Slashdot Mirror


Quantum Experiment Confirms Causality Is Fuzzy (physicsworld.com)

"An experiment has confirmed that quantum mechanics allows events to occur with no definite causal order," reports an article shared by long-time Slashdot readers UpnAtom and jd. Researchers at the University of Queensland in Australia believe this could link Einstein's general theory of relativity to quantum mechanics, according to Physics World: In classical physics -- and everyday life -- there is a strict causal relationship between consecutive events. If a second event (B) happens after a first event (A), for example, then B cannot affect the outcome of A. This relationship, however, breaks down in quantum mechanics because the temporal spread of a particles's wave function can be greater than the separation in time between A and B. This means that the causal order of A and B cannot be always be distinguished by a quantum particle such as a photon.

In their experiment, Romero, Costa and colleagues created a "quantum switch", in which photons can take two paths. One path involves being subjected to operation A before operation B, while in the other path B occurs before A. The order in which the operations are performed is determined by the initial polarization of the photon as it enters the switch.... The team did the experiment using several different types of operation for A and B and in all cases they found that the measured polarization of the output photons was consistent with their being no definite causal order between when A and B was applied. Indeed, the measurements backed indefinite causal order to a whopping statistical significance of 18 -- well beyond the 5 threshold that is considered a discovery in physics.

Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.

19 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

    Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.

    If anything I'd say a big "Duck you" was in order for guaranteeing that no non-physicist will ever understand quantum physics ever again. ... But on the other hand, it might get me out of the dog house for getting drunk and breaking the living room table...

    1. Re:Really? by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Funny

      You got drunk because you were going to break the table.

    2. Re:Really? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.

      If anything I'd say a big "Duck you" was in order for guaranteeing that no non-physicist will ever understand quantum physics ever again. ... But on the other hand, it might get me out of the dog house for getting drunk and breaking the living room table...

      Non-physicists may not understand quantum mechanics, but they're in good company.

      I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Really? by balbeir · · Score: 3, Funny

      They will be broken and repaired at the same time.

    4. Re:Really? by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm terrible at even classical physics so please be gentle. But does this experiment show anything other than that if two events are sufficiently close to each other in time, an observer can't determine the order in which the events took place? From the experiment description, it sounds like A didn't actually cause B and B didn't cause A in their experiment. What they showed was that if A had caused B or B had caused A, we wouldn't be able to prove it without designing an experiment with greater time separation.

      In classical terms. You got drunk. You broke the table. The two events were simultaneous. We can't know if the events were related or how. Maybe you're always stinking drunk by noon and the table got broken when you tried t swat a fly with your wine bottle.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, they absolutely know the order of events. And the order of events dictates a certain outcome.

      But if they place the events close enough together, suddenly the outcome is no longer tied to the correct order of events. In other words, sometimes it looks like they happened in the opposite order, even though that is temporally impossible.

  2. Unpaywalled version by N7DR · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Why do we always assume that time moves forward? by DalM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been thinking about time lately. Why do we assume we only move forward in time? We move forward and backward in all the other dimensions, why assume we aren't oscillating back and forth in time? What difference would that make if we were? How would we know?

    Consider the double slit experiment. Everyone reading this by now knows that if you send a single photon through a double slit it refracts as a wave until it hits the screen, then the "waveform" collapses and becomes a single point of light. Now imagine that quantum particle moving forward a ways, then moving backward a ways, vibrating back-and-forth in time. Each time it vibrates backward it interacts with itself as it's waveform briefly overlap it past self at the edges. This would cause it to refract against itself through the double slit. Then, once it's finally made it to the screen it appears to the observer as a single photon.

  4. Makes perfect sense to me... by irving47 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was confused with the description of the results of this experiment before they even did it.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  5. haiku by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quantum mechanics
    The order does not matter
    until classical

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  6. Re:Immortal. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

    "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With Time Lords a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - BBC

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  7. Re:seems specious by sjames · · Score: 2

    As I understand it

    Found the problem.

    If you want to dispute the results, you need to either find a flaw in their experiment or analysis, or perform your own experiment that reaffirms causality. Just saying Nuh-uh doesn't do it.

  8. Re:Why do we always assume that time moves forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look up time reversibility and you'll see that it's not that this hasn't been considered (because math would tend to presume you can negative change in time). It notes that at the quantum level "the weak nuclear force is not invariant under T-symmetry alone; if weak interactions are present reversible dynamics are still possible, but only if the operator also reverses the signs of all the charges and the parity of the spatial co-ordinates (C-symmetry and P-symmetry)."

    It's one reason some physicists have argued that perhaps anti-particles are merely their like particles going backwards through time and hence exhibiting reverse charge/spacial parity. Waves though are inherently time reversible. But particle-wave duality has everything as a wave, so that's something of an incongruence. There's also the small wiggle that a photon is its own anti-particle, so it if were to simple reverse in time randomly it'd self-annihilate.

    My limited understanding of physics is that things like photons don't do that because anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't experience time/change, so the only way it could change directions is if the path it traveled on changed. Everything else that has mass is constantly changing and its those changes that derive its mass (warpage of space) and whatever charge it has. If it were to repeatedly move back/forward through time, then it would repeatedly engage in this conversions and we'd see gravity/charge ripples a lot more frequently than we do or there'd be more to it--the force of each ripple would be smaller (so the total observed would add up to the same) and movement speed would have an inverse effect on the charge (presuming that faster particles don't move more back/forward in time their charge smaller charge would be spread out over a wider area). That's not what observation/math currently shows.

    Basically, any idea you come up with has to line up with the math/observations we already have while you introduce new math and/or observations with either the former leading to the latter or the latter requiring the former because the current math doesn't work. As much as we don't comprehend quantum mechanics, we do have math and observation that match and we're not seeing observations that inherently fail the math. This experiment, AFAIK, is really separate because causality is much more a presumption based on the math we have (ie, it's a convenient axiom to describe things). Now, if you could use this experiment to disprove the current math, that'd be interesting/useful (show that if you throw away the axiom and use some new axioms that match this experiment, the math fails).

  9. Determinism & Transistors by mentil · · Score: 2

    The implications to Determinism should be interesting; it could either put a huge hole in the concept, OR provide an explanation for the 'uncaused causer' aside from the traditional solution of 'God did it'.

    Moreover, I'm REALLY wondering why this effect was never previously noticed in transistor logic; it should apply to electron signals, not just photon polarity. I wonder if it could be utilized for some kind of quantum-scale out-of-order execution.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  10. Thiotimoline by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

    So maybe we really can have thiotimoline after all?

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  11. Quantum Fuzziness is required for continuity by Nivag064 · · Score: 2

    As far as I can tell: the apparent continuity of Space & Time requires Quantum Fuzziness, otherwise there would be no continuity -- as there would be no connection between Past & Future, nor between anything separated in Space.

    Without this fuzziness, even elementary particles like quarks could not hold themselves together, how else could one part of a quark stay in connection with the other parts?

    Remember that Einstein taught us that Space & Time are commingled -- events that appear simultaneous will not be so to an second observer that is moving wrt to the first.

    Space & Time Fuzziness allows us to control our feet, as our heads are experiencing time at a faster rate than our feet (General Relativity shows that things deeper in a gravitational field will experience time running slower). Note that if you live to be a hundred, the cumulative difference will be less than one microsecond!

    Also Relativity shows why things moving art different speeds experience Time at different rates.

    So even parts of the same quark will experience Time differently. Again this fuzziness is required to hold it together - albeit, fuzzily!

    This Quantum Fuzziness is consistent with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

    "Nothing" exists at a point in Space & Time. A bullet does not exist at a single point in Space. If you fire a rifle and the bullet hits armour, the front of the bullet stops while the back of it keeps moving for a while -- partly because a bullet is not perfectly rigid (this the most noticeable effect), and partly because it takes time for the back of the bullet to notice the front part has stopped (Relativity again). Without Space & Time Fuzziness, how would the back of the bullet 'find out' that the the front part has stopped?

  12. Re:Why do we always assume that time moves forward by DalM · · Score: 2

    Graduate assistant: "Sir, but if we do this, wouldn't it end the universe as we know it?"
    Professor: "That's called science, girl. Now, do you want me to sign off on your thesis defense or not. Throw the switch!"

  13. T violation and Zitterbewegung by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why do we assume we only move forward in time? We move forward and backward in all the other dimensions, why assume we aren't oscillating back and forth in time? What difference would that make if we were? How would we know?

    Physics is not invariant under time reversal and we can unambiguously determine if time were suddenly reversed. Note that this is not related to entropy e.g. a shattered plate would not leap off the floor and reassemble itself if time were reversed this is far more fundamental than that.

    Oscillations of kaon and B mesons have been shown to violate time-reversal symmetry so, if the "direction" of time were suddenly reversed we would know this because these oscillations would have the opposite bias.

    There is a relativistic quantum behaviour similar to what you describe - called zitterbewegung - but only in space. Essentially electrons can be shown to hypothetically be travelling back and forth at the speed of light but direction biased so that the net movement is in the classical electron's direction at the classical speed.

  14. Re:Why do we always assume that time moves forward by twosat · · Score: 2

    Your post reminds me of this Youtube video I came across recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...