Controlled experiment with time.

[eagerbeaver]

OK, the title should already essentially say "impossible" but... BTW, I did read all of the forum rules and such, and my questioning here is aimed at "questioning" some things that are established by GR and other such theories, but my ONLY intent is to inquire for ideas with regard to formulating some sort of controlled experiment relating to time.

While pondering the entire notion that there simply is no good way to do controlled experiments about the nature of time-space - essentially the paradoxical nature of things like Schrödinger's cat; since we are confined to live life within time, so far, we know of no person living that could set up the "control" for an experiment set outside the influence of time.

I should predicate my questioning with the fact that while not your average bear, I hold no fancy degrees on such matters, so excuse my ignorance please.

The general theory with regard to time easily explains for even a layman the difficulty of any sort of time measurement by humans here on the Earth. Time could stop and since we are confined by time itself, we would be absolutely unaware of such an event, as from our perspective, we simply would be unaware of the "stoppage" or for that matter any deviation, unless we could have a time-frame not affected as we are to compare with. Reality speak, for us, time essentially would not have stopped anyway, since we are confined by it.

OK, so I began to wonder considering what GR establishes, would there be any way to look for deviations in time through space - particularly in a finite distance, say for instance between the Earth and the moon. Could one use super-accurate gravitational measurements of the moon's influence on Earth to compare to say our traditional Apollo laser bounce mirrors that give us distance data, via time (I.E. a laser)?

Time and space are influenced by those things "in it" - that we all know. I suppose my questioning relates to the curiosity if say perhaps time is not all as constant as we might want to believe it is. To us, it would seem up to now, it is not only a logical and scientifically proven constant, but is it possible that even without the influence of traditional, or non-traditional things being discovered daily (like dark matter and dark energy) influencing time, that perhaps time is something that is not as constant as we believe?

I am pondering formulating ANY type of controlled experiment that can definitively tell us that time operates as we think it does. Perhaps this is something that is covered somewhere; if it is not, considering my contemplations, I can easily see why it would be something likely not questioned, as it would then throw a wrench in all of what we know, or think we know; and besides, once again since we are confined by time, any changes are truly not relevant to us, nor would they bring down the house of cards on GR - as once again, all of our studies are based on the fact that we cannot escape time in any rational fashion and any fluctuation that would not already be explained by GR and other theories, very well still could be irrelevant to our studies and learning based upon the notion that time is "constant" and calculable.

I have a long history with time and freq. measurements with atomic standards and the like, that combined with what we can prove by moving such things about, or for instance the adjustments we had to make for the shift in the Earth's mass and rotation due to the Earthquake in Japan, give me special incite into the normal "day to day" applications and deployment of time for use as a standard on Earth. I really have no theory as such; I would simply like to prove in a scientific manner that the time-space constant, when not influenced by any of the things we are aware of, is it truly constant and if so (other than using math that already proves it...) how can one establish this is the case with time - it being constant.

A lot of words for a simple thing - sorry. I probably dropped my pants on this one, but I surely cannot find any experiments that have been successfully carried out that can tell us that when not influenced by those things we KNOW to influence time - or with those variables taken into account, can we prove this with an actual experiment using scientific methods?

Thank you in advance for anyone that humors me here; it is greatly appreciated.

 

[Dale]

Hi eagerbeaver, welcome to PF!

dt/dt=1 purely from math and logic. I don't think there is anything to experiment on here. If you mean something other than dt/dt then you will have to be more specific.

 

[eagerbeaver]

Either my query is very poor, or everyone else is just as stumped with regard to setting up an experiment that uses scientific method (I.E. a control...) is just as hard to devise by experts as it is for average Joe's like myself.

Time, period and frequency experiments/measurements are simple; the only question is, how can one offer a control for an experiment? That is the paradoxical issue at hand...

 

[Dale]

Yes, the query is quite poorly specified. You really need to clarify what you mean. Are you interested in some other quantity besides dt/dt? If so, what?

 

[eagerbeaver]

Thanks Dale and my apologies...

I am looking for a control to perform time experiments. The very nature of which is to establish with scientific method using a controlled experiment that either time is very constant and predictable everywhere, or that it is less so than we think.

Obviously, if time was not at all linear throughout the universe (IE - time as we know it everywhere in the universe made great deviations all the time) this is something we could never test for, and would not at all be relevant anyway. I'd like look for small deviations that are not explained.

Would a change in time/space as well affect gravitational readings? I fear it might - just look at the experiment used to prove GR... I can think of no good controls for any sort of time based experiments that prove it is linear and explained as we think it is, at least on the smaller scale (like not the ENTIRE UNIVERSE CHANGING...)

 

[Dale]

I am looking for a control to perform time experiments. The very nature of which is to establish with scientific method using a controlled experiment that either time is very constant and predictable everywhere, or that it is less so than we think.

Yes but before you can come up with a control you need to define what what you mean by "time is very constant". I assume that you mean dt/dt=k. If not, then what do you mean?

Please respond either with confirmation or with a corrected formula expressing your quantity of interest.

 

[eagerbeaver]

Yes but before you can come up with a control you need to define what what you mean by "time is very constant". I assume that you mean dt/dt=k. If not, then what do you mean?

Yes, that's it; we have theory and practical observation that tells us the nature of time and space and how they "work" as such - hence why I posted this in GR subforum.

I see where you are going with this - and with good reason. I could not find any controls for such testing that one could prove as the control anyway.

None of what we base that which we know upon would be any different really if you could escape the confines of time and observe that the time we as humans are confined to stops, starts, reverses, etc. Many say it does not or cannot do this or that, but those things will not be proven or disproved by us - and again would not change our direction of study or understanding of the universe much.

 

[Dale]

Yes, that's it

Thanks for the confirmation.

Since dt/dt is the quantity of interest, no experiment or controls are needed. We can immediately prove that dt/dt is constant with math alone.

 

[eagerbeaver]

I will have to get back with you then at a later time once I run back through all of the iterations of those calculations in order to make relevant and intelligent queries and replies.

I may be a sort of crack-pot here at this time so I do not want to waste your and other good people's time further until I can quickly and astutely reply and query on a level that is needed for a discussion such as this.

In the mean time, if I can still get in touch with one of my two JPL contacts, perhaps they can be of assistance in the matters of practical application of that for which I speak.

Many thanks Dale - and I'll be back around when I can discuss this more intelligently.

 

[Quinzio]

The general theory with regard to time easily explains for even a layman the difficulty of any sort of time measurement by humans here on the Earth. Time could stop and since we are confined by time itself, we would be absolutely unaware of such an event, as from our perspective, we simply would be unaware of the "stoppage" or for that matter any deviation, unless we could have a time-frame not affected as we are to compare with. Reality speak, for us, time essentially would not have stopped anyway, since we are confined by it.

When Galileo studied pendulums, he used his heartbeat to measure the period.
Afterwards, doctors were using pendulums to measure their patients heartbeat.

 

[eagerbeaver]

When Galileo studied pendulums, he used his heartbeat to measure the period.
Afterwards, doctors were using pendulums to measure their patients heartbeat.

Yes, many such interesting things abound in science. As one of the vast number of today's custodians of time and frequency standards that humans use for their day to day lives, yeah, we now and then "impress" people, each other, or (my favorite) young inquisitive minds with how even with today's sophisticated methods, how astoundingly close we can get to achieving such precision with a disciplined pendulum... Interesting and fun, but sadly it neither leads myself nor others in any direction as to a method that might allow insight into finding a control method for time/space experiments that confirm through physical testing the math we use, not the other way around.

Math is fine. Schrodinger's Cat paradox is an excellent example of why while we can say all of what we know, calculate, apply and indeed what makes any of the intense theories "work" as such, few to none can be supported by comparison with a control. A whimsical example would be that everyone agrees that indeed their is a constant for light. Over two years ago, we figured out how to stop light in a laboratory and then send it on its way again. If it did not take tremendous energy and a huge machine to do so, wow, what an advance for CPU design and so many other things. The question would remain, if light is the constant we base things on, then locally in the lab, one could no longer use our traditional theories, as inside the experiment light no longer has a specific period (I.E. "velocity") for it has become suspended in space until it is set back in motion.

Like many things, just sort of "interesting" - yet does not break down what we know or think we know. I recognize that dreaming up a reasonable control to actually physically and scientifically prove the predictable nature of time/space seems like science fiction and "the math" is just fine with everyone as it makes all we think we understand work correctly. It still does not solve the issue of our observations being confined within said time. For those doing the study of the universe, this is something irrelevant to them. For someone simply trying to study the nature of time, being confined by it and being unable to conceive of a control method for testing is rather disturbing...

 

[Lost in Space]

Perhaps someone could help me out on this one. I'm curious as to whether relativistic effects would manifest themselves with quantum entanglement.

Suppose there was a way to separate two entangled particles and put one of them on a spaceship near a black hole and the other outside of the black hole's influence. I think I'm correct when I say that the there would be a relative time differential between these particles? So if the outside particle is affected, would this take time to be observed in the spaceship's particle, and, wouldn't this imply that the spaceship's particle's state was being determined by an event in its future?

I thought that it might be possible in some way to do this experiment using an accelerator rather than a spaceship seeing as how this is not possible to do with current technology! Or, failing that, using an aircraft or orbiting spacecraft such as the ISS and measuring any possible relativistic differences using atomic clocks.

I appreciate there could be technical difficulties in carrying out such an experiment but it would be interesting to know if this is theoretically possible.

 

[eagerbeaver]

Now you're speaking of particle duality intermixed with an experiment. I too would be interested to see the responses.

We many years ago used fountain clocks to support Einstein's notions and have to deal with this day in and out - satellite and spacecraft time keeping is far more complex than a disciplined standard such as an atomic clock; for their movement in space requires continual period corrections added to the inaccuracy of said disciplined clocks to begin with which most are well over the +/- 10E6 us range. Thankfully, there are systems in place to deal with good time in space - at least locally around the Earth - up to HEO.

I agree, that experiments that compared the same particle that is occupying two places at once and making a comparison would be "neato" - though I have yet to see much on duality other than what physics/quantum mechanics and modeling supplies us - that is in the way of being able to see what is going on in two places with the same particle at one time in such a brief moment - not sure we have those capabilities myself.

Dale seems to be one of the resident geniuses here and I am certain he is only one of thousands that may be more helpful than I, but my research encompassed that line of thinking and I'll be darned if I saw anything that did not predominantly rely on modeling and calculations. If that satisfies your questions, the equations exist already as far as I know...

 

[Naty1]

eagerbeaver: I am unsure just what you are aiming at...time or space-time, for one thing...you mention both in your post.

but experiments like Pound - Rebka, atomic clocks on airplanes (east versus west bound versus earth), extended lives of high speed particles and GPS satellites all confirm the passage of time is NOT necessarilyconstant under some conditions...like gravitational potential and velocity differences.

Wikipedia's dioscussion on time may have some interest for you, but likely no answers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

The only thing I've concluded after perhaps six or eight years of reading several dozen popular physics books is that I strongly suspect time, energy, gravity, the four fundamental forces, space, matter and so forth all popped out of some initial start...a bang of some type. So it would appear they are all related in some fundamental way and we seem to have barely a clue.

And if they did not "start" or "originate" together somehow, maybe a cyclic universe is their "origin" (ala Steinhardt and Turok) meaning they have always existed...and that makes things seem even weirder...

 

[Vanadium 50]

A whimsical example would be that everyone agrees that indeed their is a constant for light. Over two years ago, we figured out how to stop light in a laboratory and then send it on its way again. If it did not take tremendous energy and a huge machine to do so, wow, what an advance for CPU design and so many other things. The question would remain, if light is the constant we base things on, then locally in the lab, one could no longer use our traditional theories, as inside the experiment light no longer has a specific period (I.E. "velocity") for it has become suspended in space until it is set back in motion.

This is wrong. Just wrong. We all agree that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Yes, it's different in a medium, and this has been known and understood for some time.

Earlier you used the word "crackpot". I think you should reflect on what makes carckpots such, and how to argue differently so you don't get lumped in with them. A very common argument amongst such folks is "everyone else is doing it wrong" based on one or more of their own misunderstandings.

 

[Lost in Space]

Now you're speaking of particle duality intermixed with an experiment. I too would be interested to see the responses.

We many years ago used fountain clocks to support Einstein's notions and have to deal with this day in and out - satellite and spacecraft time keeping is far more complex than a disciplined standard such as an atomic clock; for their movement in space requires continual period corrections added to the inaccuracy of said disciplined clocks to begin with which most are well over the +/- 10E6 us range. Thankfully, there are systems in place to deal with good time in space - at least locally around the Earth - up to HEO.

I agree, that experiments that compared the same particle that is occupying two places at once and making a comparison would be "neato" - though I have yet to see much on duality other than what physics/quantum mechanics and modeling supplies us - that is in the way of being able to see what is going on in two places with the same particle at one time in such a brief moment - not sure we have those capabilities myself.

Dale seems to be one of the resident geniuses here and I am certain he is only one of thousands that may be more helpful than I, but my research encompassed that line of thinking and I'll be darned if I saw anything that did not predominantly rely on modeling and calculations. If that satisfies your questions, the equations exist already as far as I know...

Well, thanks for your reply EB. It's the only reply I've received so far from anyone even though I've asked the question on more than one occasion and have also written to theorists about it. Unfortunately my maths is not good enough to understand whether it would be theoretically possible or not. So the question remains open to all those who are competent in this field.

 

[eagerbeaver]

"Lost in Space" - do not fret Sir or Madam. That which you speak of is an interesting notion to consider. I, as you am no longer immersed in such mathematical and calculable regions as to even consider touching the equations necessary to give you an answer or even a good direction. AND if your approach to asking such a thing has any need for more than a calculation "that says its so" then you may have difficulties moving forward. -If anything occurs to me, I'll PM you...

I elected to simply erase my response here, it'll gain myself nor others much.

I now realize how stupid it was to ask a simple question about how to set up a control to confirm that which we think we know, or give us insight into that which we are as of yet unaware of here, for the problem of finding a control for such testing has perplexed all of the scientific community thus far, why would it be answered here?

BTW, I know all about the experiments carried out with fountain clocks moving through space as I not only have performed them in the classical sense, I deal with this day in and out via our constellation of GPS satellites that provide you a frequency standard for you cell phones, etc. etc...

Newton was mathematically correct on a number of things, that is until someone else, came up with a better explanation and that math worked better and fit more scenarios within our universe. If all everyone wants to do is either "bench race" with the equations or theory, that is A-OK by me. I was just setting out to reinforce or enrich them through ACTUAL PHYSICAL TESTING AND EXPERIMENTATION, not my slide rule and journal. Would people as quickly been convinced Einstein was correct about the nature of time, space and gravity if they still had yet to see a star's light appear in the "wrong spot in the sky" due to the sun's influence? - I doubt it. Also, when you think of this, consider that the experts that were trying to capture said phenomenon had no idea how in the World to deal with the calculations; they were merely carrying out a controlled test procedure, being told that their simple mundane task could validate or invalidate something rather important.

I truly don't care about badgering, being told I am stupid, or wrong, or a crackpot. What is laughable is that what I have asked for is a control to use for comparison to look for micro variations in time and space that we as of yet have to notice, explain or account for. Very simple question, very hard to answer - and if you cannot even understand the question which is clarified in the title, well then you're unlikely to formulate many notions for setting up a controlled procedure that looks at the nature of time in a finite distance.

 

[Lost in Space]

Hi, Eagerbeaver. In my mind there are no such thing as 'crackpot ideas' given the nature of reality that modern physics suggests. Most of the implications that current theories suggest, such as infinite parallel universes, extra dimensions, time travel etc would have been dismissed out of hand as sheer lunacy by most eminent physicists not so long ago.

As far as the experiment I suggest is concerned it is the implications that fascinate me. If, for instance, decoherence between the two particles occurs because of a relativistic time differential, at what point would the decoherence occur and wouldn't this mean anyway that any spatial differential in relative speed between the two particles or any differential between strong and weaker gravity fields would cause immediate decoherence? If no decoherence occurs then surely wouldn't it be true that the entangled particles would still be connected across a relativistic time differential and the consequences of this would therefore suggest that a future event can determine a state in the past, at least within an enclosed system? And additionally might it help determine what an 'instant' of time really means as entanglement is instantaneous?
It seems to me that relativity and quantum entanglement are squaring up to each other in a scenario like this. As no coherent information can be sent between entangled particles because of randomness thereby safeguarding the domain of relativity (to my understanding), does relativity still have the upper hand in this particular scenario or does entanglement?

 

[eagerbeaver]

I would agree with respect to "crack-pot" notions, but that is the nature of how a percentage of people perceive things that either do not fit the current understanding, or approach the realm of "delaminating" ideas we or they think we know at anyone point in time.

Your query is an excellent notion and while I have an "idea" I know not only what you are driving at, I am not well enough immersed in the current physics or mathematics to perform any sort of useful evaluation of such a thing even with sliderule and paper or computer model "in-hand..." If I am understanding your hypothesis correctly, it reminds me a bit of a few things I have maintained for some time. When asked if the future is pre-determined, while I always "qualify" my statements, the answer in my mind should be yes, absolutely. While you and I are unlikely to ever escape ordinary time to see our current future as the past, anything, or person who could at that point indeed could say from their perspective, once "the future" becomes the past, it is indeed pre-determined. My apologies, I suppose this does not directly relate to your ponderings as such.

At any rate, I am just a bit dismayed with this medium/forum after reading around a bit, though a great platform for exchanging today's current mathematical formulas and logic with regard to physics and quantum theory debates as they are currently understood, (which is a good thing) I am a bit surprised by the notion that people seem to not be pushing further, asking questions such as yours and getting constructive input from more knowledgeable individuals on the matter. I can say that indeed, I am a "crackpot" of sorts, as I do not have the practical knowledge on quantum theory that I'd like think others that frequent here do.

I did not come here to offend, or agitate others; nor did I come to defend any notions or hypothesis's of my own, though it is a bit shocking to see no responses to questions such as yours or mine. After much thought, I am now looking into the physical construction of the AMS-02 unit now in place on the ISS. I should think depending on the detector's size, arrangement and its freq. standard's placement with regard to the detector, there is an outside chance that it may have the ability to look for very, very small unexplained time distortions, that pass through portions of the detector on its journey through space and if its physical design lends itself properly, such anomalies if they occurred that cannot be explained by that which we are aware of already, or our current notion of things, could lead people toward the notion that very small distortions in time (like bubbles) that are not explained by modern theory in fact exist, if this were the case (I have no idea or opinion one way or the other...) than it would seem just as plausible that large scale time fluctuations could be affecting us, our galaxy, the universe, or that cup of coffee on my desk that seemed to get cold far too quickly (JOKE...)

For my question, thus far, the furthest I can come is to side-step the control issue. If you, I or anyone else had the ability to place the control for an experiment (a freq. standard) in a place that we could agree that time is constant or predictable - AND HAD NO RELATION OR CORRELATION to the time you and I experience and what/where one might run the experiment portion of the controlled test, well I'd think such testing would be pretty irrelevant at that point, for we would have already answered most of the questions that might be answered by said test, just in finding a way to perform it!

The cosmic humor in all of this is that just as religion asks humans to believe something just because it is written and is professed to be true, I never suspected people would lean in the same direction when asking them to prove that time behaves as we say it does using scientific method.

Who knows, these things are engaging and just about as suited for telling around a camp fire. Perhaps after an inventory of the physical and operational parameters of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer I'll know if its data may be of any use. The only really wonderful thing about using it for any experiments, is that if it indeed is suitable, its data is FREE and will simply mean taking the same data others are using for their study of the universe and running it through a different set of algorithms/comparisons. No one here is likely to have the ability to use a 10 billion dollar experiment for FREE - (except maybe the TB's and TB's of data that'll come from the AMS-02 during its service life...) I still would like ponder a control method for time (find a way to have a constant control disciplined freq. that is not affected as the freq. standard, or experiment under test...) but, I think I'll need do far more dreaming first. Simple comparison, like with data from AMS-02 is likely to be the best type of method anyone, or myself may suggest.

 

[Lost in Space]

Yes, EB I see from your post that you are thinking along the same lines as myself regarding predetermination. But of course, not only might this be possible using a standard entanglement change of state, but what about teleportation across time as well using the same principles? As there is coherence in the transfer process using teleportation what does this imply? Could a stream of information be encoded and sent into the past using teleportation?

The wider implications of predeterminism could have very big consequences for society in terms of so-called 'free will' etc. What would it mean for religious claims? I don't want to get involved in a theological discussion, especially in view of the forum rules and conditions, but as science directly affects how we view the universe and our place in it, shouldn't we be aware of all of the ramifications of scientific theory and discovery in all of its aspects for mankind?

As far as quantum encryption using entanglement is concerned, if, as some claim, all particles in existence are already entangled with others, can quantum encryption really be said to be a secure uncrackable method of information transference? When we create an entangled pair are we not merely adding to a preexisting natural entanglement? Of course, we cannot find a particle's entangled partner if that entanglement has naturally occurred. It could be at the other side of the universe or orbiting a black hole somewhere, but if a quantum computer was built that was powerful enough, wouldn't it be able to use 'preentanglement' to probe the probabilities that would be required to hack such a system? It's been said that quantum computers could even tap into parallel universes to find probabilistic solutions limited by our spacetime continuum.

I can understand the reticence of many scientists facing these problems to attempt to come up with an answer. Perhaps they don't want to commit themselves one way or the other without further research. But there's nothing wrong in admitting that one doesn't know, or that current theory can't answer the question. What puzzles me is that few seem to even want to. Is this because of the implications? Are they worried about what others will think? Surely theorists have considered applying quantum entanglement relativistically? I find it hard to believe that they haven't!

 

[eagerbeaver]

Good morning Lost in Space. For starters, I'd like mention it is refreshing to hear people, regardless of knowledge, education or background question what you are pondering and commenting upon.

I have enough of a grasp of things as such to understand the basics of what your statements and questions revolve around, but not the practical experience with the formulas to calculate, predict or better understand such things at this juncture.

I admire your determination, knowledge as well as your desire to question things many would tell you one should not - for a number of reasons; most of which very poor ones. The irony of what I inquired about and have gotten no response (no, its not likely so much because I am a crackpot, much more likely that asking for a control reference for time itself in order to formulate and experiment with is both paradoxical and in a sense not a thing readily solvable.) I encourage you to move forward with your line of questioning and train of thought. Also, I can tell you that the most critical, important data, theories, notions or revelations, often are born out of - well essentially failure, so don't become discouraged.

I've been involved with things in this arena that I cannot speak openly about, but I can tell you this, it is always a good idea to listen to those colleagues around you, regardless if what they are saying directly contradicts your notions; I've found these things have helped me to excel on past projects and accomplishments, at least in the area of the nature of time and how it operates "here" as well as how to do our best to have a practical handle on it both Earth and space bound for the systems we use in this modern age. That being said, as well do not be discouraged by even experts that tell you X or Y is impossible. I don't either want to get into a religious debate, but since I am for all intents and purposes agnostic, I can tell you that while people can tell me time behaves this way and here are the rules. Well, I can back up what today's traditional notion is in many respects. A handful of the very most important things that are said to be FACT due to my perspective as a human I cannot back all such things up with physical facts. The foundation for my questioning of a good deal of religious texts is that such things simply must be considered as fact for which troubles me, so why would I not question things in science that no one can show me a controlled experiment that definitively proves what today's understanding of things are?

A good example as such would be if time as we know it were to stop for a period that we call a century. Well our lives, science, theories would not be changed in the least - you'd need have a control and observe such an event from outside the confines of ordinary time, something we as humans have no idea how to do and if we did know how, it would likely be catastrophic for both all life on Earth, but just as easily the galaxy and perhaps universe itself. So, considering this, I will still spend my off-time of other critical projects pondering a controlled experiment, that obviously does not involve the best sort of control; a freq. standard set outside of (our) normal time - such as a parallel universe, but instead looks to handle the "control" issue in a different manner; studying the influence of time and space on things in a finite distance in outer-space. So far this is the best I can think of, for AMS-02 (the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer) while quite suited for study, the data I'd need process and compile is already pre-processed and of no use by the time it leaves the unit and is transmitted to the satellites for downlinking... I don't think it likely I or anyone really are able to establish a control for time; if we could, that would mean we had mastered time itself and would be more interested in playing Doctor WHO, or meddling with things than using it as a control to study the time with which human life is constrained to/by... :-)

I think this topic can easily be closed. If you desire to speak more in-depth on the nature of what you are working up with me, PM me and I can make arrangements for candid discussions on the matter; although I am rather unsure if I readily have the answers to the questions, or knowledge of the proper method to recommend for you to go forward to work on hypothesis' with.



EAGER BEAVER -> Nope not my name by a long shot!

 

[Lost in Space]

I guess you're right EB. Doesn't look encouraging for any answers although I still think it worth considering. Interestingly, Dr. Chinese mentioned predeterminism on more than one occasion in relation to quantum entanglement on another thread, although in a different context. He seems to be very knowledgeable in the field but I'm afraid the mathematical arguments are way above me.

I agree it would be very difficult to establish a control for time. Thanks to the work of Einstein we know that time itself is relative so establishing such a control would seem very difficult if not impossible, but as far as simultaneity goes, can time still be considered to be relative? If relativity is the deciding and overriding factor, then perhaps predeterminism is real, although as you have correctly pointed out, we cannot possibly know if events in our own continuum are predetermined or not.

As for the religious and moralistic considerations regarding free will and choice etc, I think those concerned can probably rest easy. The many worlds hypothesis still allows for choice, although somewhere in the multiverse somebody is always going to make the wrong one!

I've often wondered if time itself can be multi-dimensional as well as space?

Thanks for your time and patience with this.

 

[Dale]

So if the outside particle is affected, would this take time to be observed in the spaceship's particle

Nothing you can do to affect the outside particle can be observed in the spaceship's particle, regardless of whether or not there is an event horizon between them.

 

[Dale]

"What is laughable is that what I have asked for is a control to use for comparison to look for micro variations in time and space that we as of yet have to notice, explain or account for. Very simple question, very hard to answer

Very easy to answer. dt/dt=1. No experimental uncertainty whatsoever.

Now, if you are, in fact, interested in some other quantity then we can discuss controls. Simply let us know what quantity you are interested in.

 

[danR]

Your opening title is simple enough. Too simple. It lacks context. The context given in your discussion is complex. Too complex.

Some definitions of basic terms and phrases would help:

What do you mean by time? There is 'time' as a component of space-time, there is time as a function of entropy, there is time as simply something you 'measure' with a clock. I think you mean the first, but when you say time might 'stop', without our being aware of it, I suspect there is the possibility of entropy entering into the discussion. You can't 'stop' a dimension, i.e. the time dimension in space-time. That doesn't even have a meaning.

What is space-time?

What is a control? Do you mean a procedure, apparatus, what? Give an example of a control. Any example. doesn't have to be a time thing. For example we time the speed of falling ball through the air, using an evacuated tube with an identical ball as a 'control'.

What is variation? What is the 'micro' in microvariation? Either something is a constant, or it varies. Is the micro-part important? Why?

Is the variation of time from time to time, like today and next week, or from place to place at the 'same' time (whatever that means)?

These may seem like stupid, or rhetorical questions, but they are not. Physicists spend much time asking more advanced questions, to be sure, but great achievements can come from asking, 'What the hell am I talking about?'

 

[Lost in Space]

Nothing you can do to affect the outside particle can be observed in the spaceship's particle, regardless of whether or not there is an event horizon between them.

Interesting. So I take it you mean by this that decoherence does occur between the entangled particles that occupy differential time frames due to their occupation of separate and differing strength gravity fields, or those that have relative differences in speed to each other so therefore they will no longer be entangled? At what point do you think this would happen?

 

[Dale]

So I take it you mean by this that decoherence does occur between the entangled particles that occupy differential time frames due to their occupation of separate and differing strength gravity fields, or those that have relative differences in speed to each other so therefore they will no longer be entangled?

No, I would think that they are still entangled, but you misunderstand entanglement. Nothing you can do to affect one particle can ever be directly observed in its entangled particle, even in flat space-time. Adding gravity won't suddenly allow entanglement to communicate information that it cannot communicate without gravity.

 

[Lost in Space]

No, I would think that they are still entangled, but you misunderstand entanglement. Nothing you can do to affect one particle can ever be directly observed in its entangled particle, even in flat space-time. Adding gravity won't suddenly allow entanglement to communicate information that it cannot communicate without gravity.

If that's the case how do we know entanglement exists? Don't the results of experiments prove that it does? I appreciate that we still have to be able to compare the two particles to register and identify the change but even if it's not possible to witness a change of state due to relativistic time differences between the two particles, can teleportation still be carried out between the two if they are occupying differing time frames?

My main query is whether or not entanglement is subject to relativity. Or is it just not possible to know? Does time dilation affect entanglement and if so how can this be confirmed, either for or against? This is the whole idea behind my proposed experiment.

 

[Dale]

If that's the case how do we know entanglement exists?.

Because we don't just observe one particle, we observe both and compare.

My main query is whether or not entanglement is subject to relativity.

Yes. QED is fully relativistic. It includes both entanglement and relativity.

 

[danR]

Originally Posted by Lost in Space
If that's the case how do we know entanglement exists?.

DaleSpam:Because we don't just observe one particle, we observe both and compare.

Originally Posted by Lost in Space
My main query is whether or not entanglement is subject to relativity.

DaleSpam:Yes. QED is fully relativistic. It includes both entanglement and relativity.

______________

I should hope it is subject to relativity. It's my understanding that physical laws are held to be invariant in all reference frames. And that transform operations between reference frames allow normalized correlations of phenomena.

[Either I don't know how multi-quoting works, or it's not working on this Mac OSX leopard/Safari.]

 

[Lost in Space]

Yes. QED is fully relativistic. It includes both entanglement and relativity.

Thanks for your answer. So, given this, does it therefore mean that entanglement can exist across time as well as space? Could it be possible for example, that if one part of an entangled pair was to come under the gravitational influence of a black hole (without crossing the event horizon), that time dilation could split the pair by millions of years, yet they would still be connected? And if time dilation is caused by one part of the pair traveling faster relatively to the other would this also apply?

As relativistic effects can be measured at quite low speeds and in lower gravity fields, do you think that it's possible that we could ever experimentally confirm this?

 

[Dale]

Could it be possible for example, that if one part of an entangled pair was to come under the gravitational influence of a black hole (without crossing the event horizon), that time dilation could split the pair by millions of years, yet they would still be connected? And if time dilation is caused by one part of the pair traveling faster relatively to the other would this also apply?

Certainly. This happens to some degree with any entangled particles that are moved apart.

 

[Lost in Space]

Certainly. This happens to some degree with any entangled particles that are moved apart.

That's really interesting. So, if they are still entangled even though time dilation has separated them, will a change of state in the part moving relatively slower to the other or a change in state of the one not affected by the gravity field be carried backwards in time to the other?

 

[Dale]

What are you talking about? The two particles are a single quantum-mechanical system with a single state (wavefunction). They don't have separate states which can be independently changed or not changed at some time. If you interact with one particle then you change the state of the system.

 

[Lost in Space]

Please forgive my ignorance, but all I'm trying to establish is whether there is a time differential between the entangled pair and what is happening in each respective time frame if they are occupying two different time frames due to time dilation. If there is an interaction with one that is separated in time from the other how will this be reflected? Will any interaction be still be instantaneous even though they occupy different time frames? If both observers are separated relativistically, will the observation of the 'receiver' take time to register the change in state for example?