Cosmology Information Intelligent Design Physics

The weirdness of entangled time

Spread the love
File:Wooden hourglass 3.jpg
passage of time, imaged/S. Sepp

From Elise Crull at Aeon:

The problem is that entanglement violates how the world ought to work. Information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, for one. But in a 1935 paper, Einstein and his co-authors showed how entanglement leads to what’s now called quantum nonlocality, the eerie link that appears to exist between entangled particles. If two quantum systems meet and then separate, even across a distance of thousands of lightyears, it becomes impossible to measure the features of one system (such as its position, momentum and polarity) without instantly steering the other into a corresponding state.

Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?

The answer, as it turns out, is yes. Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. More.


See also: Does the size of the universe sweep us toward atheism?

Philosopher: If there is something rather than nothing, questions around God cannot be ignored Waghorn: “Firstly, that on the most plausible demarcation criterion for science, science is constitutionally unable to show theism to be a redundant hypothesis; the debate must take place at the level of metaphysics. ”

Is zero even?

Absolute zero proven mathematically impossible?

Is celeb number pi a “normal” number? Not normal. And things get worse. Surely this oddity is related in some way to the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Physicist David Snoke thinks that Christians should not use the kalaam argument for God’s existence


Must we understand “nothing” to understand physics?

Why is space three dimensions anyway? Why not six? A new theory is offered. They want to test their theory?  What a great idea! In an age of wars on falsifiability, that’s a refreshingly new/old idea. Anyway, our universe seems pretty smart and can keep us awake.

2 Replies to “The weirdness of entangled time

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this comment from the article:

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.

    It is interesting to note that this experiment confirms Dr. Egnor’s (Theistic) contention (via Aristotle) that Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.

    Perception and the Cartesian Theater – Michael Egnor – December 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance. The notion that a perception of the moon occurs at the moon is “bizarre” (Torley’s word) only if one presumes that perception is constrained by distance and local conditions — perhaps perception would get tired if it had to go to the moon or it wouldn’t be able to go because it’s too cold there. Yet surely the view that the perception of a rose held up to my eye was located at the rose wouldn’t be deemed nearly as bizarre. At what distance does perception of an object at the object become inconceivable?

    And this finding refutes Dr Torley’s contention against Dr Egnor that perception cannot possibly occur ‘at a distance’, for example, at a Supernova which we know no longer exists:

    The Squid and the Supernova: A Reply to Professor Egnor
    December 9, 2015 – vjtorley
    Excerpt: perception is a bodily event, and that an event involving my body cannot take place at a point which is separate from my body. An event involving my body may occur inside my body, or at the surface of my body, but never separately from it. Thus it simply makes no sense to assert that I am here, at point X, but that my perceptions – or for that matter, my actions – are located at an external point Y.

    Thus, chalk one up for Aristotle, and his Theistic presuppositions, for anticipating Quantum mechanics thousands of years before it was discovered. (And thank you Dr. Egnor for pointing this ‘prediction’ of Aristotle out)

    What Is Matter? The Aristotelian Perspective – Michael Egnor – July 21, 2017
    Excerpt: Heisenberg, almost alone among the great physicists of the quantum revolution, understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory and evidence.,,,
    Heisenberg wrote:
    ,,,The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality…The probability function combines objective and subjective elements,,,
    Thus, the existence of potential quantum states described by Schrodinger’s equation (which is a probability function) are the potency (the “matter”) of the system, and the collapse of the quantum waveform is the reduction of potency to act. To an Aristotelian (like Heisenberg), quantum mechanics isn’t strange at all.

    A few miscellaneous notes:

    Aquinas’ First Way
    1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act.
    2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually.
    3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act.
    4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature.
    5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency.
    6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series.
    7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God.

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way

    “It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something else. There isn’t an infinite regress of movers in motion. Therefore, there is a prime mover, something that moves without itself being in motion, God.”
    -Thomas Aquinas

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video

    Were the Greatest Philosophers Theists or Atheists?
    Excerpt: 1. Plato (c. 429-347 BC)
    2. Aristotle (384-322 BC)
    3. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274)
    4. René Descartes (1596-1650)
    5. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
    6. Socrates (c. 470-399 BC)
    7. Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677)
    The first seven philosophers on my list are great philosophers, the rest are important but not great.,,,
    The greatest philosophers on my list are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Socrates, and Spinoza. All of these are theists of one sort or another.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    I should clarify that this quote,,,

    “It’s impossible for something to put itself into motion. Therefore, anything in motion is put into motion by something else. There isn’t an infinite regress of movers in motion. Therefore, there is a prime mover, something that moves without itself being in motion, God.”
    -Thomas Aquinas – summation of argument

    ,,, is only a summation of Aquinas ‘first mover’ argument and is not an actual quote.

Leave a Reply