--Further Considerations--
Of interest
in regard to the section 'possible tests' in the first blog would be
to make observations of M73 (in Aquarius) (1.) in late November, and
then again six months later in late May. These two
observations could be compared with one another, and with a
subsequent observation made the next late November (or with one made
in late August). The observations would need to be accurate
enough to show movement or oscillations within the 'cluster'.
This is the case as its estimated distance of 770 parsecs from the
earth and location close to the ecliptic put it in approximately the
right location as designated in the previous blog. The goal
would be to see whether the first two observations showed the
objects in the cluster to be in approximately the same temporal
configuration; with the other observations showing a different
configuration. Similar observations at about the same times
could also be made of 202G Aquarius which at 813 pc. is still in the
general range of the 772 pc. that we are interested in.
A similar pair of observations could also be made of
M35 (in Gemini); these to be made first in late March to early
April, then again six months later in late September to early
October, these two to be compared in a similar way with observations
to be made again at the next late March to early April (or in late
December to early January). Its estimated distance of 850 pc.
is still not all too far from the ideal distance mentioned in the
first blog. M67 (in Cancer), at 800 to 900 pc., to be observed
in late April to early May, and then again exactly six months later,
to be compared with observations of it nine months, or a year later;
is also a possibility. Of course all observations would
need to be done from Earths location, and frame of reference.
need to be done from Earths location, and frame of reference.
Anticipating some possible criticisms with respect to note 21 in the
previous blog; some people may claim that faster than light
communication has not been demonstrated. I can only point out
that this has apparently been reported on several occasions by the
media, though it has generally been retracted at length. For
example, a neutrino bundle was reported to have traveled at faster
than light speeds on a 730 km route from CERN in Switzerland to
Grand Sasso in Italy in September 2011 (2.). Subsequent tests
verified this result until finally it was decided that the anomalous
(heretical?) result could be blamed on a presumed malfunctioning
fiber optic connection (2.). How often is one likely to look
for a faulty connection when an experiment yields the result
expected by the experimenters beforehand?
Experiments conducted
by Guenter Nimtz and Alfors Stahlhofen certainly seemed to have
shown that as a result of quantum tunneling photons were able to
jump a gap of about one meter without apparent loss of time, and
thus to have contributed to the transmission of a signal at faster
than light speeds (3.). While the researchers themselves have
since said that because of the short duration of the signal and
short distance of the tunneling, it would be impossible to transmit
information over relevant distances, it is not clear to me why a
succession of such gaps, combined with a very brief pulse could not
succeed in communicating at least a simple bit of information at
faster than light speed over a significant distance; enough to
'change history', in some version of the scenario alluded to in note
21 of the previous blog.
In particular the statement that 'by experiments with single photons, that faster than light tunneling had been proven, even though the possibility of information transfer remains controversial because many photons become lost' (4.), seems to suggest that at least statistically in some cases, information might be transferred at faster than light speeds. Thus returning to the situation described in note 21 of the previous blog, and assuming that its scale might somehow be drastically reduced, so as to increase the significance of the short distances over which quantum tunneling could take place, one might then allow, for example, for the reception of a photon at faster than light speed to cause a 'change of course' instruction to be given; while failure to receive such a photon before a fixed time t<d/c, d=(distance), c=(the speed of light), had elapsed, would result in no change of course taking place. One imagines that if there is actually a non-zero probability of a photon traveling faster than light as stated above, that this could conceivably give rise after a sufficient number of trials to at least one case in which 'history would have been changed' along the lines envisioned in note 21 of the previous blog. In any case it does appear that some information is being sent at faster than light speeds here even if this involves 'only' nature communicating with nature.
In particular the statement that 'by experiments with single photons, that faster than light tunneling had been proven, even though the possibility of information transfer remains controversial because many photons become lost' (4.), seems to suggest that at least statistically in some cases, information might be transferred at faster than light speeds. Thus returning to the situation described in note 21 of the previous blog, and assuming that its scale might somehow be drastically reduced, so as to increase the significance of the short distances over which quantum tunneling could take place, one might then allow, for example, for the reception of a photon at faster than light speed to cause a 'change of course' instruction to be given; while failure to receive such a photon before a fixed time t<d/c, d=(distance), c=(the speed of light), had elapsed, would result in no change of course taking place. One imagines that if there is actually a non-zero probability of a photon traveling faster than light as stated above, that this could conceivably give rise after a sufficient number of trials to at least one case in which 'history would have been changed' along the lines envisioned in note 21 of the previous blog. In any case it does appear that some information is being sent at faster than light speeds here even if this involves 'only' nature communicating with nature.
This sense of nature communicating with
itself at faster than light speeds seems particularly to be evident
when considering the ramifications of the "EPR-experiment".
To examine this, suppose first that we, as most scientists seem to
believe, are living in a L.I. (Lorenz Invariant) universe.
Suppose further that a spaceship passes the Earth traveling at half
the speed of light moving in the direction of Pluto at perihelion.
Someone on Pluto with a clock synchronized with one on Earth then
notes another spaceship passing Pluto moving in the same direction
as the first spaceship and with the same speed almost exactly one
hour and six minutes later. The passengers on the two
spaceships, according to the theory, should measure the same time
difference between the two events; only in their opinions the second
spaceship would have passed Pluto before the first one reached the
Earth by the same amount of time!
To make this situation
still more interesting, suppose that two bunches of electrons had
been sent out from a point midway between the Earth and Pluto, one
in each direction, with both traveling at close to the speed of
light. Suppose further that each electron in either bunch had
been paired with one electron in the other bunch in the manner
discussed in "The Fabric of the Cosmos", by Brian Greene
pp.-99-115. The two bunches arrive a half hour after the first
spaceship passes Earth, one bunch on Earth and the other on Pluto.
If the commander of the first spaceship was heard to utter the word
"up" on the ships radio as it passed Earth; then the spins
of the electrons in the bunch headed towards Earth are all measured
on a predetermined axis when they arrive. If not, then no
measurement is taken. On Pluto, the spins of all the electrons
are measured in any case; on the opposite axis.
A similar pair of bunched
electrons are sent out in two directions from a third spaceship
traveling midway between the other two. One of the two bunches
of electrons reaches the second spaceship a half hour after it has
passed Pluto; timed in the spaceships frame of reference. The
other bunch reaches the first spaceship at the same moment in
their reference frame, namely about 42 minutes before it reaches
Earth. If the majority of the electrons in the bunch that
arrive on Pluto are found to be spinning "up" along the
predetermined axis to be measured there, then the radio of the
mission on Pluto will call out the word "up" as the second
ship passes Pluto. Otherwise it will not.
If the second ship hears
the word "up" announced on Pluto's radio as it passes by
then a measurement will be taken of the spins of all the electrons
in the bunch which reaches it a half hour later, along a
predetermined axis. Otherwise no measurement will be taken
there. In any case a measurement will be taken of the spins of
all of the electrons in the 'correlated' bunch of electrons upon
their arrival at the location of the first spaceship along the
opposite axis of that preselected for the second ship. If the
majority of the electrons in this case are found to be spinning up,
then the commander of the first ship will announce "up" on
the ships radio as it passes Earth 42 minutes later. Otherwise
no such announcement is given.
While one can argue that
it is a question of pure chance, 50-50 of getting a spin up or a
spin down measurement in each case, and that there is no way for any
of these individuals to intentionally send a preselected message
back in time using this process; the outcome described in the
chapter of the Brian Greene book cited seems to suggest that if this
experiment were repeated often enough (or if enough equivalent
experiments were carried out simultaneously in sufficiently
separated regions of space to avoid mutual influences at the speed
of light); that the probability would at least seem to favor, that
in some cases a measurement taken at one time, say on Earth here,
would have influenced a result elsewhere so as to alter a course of
action taken at an earlier point in time, say on the spaceship
approaching Earth, which would have caused the measurement on Earth
to have been taken in the first place. This would appear to be
the case even though there might be no way to know on which
particular trials this had happened and which not! Does this
not none-the-less at least suggest that in some case or other a
violation of the principle of causality would likely have taken
place?
One has thus the sense that in some cases actions taken at one point
in time might be influencing events at an earlier point in time,
even though no individuals may be able to control at which times or
in what precise fashion this would be happening. The idea that
a decision one makes might influence the past in some cases, even if
this influence is exerted in a way that would possibly preclude the
individual who is exerting it from directing this influence in order
to gain a predetermined result; none-the-less seems to create
problems for envisioning a smooth flow of history.
--Notes--
(1.) Positions and
estimated distances of M73, 202G Aquarius, M35, and M65 are from
en.wikipedia.org
(3.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunter_Nimtz
Comments
Post a Comment