31–40 of 82 posts
I am I crazy or do Feynman diagrams not explicitly show interactions of particles moving back in time?
I am I crazy or do Feynman diagrams not explicitly show interactions of particles moving back in time?
Either way, the article does just fine elucidating the delayed-choice quantum eraser without quantum field theory.
I am I crazy or do Feynman diagrams not explicitly show interactions of particles moving back in time?
Feynmann diagrams literally show anti matter as the same particle as a matter particle, just travelling back in time (see election/positron interactions).
So what happens when matter and antimatter are created in a big boom? Well the antimatter is in the past, we're here in the future.
I am I crazy or do Feynman diagrams not explicitly show interactions of particles moving back in time?
This is as opposed to an electron, which is given a direction, because reversing it in time produces an anti-electron.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43173195
It links here:
https://chatgpt.com/share/67bde29f-a56c-800a-8e26-44a5a3ad23...
I will summarize by saying that I think our current understanding of Faster-than-Light communication is wrong, and the no-go theorem about no information transmission faster than light will be debunked (in very specific but slight ways I describe in the link) soon as quantum error-correction gets better. Before you say it’s preposterous, skim the above chat, maybe looking at my side of it for instance. This is an interesting format I often share ideas in these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will they ever? Surely at some point there just wasn't enough light reflected off of dinosaurs skin to reconstruct anything more than scattered dots of light.
Theoretically you'd just need an enormous telescope to collect enough light to resolve an image. Though based on the features that modern telescopes can resolve on the moon ~1 light second away, it'd probably need a telescope on the scale of a galaxy
I am I crazy or do Feynman diagrams not explicitly show interactions of particles moving back in time?
They do, but the interpretation is that those represent anti-particles moving forwards in time. Either way, the article does just fine elucidating the delayed-choice quantum eraser without quantum field theory.
This idea is set up on a false premise.
But I was extremely happy to read; "There’s no such thing as wave-particle duality" "Light only ever travels as a wave".
Everything is only fundamentally a wave.
Please take a look at "The end of time : the next revolution in physics" by Julian Barbour. Or here are some YouTube videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K49rmobsPcY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't even need a wormhole. Light can "reflect" (ok more like slingshot) around a blackhole 25 million light years away, giving us a direct visual path to our own planet 50 millions years ago. Of course our telescopes don't have anywhere near the resolution for this right now.
Will they ever? Surely at some point there just wasn't enough light reflected off of dinosaurs skin to reconstruct anything more than scattered dots of light.
While I appreciate the blog post, it seems a bit disingenuous. I hope everyone understand that if you take two entangled photons A and B and detect A before B, then the outcome of the measurement of B must depend on the outcome of the earlier measurement of A, because measuring A causes the collapse of the joint state and determines the wavefunction of B undergoing the later measurement.
The MAGIC about delayed choice measurements is that they work even when the temporal order is UNDETERMINED. By this I mean that the two measurements of A and B can be set up to occur so close in time to each other that there is no time for a signal travelling at the speed of light to travel between the two events. Under this condition, you can witness both orderings (A measured before B and B measured before A) just by changing your reference frame. Under these conditions, the delayed choice experiment STILL WORKS!
In this case, there cannot be any argument like "but the idler was measured first", because "first" does not make any sense.