Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday July 08 2017, @07:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-future-was-yesterday dept.

Biochemist Dr. Isaac Asimov was joking, of course, when he came up with the substance (it came up in his orals for his doctorate, and it terrified him), but some theoretical physicists have suggested that something similar to Asimov's fictional chemical actually exists at the quantum level.

Phys Org reports that "Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past."

(Phys.org)—Although there are many counterintuitive ideas in quantum theory, the idea that influences can travel backwards in time (from the future to the past) is generally not one of them. However, recently some physicists have been looking into this idea, called "retrocausality," because it can potentially resolve some long-standing puzzles in quantum physics. In particular, if retrocausality is allowed, then the famous Bell tests can be interpreted as evidence for retrocausality and not for action-at-a-distance—a result that Einstein and others skeptical of that "spooky" property may have appreciated.

It's a long and informative article that I found fascinating.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Saturday July 08 2017, @08:44AM (9 children)

    by pvanhoof (4638) on Saturday July 08 2017, @08:44AM (#536475) Homepage

    In the article I found "The physicists don't have any experiments lined up to test retrocausality—but as the idea is more an interpretation of observations rather than making new observations, what's needed most may not be a test but more theoretical support."

    To be accepted as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable—that is, it must be possible, at least in principle, to empirically disprove it.

    k, thanks. Next please.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday July 08 2017, @10:33AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Saturday July 08 2017, @10:33AM (#536488) Journal

    Not with today's science: today, you just say: "It's dark energy....NO, dark MATTER!...... NOOOO!!! Dark chocolate! Yeah, dark chocolate!!"

    You don't need to use real science these days.

    "It's chocolate rain. That explains it all. Just add 43.5 chocolate rains and Bob's your uncle."

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:55PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:55PM (#536509)

    And, isn't this coming down to semantics, anyway?

    Whether something is retrocausality or action at a distance would seem to just be two ways of explaining the same phenomenon.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday July 08 2017, @06:47PM (6 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @06:47PM (#536603) Journal

    The problem is when several explanations (in English) match all the available data, and there's no obvious way to create an experiment to distinguish between the "different" explanations, which one you choose is a matter of taste, not science. But it *may* be reasonable to ask whether the English sentences which appear to be saying quite different things are actually saying the same thing.

    E.g.: Is there a difference between the EWG multi-world interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory? They sure sound different in English, but just TRY to come up with an experiment to differentiate between them. So perhaps the problem is the way we think about what's actually out there. Perhaps. But realize that Solipsism is also consistent with quantum theory...and that seems silly. So is super-pre-determinism. And nobody has been able to design an experiment to differentiate between them.

    Personally I like the multi-world interpretation. The math is interpreted in a more straightforward manner. But I acknowledge that it's a matter of taste. And retrocausality is another theory that is equally expressive (unlike Solipsism) and also consistent.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Sunday July 09 2017, @01:13PM (5 children)

      by pvanhoof (4638) on Sunday July 09 2017, @01:13PM (#536815) Homepage

      Just like Solipsism can be rejected as a scientific fact using Karl Popper's requirement of it being falsifiable is, to me, retrocausality subject to the same principles. I can accept them as soon as they are falsifiable, but not earlier. In contrast was general relativity and special relativity at the time probably equally non-intuitive, but those two are both falsifiable.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday July 09 2017, @02:33PM (2 children)

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Sunday July 09 2017, @02:33PM (#536833) Homepage Journal

        What in Einstein's theory was falsifiable in 1914? Brand new exotic theories are seldom falsifiable until the technologies to test those theories are available. For example, it was over a century before gravity waves could be confirmed.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:01PM

          by pvanhoof (4638) on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:01PM (#536904) Homepage

          Yes, I don't think we shouldn't try to falsify retrocausality. But absent a method to do so ...

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 10 2017, @04:26AM

          by dry (223) on Monday July 10 2017, @04:26AM (#537027) Journal

          Mercury's orbit was one of the first tests. Newtons laws never quite worked with predicting Mercury's orbit but Einsteins did. Wasn't long before gravitational bending of light (a star during an eclipse) was observed.
           

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:44PM (#536866) Journal

        When you have several different theories that make exactly the same predictions in every place you can test, how do you choose between them? Retrocausality (IIUC) is one of the legitimate interpretations of quantum theory. As is the Multi-World interpretation. As is the Copenhagen interpretation. I believe there are a couple more. They all make exactly the same predictions in every testable area. This doesn't mean you can just chose any theory you like, but it does mean that there's more than one reasonable alternative...unless, English (and I *think* all other human languages) to the contrary they are actually saying the same thing. Bohm's implicate order isn't actually one of the group, because he does make a claim that may someday be testable. It's just currently indistinguishable. (He claims that there are hidden variables of a non-local variety...but it's not clear how to find them.) Most of the interpretations, however, don't have any prediction that distinguishes them. That's why they are called interpretations rather than theories: They all use the same math.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:17PM

          by pvanhoof (4638) on Sunday July 09 2017, @08:17PM (#536911) Homepage

          Interpretations rather than theories: They must all be falsifyable to be accepted as science fact.