken for granted.

That is weird and bizarre, but the moment it propagates as workable, it will happen to be accepted as normal and as a taken for granted… regardless of all else… the Quantum reality where:

t=nt will be taken for granted and indisputable, regardless of proper lack of explanation,,,
the very weirdness and tormenting of Universal condition… in science… where;

t=nt, got to be at some point really really seriously addressed.

Oh, well, again just saying… in the means of Q… 🙂

Ok, yes of course, this technically, may not make any sense at all, whatsoever, but just in the case of a free thought expression, put forward…

🙂

cheers

yarpos
October 16, 2019 2:56 pm

The biggest paradox for me was the idea of an Australian University doing something potentially useful. I kept waiting for the dogma driven punchline.

Teerhuis
October 16, 2019 3:58 pm

The experiment uses the proper times differences between the two branches of the matter wave. The phase of the quantum wave evolves with time, so there is a phase difference between the two branches which can be shown by interference.
I doubt this experiment’s determination of the quantum behavior of time will be fruitful. Remember:‘Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana’.

Mark Broderick
October 16, 2019 4:15 pm

CO2 Causes catastrophic time change ! : )

PaulH
October 16, 2019 6:24 pm

There’s that old joke about the man with one clock always knowing the time, but the man with more than one clock never knows the time. Now, if the two men in question were twins and one was traveling at relativistic speeds with his entangled clocks… Oops, my GPS just started beeping; time to go!

Greg Freemyer
October 16, 2019 7:15 pm

This could also be a test that separates QED and SED. They are fundamentally different but 100 years of experiments haven’t been able to say which is right:

QED-quantum electrodynamics- the Copenhagen Interpretation based – wave superposition

SED – Stochastic electrodynamics (SED) – an extension of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics – a pilot wave controls the movement a true particles.

SED doesn’t use superposition a single particle wouldn’t experience 2 different times.

October 16, 2019 9:55 pm

Oh, before I forget (I’m bad about such things) – THANK YOU, CTM! Paper went straight into the SF writing research folder.

shortus cynicus
October 17, 2019 3:44 am

Second Twin Paradox

Twin R goes into a rocket. Twin E stays on the Earth, then “starts the Earth”, make a long travel at near light speed.
Twin E and his space ship (Earth and a whole Universe except the rocket) goeas bact to twin R and “lands on the rocket”.

At that moment, twin E is younger than twin R.

whiten
Reply to  shortus cynicus
October 17, 2019 12:05 pm

shortus cynicus
October 17, 2019 at 3:44 am
==================
At that moment, twin E is younger than twin R.

—————

The above statement put as the end or the outcome result, can only be considered as possible under the quantum propagation being considered as possible,
as otherwise, in the consideration of linear random propagation not possible at all .

So, for all science and knowledge so far, outside the proposition of Quantum solution, your above statement is just non valid, or silly to contemplate at best.

The Twin paradox actually stands as a proposition in the means of Quantum, as outside it makes no sense.

In the consideration of the Twin paradox, the experiment is not even possible outside Quantum realm,
as it happens to be as impossible as one contemplating actually the possibility of traversing cosmic distances…
where the scale of all there makes even the speed of light to be considered as a very very very slow snail motion…
where without the possibility of instant communication or instant signal synchronization, that is simply impossible… as it stands!

I am sure this kinda of making no sense, but… whatever.

🙂

cheers

Johann Wundersamer
October 27, 2019 10:57 pm

Gravity is not fabricated by whatever instance.

It’s there where there’s mass:

Gravity is an attribute of mass.

Johann Wundersamer
October 27, 2019 11:01 pm

So everyone seeking for antigravity first has to collect antimatter.

Johann Wundersamer
October 27, 2019 11:08 pm
%d bloggers like this: