Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist At the Same Time

sciencehabit writes "Physicists have long known that quantum mechanics allows for a subtle connection between quantum particles called entanglement, in which measuring one particle can instantly set the otherwise uncertain condition, or 'state,' of another particle—even if it's light years away. Now, experimenters in Israel have shown that they can entangle two photons that don't even exist at the same time. Anton Zeilinger, a physicist at the University of Vienna, says that the experiment demonstrates just how slippery the concepts of quantum mechanics are. 'It's really neat because it shows more or less that quantum events are outside our everyday notions of space and time.'"

52 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Photon model broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'It's really neat because it shows more or less that quantum events are outside our everyday notions of space and time.'"

    No, not really. You're simply see the macro effects of partial photons interacting, and unwilling to give up the idea of the discrete photon.

    If all you can see (and measure) is a photons promotion and demotion of electrons, you an only see the fast shift of the big circles jumping around in this picture, not the slower smaller drift that is happening.
    http://i.imgur.com/AUXb2N9.gif

    Give up your photon model, it's based on a faulty understanding.

    1. Re:Photon model broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, so quantization of energy is wrong then? If you can have "fractional photons", then the Rayleigh-Jeans formula is completely correct. Never mind that it predicts that all blackbodies should be emitting radiation with infinite power.

    2. Re:Photon model broken by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world is made of 4 basic elements, earth, air, fire, water.... No, scratch that, there are a bunch of elemental stuffs, the most holy of which is quicksilver, the universal element... Wait, no, there are over a hundred chemicals with different properties. Ah, look, see, there are atoms, you know, and inside these atoms you have electrons, protons, and neutrons -- See, that's what gives the atoms their properites -- And, wait, the sub atomic particles are made of Quarks, and -- No, there's a zoo of particles, and fields and they all interact in these little quantized packets / waves, Quantum Physics -- No, wait the quanta.......

      The rabbit hole is very deep indeed. Better tools show us finer structure. I agree. It would be exceedingly arrogant and foolish to think of light as "photons". We have only approximations, and they are always a bit wrong.

    3. Re:Photon model broken by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      Well, I tend to think of quantum mechanics as proving the universe functions on call-by-need, with faster than light being the lack of support for mutation. Entangling then is really just call-by-need evaluating out a circumstance backwards far enough to note that when two waves/particles/whatever were at the same place, they had to have certain exclusionary properties (for the article, one photon was polarized vertically and the other horizontally) which cause the interpretation of entanglement.

      Of course, all of the above says nothing of the how or why of it. And no doubt, I'm likely far off in really understanding on quantum mechanics. But, it at least helps me better understand it.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    4. Re:Photon model broken by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Informative

      The world is made of 4 basic elements, earth, air, fire, water...

      Today, we call them "solid", "gas", "plasma", and "liquid" respectively.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    5. Re:Photon model broken by tonywestonuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believed as you did. Then I read this http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html - Its like Quantum physics , without the maths, and for the it literate.

      Changed my ideas on what QM was all about.

      Go read it. Seriously.

    6. Re:Photon model broken by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 5, Funny

      And Leeloo.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    7. Re:Photon model broken by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

      Entangled Object Oriented language? Certainly you'd need parameter overloading.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Photon model broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Multipass!

  2. Re:Wait for the retraction by socceroos · · Score: 2

    The problem with quantum mechanics is that we suck at measurement. This really does put a spanner in the general workings of testing scientific theory.

  3. Science by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.

    Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Science by Nyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...

      Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

      I'm sure some of the various religions will be glad to join your thinking (if they aren't already there).

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Science by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.

      Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

      That's what you said last time. Look what it got us? We're back to quantum physics AND we have nuclear weapons. Are you really ready to risk Universe hopping again?

    3. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;
      God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.
      It could not last; the Devil shouting "Ho!
      Let Heisenberg be!" restored the status quo.

    4. Re:Science by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The latest Scientific American has an article about a newish bayesianized quantum theory. To the limited extent that I understand it, the wave function is just the bayesian priors - what you think before you collect the evidence. The only thing that collapses when you measure something is your ignorance about the state of the universe.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Science by fightinfilipino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

      the Republican Party? large swaths of the American Bible Belt? Scientologists? Liberal Arts majors? Michio Kaku?

    6. Re:Science by jamesh · · Score: 2

      At some point, science just got too weird. We had this nice model of the universe with atoms, some laws of motion and thermodynamics. The universe was basically a giant billiards match. It made sense. It was easy to explain. Then we get into quantum mechanics and everything is crap shoot. Multiple universes. Particles that behave differently when being observed. Spooky action at a distance.

      Douglas Adams had some very wise words on this subject, the implied conclusion being that scientists studying the universe are making it more complicated.

      Let's all pretend the last 80+ years of science didn't happen and we live under Newton's ideas of how everything behaved. Who's in?

      Maybe you could go all the way back to when the universe began, 6000 years ago? But don't look back or you might get turned into a pillar of salt or something like that.

    7. Re:Science by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let Heisenberg maybe!" restored the status quo.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Science by gagol · · Score: 2

      Aren't most of them stuck at this flat earth thing and trying to convince the rest of the town their flat earth theory is the only one worth worshipping?

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  4. "doesn't exist" by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey guys, Einstein just called me using GravePhone(tm) and he had the following to say:

    "Okay, maybe God does play dice, but I still stand by the law of conservation. God doesn't just make shit up. Now if you'll excuse me, Aristotle wants some one on one on the basketball court."

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:"doesn't exist" by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Pfffft. Aristotle made up stuff while "thinking" about the world. This is not science.

      This is an extremely childish and anachronistic viewpoint. Newton entertained many unscientific notions alongside those which bore fruit; the scientific method was an invention of his generation. We owe an incalculable amount of our understanding of the universe to philosophy, and selective ignorance of history changes nothing.

      Above all else, the classical scholars gave the Renaissance scientists an intellectual authority with which to question the world; it is absolutely absurd to suggest they were ignored. Aristotle's impact went much further than the details of his assumptions about physical motion.

      More to the point, however, they would still be much better basketball players.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:"doesn't exist" by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      More to the point, however, they would still be much better basketball players.

      You guys really over-thought this. I picked Aristotle because he's a famous scientist. No other reason.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:Wait for the retraction by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The same forces that are moving the sun through space are also acting on the earth itself. So, no.

  6. Getting so tired of this "instantaneous" BS by quax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Special Relativity makes quite clear that if two particles are spacelike separated when measured, that the concept of "instantaneous" is devoid of meaning.

    If you have this kind of distance than you will have just one special reference frame where this is true, and infinite more where the events are arbitrarily separated in time. This is already at the core of the EPR paradox.

    I.e. that you can have entanglement across time follows trivially from SR and the EPR paradox.

    It's just astounding how many times the very same insight can get repackaged and sold as new.

    1. Re:Getting so tired of this "instantaneous" BS by avgjoe62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's just astounding how many times the very same insight can get repackaged and sold as new.

      And that my son is why you will never work for the patent office.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    2. Re:Getting so tired of this "instantaneous" BS by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a common misconception that QM as a theory of the microcosm is somehow more general and accurate than SR. Yet, the derivation of SR does not even require the constance of light speed (although that's the route that Einstein oribinally followed), but can be derived from very obvious first principles.

      And this is a key difference to QM where this still hasn't been accomplished (despite the theory being such a fantastic empirical success story). Of course as far as empirical evidence goes SR also has a spotless record (which is why the CERN faster than light brewhaha was pretty much a forgone conclusion).

      .

       

  7. Observation vs model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I had a machine, and it could only see the large circles, then all I would see is the large circles.
    If I then made a model of how the large circles appear and disappear, that model would be correct, it would fit the data, it would show the probability of the circles appearing as they jump around. Those circles will jump, they'll go backwards in time, they'll do kinds of weird things.
    So my equations all work, and my model of jumping circles works, ergo my model is correct?

    Except it isn't, its a function of the limitations of the machine used to observe the underlying effect.

    "then the Rayleigh-Jeans formula is completely correct. Never mind that it predicts that all blackbodies should be emitting radiation with infinite power"
    So how fast is light really traveling in this crazy new world?

  8. Re:Wait for the retraction by quax · · Score: 5, Informative

    We already knew that.

    Whatever "we" you mean count me out.

    According to GR gravity is facilitated via a retarded potential, and of course GR survived so far every conceivable test and has been shown to make correct predictions were Newtonian gravity failed.

    So no, gravity does not operate faster than light.

  9. Re:Wait for the retraction by Gogogoch · · Score: 2

    Rubbish. Gravity is not FTL, and your argument is BS.

  10. Here's another theory for you by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

    Some time ago I gave some thought to the apparent anomalies and strangeness of the quantum world.

    Here's what I came up with as a theory It's all about time

    Comments would be welcomed from all the (real and wannabe) quantum physicists out there.

    1. Re:Here's another theory for you by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that to be accepted in an area of science that's basically nothing more than a consequence of the maths, you have to show the maths that generate the results you expect.

      I'm a mathematician. I don't claim to understand 1% of 1% of quantum mechanics at all. But it comes from a mathematical model that happens to have real-world consequences that are weird and wonderful. When we then tested for those consequences, we found out that they exist in nature. Which, to a scientist mind, kind of hints that the maths must have been at least somewhat correct (or at least on the right lines).

      I have my own understanding and theories, but I would also have to state, quite clearly, that quantum physics isn't really "physics". This isn't Newton seeing an apple fall and realising there's a force at play. This is someone (probably THE most famous genius) sitting down for decades with almost unsolvable equations that make absolutely no sense until they realise that it works if you have 11 dimensions, or if space and time are two different elements of the same thing, etc. And that was back in the 1900's when quite a lot of physics and maths we enjoy now didn't even exist.

      Then you go out and measure in real life and you find that, actually, it turns out that your theory fits what happens in the world, not the other way around.

      As such, I don't for a second think that I can just posit a hypothesis (theory is a slightly stronger word in any science) and have any concept of if I'm talking gibberish or not. The maths of quantum mechanics is horrendous and complicated and quantum theorists spend more time in front of the blackboard than they do the LHC.

      If you wish to contribute, even if you don't intend to be taken seriously, it's only proper to get yourself a decent grounding in not just "hey, there's something smaller than an electron and weird stuff starts to happen at that scale, I bet I can guess what else happens", but in WHY that's so and HOW we got to that point. And in anything quantum, that means understanding the maths behind it.

      As someone with a degree in maths, I tell you now, you're going to need a decent grounding in quite a lot of basic physics and huge amounts of maths and that "real world intuition" will basically be next-to-useless until the very end. That's not to mention the level of things like calculus and linear algebra you'd need to even get close to learning how we got to all of the old "wrong" models, let alone the newer ones.

      This doesn't mean that wild ideas and theories have no merit, it's just that you're theorising about something that you probably don't understand the basics of. I know I don't. And I *can* read the mathematics and, given enough time, understand it.

      It just comes across to any mathematician or physicist as someone who is looking at a car for the first time and saying "You know, I bet if you made the whole thing ten times bigger, it would go even faster" or "If it goes that fast with four wheels, imagine what it'll do with 10!".

      In a way it reminds me of the Moon conspiracy theorists. They can come up with a million weird and wonderful things that intuition says "must be wrong". But it turns out that a few simple tests or bits of maths show them to all be nonsense. "The shadows are wrong" - fine, go out into the street on a sunny day and try hard to replicate them. If someone can replicate something that's "wrong" in the space of ten minutes, then maybe you are reading far too much into the image, or commenting on something you just don't understand.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

      Seriously, just on that page there are some 16 equations, and that's not even a millionth of what you need to understand where those equations come from.

      Honestly, I DON'T understand quantum mechanics at all. I believe it, because it's accepted as the best self-consistent theory we have that has made verif

  11. The summary makes a bigger deal of this than it is by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 4, Informative

    When you read the article, this isn't actually too controversial. All that's being done is changing the timing of of when the measurements are taken and when the intermediate photons become entangled. It's really just using the entanglement process to spread out the time over which the quantum state data is transmitted. You basically have a quantum data historical record.

    I can certainly see this opening up useful new capabilities in quantum computing and measurement of quantum phenomena, but it doesn't change our understanding of quantum events and how they interact with our "everyday notions of space and time.".

  12. No Science, No Porn by ikaruga · · Score: 2

    Without quantum physics the cameras, fast CPU, GPUs and high speed communications that help me cope with my solitude at night wouldn't exist. Count me out brah.

  13. Re:Wait for the retraction by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, this. What the AC may be confused about is that faster than light travel is (as far as we know) not possible in space, but the distance between two points can increase faster than light could travel because there's nothing stopping space itself from expanding that fast.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  14. Re:Wait for the retraction by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    Lorentz transformations only cover special relativity. In general relativity, you can indeed have the distance between two points grow faster than light. Of course not if the points are at the same place.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  15. Star Trek era looming by multatuli · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes! Subspace communications!

  16. Before and after by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Question: Within the context of quantum mechanic, what is the behavior of TIME ?

    What I read from TFA is that they observe a certain particle at the before time frame, and then compare it with another particle at the after time frame, and found some "entanglement"

    What if the experiment is carried out on the reverse --- someone checking out a particle at the after time frame and then, some others compare it with another particle at the before time frame and see if they entangle or not

    I do understand that experiment that I have just described can't not happen with the limited technology that we have, for the after can not happen _before_ the before

    That's why I am falling back to my original question --- what is the behavior of TIME within the context of quantum mechanic ?

    Can an "after" happen _before_ a "before" ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Before and after by Skapare · · Score: 2

      But what if someone later decides to NOT do the after step, even though the before step has already happened and its answer is in the sealed envelope?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Before and after by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Funny

      But what if someone later decides to NOT do the after step, even though the before step has already happened and its answer is in the sealed envelope?

      That's when you let the cat out of the box!

    3. Re:Before and after by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Funny

      QM is not so hard, once a person realizes that quantum mechanics is all about semantics and has nothing to do with physics.

      For instance, the difficulty in understanding this quantum entanglement of photons separated by time collapses into meaninglessness as soon as one accepts that "time" is an attribute of "observation" and has nothing to do with reality (whatever that might be).

      As soon as you get past the desire to structure your memories in a simplistic linear fashion, you will realize that was zen, this is tao.

      [Did author of this post intend to convey any kind of meaning to the reader? That doesn't matter--- what matters is whether the reader extracts any kind of meaning from the words of the author. Confused? Good. To be other than confused in this universe is to deny the reality of what you observe.]

      --
      Will
    4. Re:Before and after by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

      Can an "after" happen _before_ a "before" ?

      As far as we can tell, yes. This is known as retrocausality, and experiments have been done that it's at least plausible to interpret as having observed it.

      This is a very thorny subject because we have so many biases about how the universe "ought to" be, and it's hard to even talk about the subject, much less interpret an experiment, without bringing in all those biases. But I'll describe the interpretation that I find the cleanest, simplest, and most appealing. Other people have other views.

      First, you need to let go of your presentist way of thinking about time ("only this moment exists") and accept an eternalist, block-universe viewpoint: space-time is a continuum that all exists "at once", and what you call "the present" is merely an arbitrary slice through it. The arrow of time is likewise arbitrary: the future affects the past in precisely the same way that the past affects the future, and information propagates in both directions according to exactly the same equations.

      Once you accept that, all the strange features of quantum mechanics disappear. Entanglement is an illusion created by ignoring the information flowing in one direction. The collapse of the wavefunction isn't a change to the thing you're measuring, just a change in what you know about it. The uncertainty principle is just a limit on how much you can learn by doing an experiment.

      If you want to learn more about this subject, this article is a good place to start.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    5. Re:Before and after by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

      This is basically correct. Most people state the 2nd law of thermodynamics backwards. There isn't any fundamental law of nature that causes entropy to increase with time. Rather, we define "forward in time" to mean, "the direction of increasing entropy." In our local region of spacetime, that translates to, "away from the big bang."

      What's surprising is how few physicists really understand this. None of my textbooks ever described it that way. Yet Boltzmann understood this perfectly well in the 19th century, and described the situation very clearly.

      If you're interested in learning more, a good book on the subject is From Eternity to Here by Sean Carrol. The author has also given a couple of TED talks on the subject.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  17. How can they tell if 1 and 4 do not coexist? by master_p · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the article, particles 1 and 4 do not coexist. Therefore, one must be destroyed before the other is created.

    But if 1 is destroyed before 4 is created, then the entanglement of 1 and 2 is broken before 3 and 4 are created (because 3 and 4 are created together, and then 2 and 3 are entangled).

    So, by the time 2 and 3 are entangled, 1 does not exist, because 3 already exists and is entangled with 4.

    The question that arises is then how do they know that 1 and 4 are entangled?

    It could simply be that 1 and 4 show the same state when measured, because 1 and 2 were entangled, then 3 and 4, then 2 and 3. Which means that whatever entanglement existed between 1 and 2 will exist between 1 and 3 and 1 and 4, even if 1 does not exist.

    That does not mean particles are entangled across time. It may mean that entaglement is simply peristent and transmiitable.

    Most probably there is a misunderstanding somewhere between the announcement and the article, so please anyone that knows more, elaborate.

  18. Re:Wait for the retraction by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done.
    Robert A. Heinlein

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  19. Trying to find a way home. by senorpoco · · Score: 3, Funny

    They could only be connected to other particles that existed in their lifetime and then they would have to perform a good deed before being able to connect to a different particle. Oh boy

  20. Re:Wait for the retraction by Cenan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dark energy - a term coined to hide the fact that "we don't know". Dark energy seems to be accelerating the expansion after a period of deceleration, this is baffling but fits observational results. The theory is that gravity used to slow the expansion down, but apparently we passed a cut-off point where space has become stretched enough so that gravity is too weak - another force is taking over and stretching space again. A force with no obvious cause, not to us at least.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  21. Re:Wait for the retraction by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Entanglement can be used to exchange keys for secret communication. It allows two parties to create a shared key without anyone being able to intercept it. In principle, this key can be as long as the message itself and perfectly random, so a simple 'xor' operation is all it takes to make the message completely undecryptable. In more detail:

    Alice wants to send a secret message to Bob.
    They (or anybody else, really) create a bunch of entangled photons, half going to Alice and the entangled counterparts going to Bob. This all happens at normal speeds (not faster than light), but can be prepared in advance.
    If anyone tries to eavesdrop during transmission of the entangled photons, Alice and Bob are able to detect the fact that the photons are no longer in a superimposed state and start over with a new bunch.
    Now Alice and Bob measure the photons. They have no control over the outcome of the measurements, which will be completely random, but they do know that they will both get the same result (or rather, exactly the opposite result). This becomes their cryptographic key.
    Now Alice encrypts her message with this key and sends it to Bob using traditional communication channels, for example a carrier pidgeon.
    Bob uses his identical key to decrypt the message.

    The only faster-than-light part of the story is that the entangled photons "chose" their state at the time of the measurement. Before the measurement, they were in a superimposed state. This means the information for the key didn't even exist yet in any way and can therefore never be intercepted by anyone. It only came into existence at the time the photons were measured, simultaneously for Alice and Bob. (Take the word "simultaneously" with a grain of salt, because as the article shows, they can even be separated in time). And the encrypted message without the key is just a series of random bits.

  22. Re:I can has closed time loops? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    keep sending 0's to the end of time... HA! I have you now moose and squirrel!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. Re:Wait for the retraction by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Space itself can expand at much greater velocities than c.

    To explain this in a little more depth, what we call "space" is really just tied to an arbitrary choice of space-time coordinates. If we choose a different reference frame, distances and times will be different. Just to give a silly example, if I define a meter to be the width of an atom, or if I define a second to be the time required for the earth to go around the sun a thousand times, I can easily travel faster than c. So how does this apply to cosmology and general relativity?

    Depending on the coordinate system you choose, the universe can really look radically different, even to the point of no longer being infinite. I will give two possible views, both equally valid even thought the first may appear strange. (So read the rest as well before labeling it as rubbish).

    You can apply a classic "special(ly?) relativistic" coordinate system to the universe, with us at the center. The speed of light is the same everywhere, relative to us, just like Einstein said in the beginning. Things that are far away from us are moving away at high speed (but less than the speed of light) and are therefore aging more slowly. This means that some far away galaxy isn't just younger (defined as the amount of local evolution after the big bang) because we had to wait for its light to get to our telescope, it actually is younger "right now" even if we take the traveling time of light into account. Local clocks are really advancing more slowly. The effect increases with increasing distance, and at a distance of c times the age of the universe, the big bang is happening as we speak. Right now. This also means that the universe is finite (assuming nothing existed before the big bang, which is a big assumption). Not that it matters much, because we could never reach this "edge" anyway. It is retreating at the speed of light.

    This model is quite interesting but a bit cumbersome for cosmology, so most people prefer to use the "cosmological model". They simply adjust the coordinates of time and space so that the whole universe is the same age and looks roughly the same everywhere, "right now". See, we just changed the definition of "now" and chose a coherently matching set of space coordinates so everything looks rougly the same size, that's all we did. In General Relativity, we are completely free to do so, you can pick pretty much any coordinate system you like. Things can move from the future into the past and back again as we change our variables, without impacting causality (which is all that matters).

    Using the cosmological model, the universe is now truly infinite, the big bang is in the distant past everywhere and all the clocks are running at the same speed (as long as they are stationary relative to "space", i.e. moving away from us at the same speed as the average local galaxy). Now, however, the assumptions of special relativity no longer hold. In particular, the speed of light is no longer the same everywhere. Light speed is still the same everywhere locally, relative to "space" (the speed of the average galaxy in that area), but you have to take the properties of our peculiar coordinate system ("expanding space") into account. If at some distance, "space" and the objects in it are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, the light from those galaxies will never reach us since it will actually be retreating as if it were running towards us on a conveyor belt moving the other way at a higher speed. The conveyor belt isn't "real", it's just an artifact of our choice of coordinates which does not comply with special relativity.

    In the first model, those distant galaxies simply never come into existence since the local "space" is asymptotically stuck at a time shortly after the big bang. Things over there are moving away from us at increasing velocity approaching c, and time (rate of aging of that part of the universe) is grinding to a halt.

    But do those places exist or not?

  24. Re:Wait for the retraction by Bengie · · Score: 2

    Space near a blackhole can be distorted in a way that causes the space to move faster than c, keeping light from escaping. This can cause light to move backwards relative to an object. Relative to the space that the photon is in, it is still moving forward at c.

  25. Re:Wait for the retraction by khallow · · Score: 2

    It's worth noting here that neither point need actually move (or they could be moving towards each other a significant portion of the speed of light). It's the space in between which is growing longer.

  26. Re:Wait for the retraction by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dark energy - a term coined to hide the fact that "we don't know".

    It's not a term to hide the fact that "we don't know", it's a term to punctuate that "we don't know". If we were really trying to hide stuff, we'd define it as stuff we already know about rather that come up with a new term (like the MOND guys are doing with dark matter).