SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 09 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
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
Interpretations rather than theories: They must all be falsifyable to be accepted as science fact.