Scientists Used IBM’s Quantum Computer to Reverse Time, Possibly Breaking a Law of Physics

By Korey Haynes | March 13, 2019 11:28 am
a sandtimer running backwards

Scientists say they may have managed to reverse time using a quantum computer program. (Credit: @tsarcyanide/MIPT Press Office)

The universe is getting messy. Like a glass shattering to pieces or a single wave crashing onto the shore, the universe’s messiness can only move in one direction – toward more chaos and disorder. But scientists think that, at least for a single electron or the simplest quantum computer, they may be able to turn back time, and restore order to chaos. This doesn’t mean we’ll be visiting with dinosaurs or Napoleon any time soon, but for physicists, the idea that time can run backward at all is still a pretty big deal.

Normally, the universe’s trend toward disorder is a fundamental law: the second law of thermodynamics. It says more formally that any system can only move from more to less ordered, and that the chaos or disorder of a system – its entropy – can never decrease. But an international team of scientists led by researchers at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology think they may have discovered a loophole.

Computing Power

For their experiment, the scientists used IBM‘s simple public quantum computer program, which uses two qubits – two units that, like a regular computer bit, can be a one or a zero. But unlike regular computer bits, qubits can also take a form called superposition, where they are both one and zero at the same time. In this way, they follow the laws of quantum mechanics, which are less clear-cut than the classical world humans inhabit.

The scientists set up the computer so that both qubits are zeros. According to quantum laws, the simple passage of time will cause the computer to fall out of this order, so that the qubits are soon in a random assortment of ones, zeros, or both. But scientists can also cause this to happen by running a program on their simple, 2-qubit computer.

The scientists then ran a different program, which tells the computer to run “backward.” They then ran the first program again, and were able to recover their original, zero-zero state about 85 percent of the time. They published their results March 13 in Scientific Reports.

The tricky part of the program is telling the computer to run backward, effectively making time run backward. Scientists investigated this “in the wild,” by isolating a single electron and calculating how long it would take for random perturbations in the universe to cause such an effect. They found that even if they studied 10 billion electrons every second, it would take the lifetime of the universe for such a phenomenon to happen just one time.

That’s why you’ll never drop a handful of glass shards and see them leap together to form an unbroken mirror, while a dropped mirror will almost always splinter into many pieces. The system will always tend toward disorder.

But by forcing order to rise from disorder with a quantum computer program, scientists may have found a way around this basic physical law.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Space & Physics, top posts
MORE ABOUT: physics
ADVERTISEMENT
  • TLongmire

    This is the loophole the conscious world we live in can obscure the fact it was conscious all along once A.I. has a tangible means to prove it so.

  • Gary Borg

    If they actually reversed time, it would apply to the entire universe, wouldn’t it? I’m thinking that’s not what was actually accomplished here.

    • Scott Mar

      No time is not static. Einstein proved that time is relative. That’s why the faster you go, the slower time will pass as perceived by an observer in a different reference frame. Time is not something that happens at a location. It’s something that is experienced.

      • OWilson

        But experienced “locally”! :)

      • bobgeezer

        Einstein theorized that time is relative: Proved? Hardly.

        • Michael Cleveland

          I think you mean “hypothesized,” but either way, the proof, both mathematical and experimental is there for all who will to see.

          • Scott Mar

            No, I mean theorized. A hypothesis is what you begin investigating and a theory is what you form after research and experiment.

          • Michael Cleveland

            No, a Theory is the vetted, substantiated understanding, the highest level of understanding of a concept. It is formed after research and experiment, but you used it the context of speculation. Relativity has been well-vetted, and stands up after a century to every test that’s been posed against it.

          • Scott Mar

            Yeah. I know and that’s what I said. You are contradicting yourself here. I said theorized because I meant theorized, not hypothesized. As in Einstein’s Theory of General and Special Relativity, not Einstein’s Hypothesis of General and Special Relativity. To write a theory, one must theorize.

          • Michael Cleveland

            First, my answer was not directed at you in the first place, and I’ve already addressed the rest.

          • Scott Mar

            If you look at your post, it is directed at me.

          • Michael Cleveland

            No, look again. Bobgeezer said “theorized,” and I said (to him, and it’s clearly addressed to him), “I think you meant “hypothesized.” You responded with a correction and I answered your post then. I said “Hypothesized” because he was using the other term in the context of speculation.

          • Scott Mar

            Funny that despite all your ramblings, you still haven’t noticed that at the top of your reply, it says: “Michael Cleavland -> Scott Mar“. I now understand that you didn’t intend to direct the comment to me, but you did because you replied to a post of mine, not Bobgeezer. This is what causes Discuss to send people emails to alert them that someone has replied to a comment of theirs.

          • Michael Cleveland

            This is ridiculous. This is a cut and paste of the original exchange. It very clearly was not addressed to you:

            “Michael Cleveland bobgeezer • 8 days ago
            I think you mean “hypothesized,” but either way, the proof, both mathematical and experimental is there for all who will to see.”

          • Michael Cleveland

            Funny, I answered this, and it has disappeared. You need to look again. I answered bobgeezer’s comment, in which he used the word “theorized” in the context of conjecture, you answered my response, and I answered you. Look again.

          • Michael Cleveland

            But note that my answer was directed at bobgeezer.

        • Scott Mar

          I don’t think you understand what the term “theory” means in the scientific community. Einstein’s theory of relativity (General and Special) are over 100 years old and have been tested countless times and never, not once been proven wrong.

      • Michael Cleveland

        IF it doesn’t happen, how would you experience it? In any event, this is couched in poor terms that really don’t say anything useful about the subject.

        • Scott Mar

          You’re the one adding the poor terms. I said it doesn’t happen “at a location”. I didn’t say it doesn’t happen.

          • Michael Cleveland

            The ambiguity of which only makes my point for me. If it doesn’t happen locally, then how can I (as a purely local entity) experience it? But what I was referring to was your reference to experience, presumably (but it’s not altogether clear) suggesting (erroneously) that time owes its existence to consciousness. I stand by what I said.

          • Scott Mar

            But you are the one making it ambiguous. It’s really not. You experience it by comparing your time with other reference frames as we all do every day with the GPS system (which runs a few seconds slower than our clocks on earth do as compared from our reference frame. From the reference frame of the GPS satellites, our clocks on earth run a few seconds faster). Another example of this would be with the “Twin Paradox”, the twin that races away from Earth at nearly the speed of light is not going to be aware of any change in rate of the passage of time. Nor will the twin who stays home. For both, time seems to be passing normally. But, when they are reunited, they both will experience the time shift as the one who left earth will have aged significantly less than the one who stayed home. Thus, the effect is localized based on your frame of reference. There is not a single time that is experience by everyone everywhere.

          • okiejoe

            The Twin Paradox breaks down in the case where they are reunited because one twin is in an accelerated system(he has to slow to a stop and accelerate to return to the starting point.)

          • Michael Cleveland

            I wouldn’t put it quite that way. The so-called twins paradox has never really been a paradox. It derives from the faulty notion that the two frames of reference are equivalent. From the earth you see a rocket moving away; from the rocket you see the earth moving away, so either could be designated as the relative rest frame, and a paradox is manifest in trying to assign time dilation to one or the other. But the two are not equivalent, since the rocket undergoes acceleration away from the earth, so becomes an inertial frame of reference, and not equivalent to the earth’s rest frame. Time dilation only occurs within the inertial frame, hence no paradox, but the phenomenon of aging differences does occur, since one twin has been subject to time dilation while the other has not. It is unclear whether that is what you were trying to say, but whether they are reunited or not is irrelevant.

          • Scott Mar

            That’s not where the paradox breaks down, it’s where the paradox is revealed. Up until the twins are reunited, each moves through space-time without any awareness that anything has changed because they are only aware of their own reference frame. This is what relativity is all about. In fact, each twin could rightfully say that it was the other that was moving away.

            But, upon reuniting one twin will definitely be younger and one older and the reason for that disparity is the acceleration/deceleration that one twin experiences but not the other.

            This is not theoretical, the effect is real as I mentioned relating the the GPS system although with that case it’s not acceleration/deceleration that causes the time disparity (the satellites are travelling at constant speeds). It’s that we, here on earth, are closer to earth’s gravity well than the satellites are. Einstein showed that the force of acceleration/deceleration is the same as the gravitational force, so accelerating in speed is to feel the effects of gravity stronger than usual. We feel the gravity more than the satellites do so from our frame of reference, we move through space-time at a different rate than the GPS system.

            I was very fortunate to learn the details of this topic during an in-depth conversation I had with Brian Greene while I was at WSF.

          • Michael Cleveland

            This is mostly correct, except that the paradox is not revealed but refuted. As I noted below, the idea of paradox arose from a misinformed understanding of the relationship between rest and inertial frames. There can be a paradox only if the two frames are equivalent (there’s that word again), but they are not, so there is no paradox. The rest of the explanation is correct, but partial, since the velocity of the satellites is also a factor. The time dilation is small, but significant enough to throw the system progressively out of synch, so must be accounted for.

    • bobgeezer

      Contradicting your own theory, are you?
      Who says it would apply to the whole universe, scientifically?

  • Gary Borg

    A better experiment would involve doing this and checking randomly at some distant location whether time was reversed there as well. If not, then time wasn’t actually reversed.

    • Scott Mar

      No. That’s not how time works.

      • bobgeezer

        Says the ultimate master of . . .everything?

    • http://www.customsoftwareinnovations.com/ david parham

      meanwhile, someone’s timing all that ;}

  • ECarpenter

    Does the story here point out the fact that this was done on a simulator, using a program that told the simulation to run backwards? And that no real quantum computers were involved?

    No.

    Do you think it’s more likely that they found a flaw in the simulation software or that they actually reversed time?

    I’m disturbed by how bad the science reporting is here.

    • Resonant Frequency

      I thought somthing felt wrong about this too…it’s like playing a word game trick. Its not real it’s imagined…people wrote time travel books all over the place that does not prove it exists.
      I think this is really a case of sensationalism to sell news.

    • Scott Mar

      I think you may have missed the part where they explicitly state that this was done on IBMs Watsons Quantum Computer with two Q-Bits. Yes, a real quantum computer.

    • PhishPhace

      I have seen this story in a number of publications. It seems they all should also reverse time to their high school physics days and pay attention this time

  • johnsawyer

    “The new experiment is like giving the table a perfectly calculated kick so the balls rolled back into an orderly pyramid.”

    In other words, no, it’s not time reversal, nor is it “breaking a law of physics”.

  • OWilson

    Perhaps a more sober, realistic headline, would be “Scientists Used IBM’s Quantum Computer to simulate the Reversal of Time.

    Like running a movie backwards?

    Time, and space, in the quantum world is strange and weird to humans who live in a macro world.

    As a great scientist who’s name escapes me at the moment, once said, “The electron lives in a different time and space from us”.

  • Uolevi Kattun

    Might everyday phenomena be simpler than an electron to calculate backwards and could that state inconsistences? Shares, interest rates, currencies, betting and technical data in general would be ideal data banks for reverse computing.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    You’ve had your fun. Neither the Principle of Microscopic Reversibility nor ergodic systems require time reversal. Cf: “A New Kind of Science,” Wolfram. “Random” stuff often repeats, strange attractors, etc.

  • Ed Jacobs

    Can we go back to November 2016, by chance? There’s something that needs fixing.

    • Martin G.

      Are you still crying over the fact that the creepy woman lost the election? Physicists may have moved a particle to a fraction of a second in the past, but you’re still living in 2016. Now that’s far more impressive!

      • David

        I found her creepy too, but she never, to my knowledge, commented that if her daughter was not a blood relative that she would sleep with her. That is just one of many really creepy things she lost to.

        • bobgeezer

          Keep years old pseudo politics out of these conversations, creeps!

          • David

            Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Before his second run for president Trump was quite open about his sex drive and especially so on the Howard Stern show.

          • Michael Cleveland

            But I agree that your political inputs have no relevance to this discussion.

          • OWilson

            Trump narrowly prevented the past from being repeated, when he stopped the infamous perv, Slick Willy and his enabling missus, from getting back in the WH! :)

            Said Dem. Sen. Charles (Chuck) Schumer, after the Impeachment trial, and the events for which he was fined and disbarred, “He (Clinton) Will Forever Carry The Mark Of Cain”!

            Phew! That WAS close! :)

        • OWilson

          In the days before snowflake feigned outrage took over a whole segment of the country, we had good old classic songs, like, :”She was only sixteen”, and, “I want a girl, just like the girl, that married dear old dad!” Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            You mean, back in the days before statutory rape was prosecuted, and comments like yours and Tucker Carlson’s weren’t considered really creepy? 😒

          • OWilson

            Yep!

            In those days, Mikey, Bill Clinton diddling WH interns, and dropping his pants before low level State Employees, did not outrage the Left.

            In fact they were even desperate to get him back in the White House, last election!

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            From your last comment, aside from his being a Democrat, I don’t see why that bothers you at all. It was wrong, but at least she was older than the age of consent.

          • OWilson

            Only a true believer could come up with that excuse! Lol

            So tell us how old a low level State Employee like Paula Corbin Jones, (not Monica) has to be, for it to be ok for your Slick Willie, to drop his pants in front of her, and order her to, “Kiss it!”.

            See Chuck Schumers take! Lol

            And just when did Trump diddle under age interns in the White House?

            You really are becoming unhinged, Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            Monica Lewinsky wasn’t under-aged, unlike the girl in the song you were disturbingly waxing nostalgic about. And regardless, I wasn’t defending bad behavior, the way you do with Trump. Your projection is just a little too obvious here. 😉

          • OWilson

            You are “disturbed” by the lyrics of a classic oldies song by the great Sam Cooke”?

            Or the classic barbershop song, “When you were sweet 16”, sung by Etta Jones, the Ink Spots, and the Mills Brothers?

            See the definition of “snowflake” above!

            Better keep your kid away from the today’s radio and TV!

            I’m more “disturbed” by a perv who drops his pants in front of a low level State Employee Paula Corbin Jones, and orders her to “Kiss it!”

            Monica was consentual, but diddling her under the same roof as his wife is a little sleazy, for a President, wouldn’t you say?

            But we all have our standards, right Mikey?

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            “You are “disturbed” by the lyrics of a classic oldies song by the great Sam Cooke? “. — Nope, just your reaction to it and other songs about underaged girlfriends. Also, the fact that you’re bothered by Clinton’s sleazy behavior, but not Trump’s. Pretty hypocritical of you.

          • OWilson

            All Trump’s sexual activities were consentual!

            In your bizzaro world you equate that with dropping his pants in front of a low level State Employee and ordering her to “Kiss it!”

            In yor bizzaro world you have no concept of the difference!

            You are way to the Left of your Dem, Senator Chuck Schumer on that, who said “He will forever carry the Mark of Cain”

            (But not carry it back into the White House again, thanks to Trump!)

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            “All Trump’s sexual activities were consentual[sic]!’ — Not according to all of his accusers. There’s actually about 20 now, and some quite credible, particularly in light of his own past comments. As bad as Clinton may have been, that really puts him to shame.

            “In yor [sic] bizzaro world you have no concept of the difference.” — Actually, I do, and you probably do too, but clearly don’t care when the person is someone you apparently admire and relate to, as I do not with Clinton. You rely on strawman argument followed by projection, once again. Try some new material.

          • OWilson

            You are making the charges, comrade!

            You have no concept of seeking legal recompense in court?

            Or to make it simple for you call the cops, get a lawyer!

            There’s a legitimate way to do that, as Paula Corbin Jones did. (She was the low level State Employee that Slick Willie dropped his pants in front of, and ordered her to , “Kiss it!”)

            For his lying about that in court, the result was Impeachment, disbarring and court fines, and a tidy sum, $millions in today’s money, paid out to his victim! :)

            Aside from the spectacle of the chief law enforcer of the land breaking his Oath of Office, by failing to “faithfully uphold the laws of the land” and exposing himself and the country to real blackmail from your Russian adversaries!

            I hear his missus wasn’t very happy with him also! :)

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            “You are making the charges, comrade!” — Actually, I’m not the one who has made the charges. That would be the women.

            “You have no concept of seeking legal recompense in court?”– You mean like the three court cases below?

            From Wikipedia: “Donald Trump, an American businessman and current president of the United States, has been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 19 women since the 1980s. Those accusations have resulted in three widely reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for nonviolent sexual harassment but withdrew the latter suit as part of a settlement for relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar. ”

            “Aside from the spectacle of the chief law enforcer of the land breaking his Oath of Office, by failing to “faithfully uphold the laws of the land” and exposing himself and the country to real blackmail from your Russian adversaries!

            I hear his missus wasn’t very happy with him also! :) ” — That could easily be Trump you’re describing there. He certainly seemed like a whipped dog after he came out of that meeting with Putin in Helsinki, as Putin grinned like the cat who ate the canary. And I don’t think Melania was very happy when she found out about Stormy and the Playboy Bunny, either. But as a former mistress herself, why would she be surprised?

            Likewise, I can’t say I’m surprised by the continued hypocrisy you display in condemning Clinton’s behavior while perpetually excusing Trump’s. Must see a little of yourself in him, or something. 😉

          • OWilson

            Charges and allegations are not convictions, Mikey, but you don’t know the difference!

            Let the courts (and Mr Mueller) decide guilt or innocence, not your Left Wing pitchfork MOBS!

            America deserves better!

            Now I’m outta here!

            Maybe later!

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            Moving the goalpost, engaging in hysterical hyperbole, and running away yet again. It’s kind of a pattern, which I’m sure I’ll see again. Later.

          • OWilson

            (Note: For our readers of a scientific bent, the adult, on topic conversation, continues below!) :)

          • Martin G.

            Are you purposely trying to exemplify OWilson’s definition of “snowflake”? ‘Cause you’re doing a pretty decent job so far.

          • Mike Richardson

            No, snowflakes would be folks upset over what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or folks who label others snowflakes, then make their user profiles private. :)

          • OWilson

            That was quck, Mikey!

            I did that just an hour, or so, ago!

            I got tired of you following me around auto downticking my posts, before I had even finished editing and completing my thoughts :)

            I was just the other day talking to a savvy IT guy. I was curious how I could lose some 6,000 upticks, over two seperate single week periods in the last couple years, on less than a couple hundred posts. :)

            He laughed, and told me to just make my profile private to avoid the spambots, human and otherwise by organised group trollers, and delete my anonymous private followers! :)

            Now although you and CB, have previously endorsed the idea of group downticking your perceived political opponents (I have it somewhere) I would never accuse you personally of such a devious practice.

            We are far too adult and rational for that nonsense! :)

            So I took his advice, which he says will have to make them just work a little harder, wouldn’t you agree? :)

            As it is, my profile shows my 5 “frequented communities”, so I imagine it is not too difficult to find my posts. I also archive them to prevent the occasional misrepresentation!

            Maybe it will work?

            “We’ll see!”

            Have a nice day,Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            “That was quck, Mikey!” Quick or quack? You never got “auto” downvoted — every post earned its down vote, many didn’t get downvoted, and I even upvoted a few. But, if you need your safe space, I guess I understand. Like the Narcissist in Chief, I suppose you want to limit negative feedback.

            Regarding your lost upvotes, which really seem to overly concern you, I have this to say: Rather than a conspiracy of organized trollers — who actually can’t delete your upvotes by downvoting you (Disqus doesn’t do that anymore) — I have a simpler, less dramatic, and less paranoid explanation for you from my own experience. A certain poster in the past has upvoted some of my posts, but periodically deletes one profile and comes back with another. Poof, there go a few dozen upvotes. Somewhat annoying, but that’s his prerogative, and I’m not losing any sleep over it. Also, bots will upvote you to get attention, then those upvotes go away when they get deleted. Again, no great loss and no conspiracy of “militant compatriots” to deprive you of those ever important upvotes.

            Now, since I don’t care if someone wants to downvote me or respond to any past post I’ve made, my record remains. I’m not a coward afraid of negative feedback, if my posts generate any. But heck, if you want to go ahead and completely avoid seeing anything from me that might offend your delicate sensibilities, you can go ahead and block me, and complete the surrender. See you around. Or not. 😉

          • OWilson

            You still don’t get it!

            I post here, specifically for negative feedback, especially from you!

            You never realized that? :)

            I engage you daily and never have called for you to be censored or banned!

            You daily expose the groupthink socialist attitude, to others who normally wouldn’t question the conventional scientific and political devine wisdom, that is passed down to you! :)

            I could easily get more approval for joining the “me too Mikey” movement (a descriptive I ascribed to you, long before it became a left wing meme :)

            Other than agreeing with the articles, and personally attacking the posters of any contrary view, I have yet to see an original thought, or idea, expressed by you in all these years!

            Maybe one day!

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            “I post here, specifically for negative feedback, especially from you!”
            And yet, you also hid your profile out of fear of downvotes, and perhaps also fear of having your posting history available to those who might want some context in providing feedback. Rather contradictory, there.

            “You daily expose the groupthink socialist attitude, to others who normally wouldn’t question the conventional scientific and political devine[sic] wisdom, that is passed down to you! :)” – – Now that’s particularly rich coming from a right-wing hyperpartisan who constantly regurgitates terms and talking points found all over Fox News and AM radio. And I’ve never heard you question the “wisdom” of Donald Trump, whom you constantly refer to as “smart.”. 😄

            Man, being a contrarian is so edgy! Attacking science, researchers, and authors with political rhetoric and cherry-picked data makes you so cool! If only I could be like you! 😂😆

            ” …and personally attacking the posters of any contrary view, I have yet to see an original thought, or idea, expressed by you in all these years! “– Kinda sounds like you’re talking to a mirror, there. We both know originality is not your forte, and despite your victim complex, you do a lot of attacking others yourself. Maybe you’ll get out of that one day, but I doubt it.

          • OWilson

            Another good example what I was saying :)

            Sweeping disjointed accusations and managing to insert a little Trump Derangement Syndrome, and Fox News into your post.

            Like your accusations of me being a “closet fascist”, and a “mental incompetent”, who should be “assigned to a sanitorium” by my familry and “deluded wife”. Lol

            Now in the real world I never watch Fox news. It wasn’t available to me in Canada and certainly not where I reside now! :)

            Also I consider “smart” (as in politician) someone who has defeated and defied the best the Establishment GOP, Dem Party and the MSM could throw at him, and remain in office for two years appointing young USSC Justices for life, while being “accused” of everything from incest, through insanity, to being a traitorous Russian Plant. Lol

            I am not your “closet fascist” I live happily as a minority in a country of color with my colored partner, and until Mr Mueller says so, (not you, Maxine Waters or CNN) Trump is NOT a Russian Plant!

            It was YOU who found the loss of “a few dozen upvotes” “somewhat annoying”, not me.

            I was merely IT “curious” about a major DISQUS anomaly of 6,000 lost upticks on a couple hundred posts, as I would have been if they had been suddenly added upticks!

            In your haste to project, don’t you read your own posts? :)

            But feel free to continue deluding yourself, if it gets you through the night! :)

            But the time has come again, to turn out the lights here again, as the adults have left the building…. Oh wait, you don’t like that one, so I leave you one which your TV Beavis and Butthead mindset may prefer,

            “Jerry has left the building, Neeewmann!!

            Go knock on Kramer’s door if you need some company!”

            Whatever, it means I’m outta here!

            Luego!

            Lol

          • Mike Richardson

            Methinks you doth protest a bit much. Maybe you can convince yourself of the things you say in that long-winded rant above, but you certainly aren’t fooling me, and likely aren’t fooling too many others as well. Running and hiding behind a private profile seems a bit drastic for someone just “curious” about an IT issue, particularly when you used to frequently brag about your upvotes in the days when they outnumbered your posts. Just like you used to brag about having your posting history open for the record. Seems like you’re more than just curious, or even a bit annoyed. And you certainly do expend a lot of time praising a politician who exhibits a whole lot of the same personality traits you do. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. 😉

            Anyways, it’s fun watching you come unglued, but as you’ve turned tail again, I’m happy to call it a night. But like the Motel Six guy says, “I’ll leave the light on for you.” And you can even wear your hat if you decide to drop by again.

          • Martin G.

            So… apparently pedophiles watching kiddie porn and snuff films are of no concern to you, then?

          • Mike Richardson

            Is that what you do in your bedroom?!? I really don’t know why that would pop into your head, since I specified “consenting adults.” Exploited children or unfortunate victims of snuff films would be neither.

          • Martin G.

            I know you’re a little slow on the uptake, but that is what you’re “consenting adults” do in their spare time. You’ll catch up.

          • Mike Richardson

            I know you are a little slow on the uptake yourself, since the possessive is ” your, ” and not “you’re.” You probably won’t catch up anytime soon. And exactly how do you know what everyone else is doing in their bedrooms? Been peeking in windows ? 😏

          • David

            I was not sure exactly what a snowflake was as I do not spend too much time online. But I looked it up in the Urban dictionary and it described you, someone who complains. It once meant, supposedly someone who thought they were unique, usually an insult from a sheep or minion of someone more commanding, but had morphed to complainer. Keep up with the jargon for God’s sake.

          • OWilson

            A snowflake is someone who has no cognitive logical intellect, and gets all his information and belief system, from his own so called “authorities”.

            Well manifested after the last Presidential election, when CNN and the rest of the FNM, consistently assured Hillary supporters, that Trump had “no path to…..anything!” Settled (political) science!

            Which, on election night, left them wandering the streets in confusion and tears, looking for street corner group hugs, while their dream candidate would not even leave her hotel room and come down to her campaign headquarters and thank all those volunteers and supporters who worked so hard for her in her two year campaign! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Exactly. But irony is lost on folks like that, who love to insult others, but quickly play victim when you make unflattering but true observations concerning their own behavior.

          • okiejoe

            “I want a girl, just like the girl that Dad had on the side.”

  • Steve Clark

    Dude, I posted this comment tomorrow and here it is now!

    ::Success!::

    Thanks, Flux Capacitor! #88MPH

  • Michael Cleveland

    Not the same as reversing time. A small pocket of entropy maybe, but not time. Qubit state a occurs at clocktime a, qubit state b occurs at clocktime b, reversion to qubit state a occurs at clocktime c. Time passes.

    • Scott Mar

      The current understanding of time is that it is entropy. So reversing a small pocket of entropy is reversing time.

      • Michael Cleveland

        No, that’s a misunderstanding. Time and entropy are not the same. Entropy serves as a measure of time. Time is part of the fundamental structure of the Universe, inseparable from space. Consider that without time, motion (and therefore entropy) is not possible.

        • Michael Cleveland

          Scott Mar: In terms of time reversal, turning entropy around momentarily is really no different from running your clock backward briefly. The events still occur in a sequence in the matrix of surrounding events, still within entropic time, if you will. You have reversed a process, not time itself. You can accomplish the same thing by dropping a super ball on a hard surface.

          • Scott Mar

            Actually, it’s you who has the misunderstanding. Entropy is not a measure of time. Time is our measure of the process of entropy. If there were no entropy (no change in a system), then time would not exist. In more real terms, we keep our clocks precise by measuring the vibration of atoms. The vibration is the process and we associate a time with the intervals of that process. We measure the process. You can’t measure time itself as time is the unit of measure. And, for the purpose of the discussion, equating entropy and time serves the purpose. As for your explanation of time reversal, I think you need to re-read what the experiment actually did. Although the reporter uses the term “run the program backward”. My understanding of the experiment was that while the “program” was run in reverse, it’s not like a regular computer program with lines of code. If it were, then the result would be the same 100% of the time. With this experiment and “program”, the uncertainty of the quantum realm comes into play and given that, the result was the original state of the Q-Bits ~85% of the time. This is not just running a program backwards, this is relying on Quantum Mechanics to revert to an earlier state.

          • Michael Cleveland

            Entropy is change. Time is measured by change, by motion. Motion is not possible without time. Time is a part of the fundamental structure of the Universe, equivalent to space. Motion and entropy are consequences of that structure, not equivalent to it, no more than the swinging of a pendulum is the same as the space it occupies. Entropy is no more the equivalent of time than the ticking of your clock.
            As for the experiment, I refer you to my original comment. There has to be an observer in this experiment. The observer sees three events: state 1 at time 1, state 2 at time 2, and a return to state 1 at time 3. Reversal of process is not the same as a reversal of time, however you try to dress it up with qubits and quantum computers. That they were able to achieve that reversal is remarkable, but it has nothing to do with reversing time.

          • Scott Mar

            Your comment is iterative… You make a statement and the next statement builds on the assumption that the last was correct. You said “Time is measured by change” and went from there. That statement is not true. Time is the measurement and change is the Entropy. In fact, it is exactly the reverse of your statement: change is measured by time and this is what I already stated you fundamentally get wrong in my last post. It’s as if you are trying to say that “miles are measured by distance, when it’s distance that is measured in miles. The second Law of Thermodynamics is what we’re discussing here: Entropy “In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.” Entropy is the lack of order in a system. We measure entropy (the lack of order) by looking at before and after some event (i.e. process, change) and that measurement is where time comes in “before” and “after” are our way of quantifying the process.

            You then say “Time is a part of the fundamental structure of the Universe, equivalent to space.” Einstein showed us that time and space are inexorably connected into a single “spacetime” dimension, but in no way are they equivalent to each other. That is another misunderstanding you have of these matters.

            Lastly, I again urge you to re-read just exactly what the experiment achieved. It wasn’t just running a sequence of commands backwards. It was a, by definition, unpredictable process that (because of entropy) will always become more random which became more ordered and predictable ~85% of the time (in other words entropy was reversed through a natural process).

          • Michael Cleveland

            “…but in no way are they equivalent to each other. ” Yet according to relativity they are interchangeable. Of course they are equivalent. I stand by what I’ve said.

          • Scott Mar

            Yet according to relativity they are interchangeable. No they aren’t. Relativity says no such thing. What relativity says is that as you accelerate through the space dimension, you decelerate in the time dimension (as seen by an observer in a stationary reference frame) and vice versa. There is a relationship between the two, as I said, but not an equality. The mathematical descriptions of both are similar, but they describe two different things. Einstein told us that we live in universe with 4 dimensions, 3 spacial and one time. Time and space are two different things that are inexorably linked.

            You are confusing mathematically interchangeable with equality. E= mc2 describes an equality between energy and matter, thus making them interchangeable. The mathematics of space and the mathematics of time are very similar, but again, the math describes two very different things. You are essentially confusing symmetries of mathematics with equality of concepts. In science, the same mathematical formulas can be used to describe very different phenomena.

            I really don’t know any other way to say it, but you have fundamental misunderstandings of these scientific concepts and you are taking these misunderstandings and trying to build conclusions based on them. And, as I said, when you try to make a conclusion based on a previous false conclusion, you get more false conclusions.

          • Michael Cleveland

            I am misunderstanding nothing. I’ve been at this for 50 years, and we are talking about basic first year physics. We can do this back and forth all day long, but frankly it’s getting tiresome. Everything I’ve said about equivalence is in print in reputable sources. I didn’t just pull it out of the air, but I don’t have the time or interest to go digging for those references.

          • Scott Mar

            Well, one thing we agree on is that this is first-year physics material.

            I don’t know what “at this” is supposed to mean, but that’s a long time to be giving people misinformation. If you don’t understand the relationship between a process and a measurement or the difference between equivalence and symmetry, then there is no way you are going to correctly interpret the concepts of General or Special Relativity.

          • Michael Cleveland

            Once again, it’s not my interpretation. I have a personal library of something between 3,000 and 5,000 books, not all physics, but a considerable number: Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Davies, and a host of others–about anyone who’s ever written anything about Cosmology and time, both popular and professional. I’m working on other things now, so most of the Physics books are in storage, and I don’t have the time to find the boxes, dig out the books, and read them again so I can give you page and paragraph, but I didn’t make any of this up. I have no doubt whatsoever about the accuracy of “my” interpretation, so you aren’t going to convince me that you know better. I suggest you simply give this up and let it go. As I noted before, it’s getting tiresome.

          • OWilson

            What is tiresome is the certitude expressed by those who’s cosmology and “laws” are based on theories and the concept of a science defying miracle, The Big Bang.

            Everything suddenly from nothing!

            There is no science, and no “laws”, that can ever explain that!

          • Michael Cleveland

            Well, I wouldn’t say that. That’s the same as saying there is no possible explanation for what we don’t understand today. Isn’t that the whole point of science?

          • OWilson

            Science explains how the universe we experience works at our great ape level of intellect.

            We have used it’s more predictable aspects to develop our technological civilization.

            But there’s no logical scientific explanation of why there should be a universe, or whether there should be anything at all!

            As to how, that is even more of a mystery. Scientist run the clock back to hypothesize a beginning point, with no explanation of or why or how it could come into being.

            The universe is explained to us, often with hubris of certitude, in mathematical language, which describes basically how it behaves.

            The Big Bang genesis of what we see today, relies on a “miracle” of biblical proportions, evrything from nothing, defies the so called “Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), to produce humans and their computers, and a mathematical “kludge”, an early unexplainable “inflation”, that even it’s author, the brilliant Alan Guth, finds deeply unsatifying.

            Throw in the newly discovered exponential acceleration of the cosmos, and you have to invoke another mathematical “kludge” Dark Matter and and Energy.

            In fact you can describe anything using mathematical language if you include enough “laws” and assumptions.The equations always balance!

            But describing, is not understandind at a fundamental level.

            The Big Bang has to be taken as an article of faith, which puts us in basically the same quandry as the ancients, who had their own “kludges” to explain what they saw, and wondered why we should be here.

            I’d just like to se a little humility, and less anthropoentric hubris from TV “scientists” like Bill Nye and company, and certain posters on these blogs!

            They take away the fundamental sense of wonder and questioning we should be instilling in our children, our the next generation of theorists.

          • Michael Cleveland

            I’ve been watching this for years: Science knows a lot, therefore if science doesn’t understand a thing/event/phenomenon yet, it must be wrong, magic, can’t exist, never happened, ad infinitum. It seems to me that if any argument would tend to dull our sense of wonder and the desire to question, it would be that very one. We know more today than we knew yesterday, we knew more yesterday than we knew last year, and we will know more tomorrow than we have known for the last 100 years, so long as the villagers don’t march on the castle with pitchforks and torches. But that is exactly where “it can’t possibly be so” leads us. The evidence is there, and it is the best we have at the moment. If you don’t like it, find real evidence that it’s not so and lead the opposition, but “I don’t like it” or “I don’t believe it” is not a good answer.

          • OWilson

            That’s a strawman argument, using quotes on words I never said to justify it, Lol

            On the contrary, Science is a journey, not a destination. I believe an open mind better serves science than looking for confirmation of “settled science”. One tends to find what one is looking for, and trying to make it fit, until it becomes too kludged and requires a new paradigm.

            That’s where science is today!

            All the major scientific advances came from those who upended conventional wisdom, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

            It was Feynmann, Penrose or maybe Asimov who noted, “the most important word in science, is not “Eureka”, but “That’s funny?”

            It is wise to aknowledge that you and I don’t know why we are here, or why there should be a here, here!

            We don’t even know what 95% of the universe is made of! :)

            The journey continues!

          • Michael Cleveland

            The quotes were generic, separators, to denote attitude, not your specific words. The rest is exactly what I was saying: Yesterday, today, tomorrow; of course it’s a journey, which is precisely why it makes no sense to say ” don’t understand it now, so it can’t be so.” (quotes paraphrasing in this case).

          • OWilson

            Thanks for clearing that up.

            But , “I don’t understand it now, so it can’t be so.” still does not in any way resemble my own view, which is shared by most physicists and cosmologists, which is “the more we learn about our universe, the more questions it raises”.

            It’s those new questions, and the search for answers, that continue to drive scientific progress, and it’s what makes the universe an amazingly complex and awe inspiring entity, not the limited answers we have gleaned, “so far”!

            In the short time humans have been around, (these parts, anyway) our understanding of how the universe works, has experienced major, conventional wisdom, paradigm shifts.

            I see no reason. why this will not continue!

          • Michael Cleveland

            Agreed, but I think you’ve forgotten why this part of the discussion got started, and are now contradicting yourself, so I remind you (with a real quote this time): “Everything suddenly from nothing! There is no science, and no “laws”, that can ever explain that!”

          • OWilson

            Which I stand by! :)

            If you have some science, that explains what was there, before there was a “there” there, there could be a Nobel waiting for you! :)

          • Michael Cleveland

            Which is in direct contradiction to your more recent statements about the nature of science. It might have been more excusable if you had omitted the word “ever,” but I say again, the fact that we don’t understand something completely now does not mean it’s unexplainable. We continue to learn.

          • OWilson

            Which “statements” in particular are you referring to?

            (Remember, no more fake quotation marks, ok?) :)

          • Michael Cleveland

            This: “There is no science, and no “laws”, that can ever explain that!” vs: “On the contrary, Science is a journey, not a destination. I believe an open mind better serves science than looking for confirmation of “settled science”. ” or “It’s those new questions, and the search for answers, that continue to drive scientific progress,…” or “In the short time humans have been around, (these parts, anyway) our understanding of how the universe works, has experienced major, conventional wisdom, paradigm shifts.
            I see no reason. why this will not continue!”

          • OWilson

            Thanks!

            In my opinion, the science of how the physical unverse we see works, will always progress.

            On the other hand, there are concepts, the Big Questions, that we can only ever spcculate on,

            Concepts that defy human comprehension like other dimensions, infinity, nothingness (something that cannot exist without something to contemplate it) Why we are here, and what was there, before the “there”!

            That is the realm, not of physics, but metaphysics (and speculation)

            The old spider paradox.

            The spider lives happliy in his cave and exploits his environment successfuly. He has learned how much web it is neccessary to spin to obtain the optimum return on his effort.

            But he can never have any concept of Las Vegas, or Elvis! :)

          • Michael Cleveland

            The flaw in your reasoning is that you must necessarily base your thought that there are questions “that we can only ever speculate on” on our current understanding, so the suggestion that we cannot ever understand those things is rather unscientific speculation in itself. Perhaps you’re right, but you can’t ever know you’re right because you can’t know what tomorrow will bring. I agree there are questions that cannot be answered by science. The existence or non-existence of God, for one, is purely metaphysical and not subject to the kinds of scrutiny that science can bring to bear, but The Big Bang hardly falls into that realm.

          • OWilson

            The BBT falls into the realm of a current hypothesis that describes the evolution of the universe, when everything (reality, time, space and science) suddenly, and without cause, mysteriously exploded into being, some15 billion years or so ago.

            Like Darwin’s evolution of explains our present zoological life forms.

            But it does not tell us how and why it started, or how and why life should exist at all!

          • Michael Cleveland

            For starters, it’s not a hypothesis, but well-vetted Theory. All of the currently available evidence supports it. At the moment, it tells us what happened. How and why are continuing avenues of inquiry. We don’t know everything, but it’s disingenuous to insist that we can’t ever know just because we don’t know now.

          • OWilson

            You believe that humans will one day “know everything”? Including answers to The Big Questions?

            That’s a “speculation” I don’t happen to share! :)

            Can we agree to disagree?

          • Michael Cleveland

            No, I didn’t say that. Every answer brings new questions, so there is no end to questions, but neither is there an end to discovery. There are also human speculations that are beyond knowledge: anything metaphysical, most things having to do with religious belief, but they are beyond rational scrutiny because there are no tools for observation and objective study. They fall outside the realm of science and reason.

          • OWilson

            Agreed! :)

          • Michael Cleveland

            OK, I’m going to put this in logical terms that should be, with a little knowledge, fairly self-evident. The Universe we live in consists of four observable dimensions. Those dimensions are all related in similar ways, so the line is expanded in a specific way to become the plane, which is expanded in a similar way to become spatial volume, which is expanded in a similar way to become four dimensions, which we observe as space/time. They are all related in the same ways, separable only for the sake of description and argument, but in reality a single continuum. The very word “continuum” expresses their equivalence. There is one quote that I can probably locate if you insist, in a book called “Why E=mc2”, but in the short, it states that at spatial rest, you move through time at the speed of light; if you establish movement in space, the combined spatial and temporal velocities add up to the speed of light. If that doesn’t make clear that time and space are interchangeable, in the same way that length, width and depth are interchangeable (and better minds than mine have stated that specifically in so many words), then I don’t know what else to tell you. The only difference, and the reason time is perceived differently, is that we have freedom of movement in three, but under normal circumstances, have no such freedom in the fourth. That is where entropy comes into the equation, but entropy is not time: it’s the reason we don’t have that freedom, a consequence of the structure of space-time, a metaphorical down-hill ride. What you are saying is tantamount to saying that entropy is the linear dimension of a football field or the volume of your closet, which should be fairly obvious nonsense. (edited for clarity)

          • Michael Cleveland

            …And I confess: I said let it go, and apparently you did, but I jumped into it again, just to make clearer what I had been trying to say. Mea Culpa, if that’s warranted.

          • Michael Cleveland

            Just a thought that comes to me now; perhaps you are confusing entropy as defining the arrow of time, which it does, but that’s not the same thing.

  • Martin G.

    This is not impressive at all. I know some people who are still living in the past of 40 years ago, and they haven’t changed a bit.

    • bobgeezer

      Republicans, no?

      • Martin G.

        Apparently some things from the past SHOULD remain in the present, like: common sense, moral standards, etc., whereas Democrats think that revising norms is a sign of progress, like: accepting sodomy as a legitimate act of consummating a “marriage” between two men, allowing foreign criminals unbridled access to our nation’s resources, murdering unborn humans by the millions, etc.

        • OWilson

          All just natural outcomes of a political Party which seeks to:

          “take American society back to the drawing board and rebuild it from the safety net up”. –CNN

          A goal these socialists share with communists, islamists and other radicals.

          America, the greatest most generous, free and prosperous nation the world has ever seen, which has given all its people an unprecedented standard of living, and an opportunity (see Obama, Oprah, Omar, Ocasio) for its minorities to achieve the highest political and societal leadership roles.

          By conquering fascism, communism, and the hybrid of both, known as Imperialism, it also provided more opportunity for all people to enjoy this prosperity and freedom in Germany, Eastern Europe and Japan.

          And all without attempting to expand its borders.

          The good news is that now the goals of the Left are publicly declared and no longer hidden, so as long as democracy and its Constitution lives in the U.S., the “universe will unfold, exactly as it should”.

  • David

    I have perfected a partial bit of time travel. With my system I so far cannot go back in time. But I can go forward in time, over 66 years so far. And in fact, at first it was quite slow, but the better I get at it the farther forward I can go at an accelerated rate, sometimes in big jumps now.

    • Michael Cleveland

      And every time you drive to the grocery store, you alter your space-time vector and add a few billionths of a second to your life span. Live longer? Drive a lot. Flying is better, but if you can get a ride on the space shuttle, whoeee!!. You might eventually work in an extra second or so.

      • http://www.customsoftwareinnovations.com/ david parham

        lol well they say every second “counts” ;}. but, worth it?

    • Joe Prato

      I’m running the same system, but I’m only at the 60 year mark. Things seem to be accelerating uncontrollably lately. I fear this will not end well.

      • Gerald Wonnacott

        Best laff of the day!

      • http://www.customsoftwareinnovations.com/ david parham

        i am nearing my v5.9 upgrade, a version i never knew i’d be running. one thing of regularity that was proven lately was my need to pay taxes. the part where one day my system will be shut down is still as amazing to me as it is counter intuitive.

    • buster01

      Just wait. The traveling continues to accelerate. At 68 I wonder how fast I can go.

  • Kurt Stocklmeir

    all of these are my theories – the arrow of time changes direction all the time for a small amount of time – order is not associated with going back in time – a lot of times order increases – when order increases there is not any thing that goes back in time – I have an almost infinite number of theories that prove there is not conservation of energy – if there is not conservation of energy the second law of thermodynamics is not true – tunneling associated with quantum mechanics can increase order this breaks the second law of thermodynamics – meta materials all the time break the second law of thermodynamics – solar sails work because there is not conservation of energy the second law of thermodynamics is not true – all the universe is negative imaginary not certainty – all the universe is negative energy – all the universe has a negative temperature – because the universe has a negative temperature the second law of thermodynamics is not true – all of the universe has negative not order – time and space are negative energy – time and space have a negative temperature – if space is expanding the temperature of space is increasing – temperature is more negative Kurt Stocklmeir

    • Kurt Stocklmeir

      bing search – Dr. Gold solar sail thermodynamics

    • Michael Cleveland

      All good science, so long as you keep diddling the knobs on your tin-foil helmet (and never, ever remove the goggles of opacity).

    • Scott Mar

      Let’s start by having you understand what the word “theory” means in the scientific world. Once you learn that, you can come back and show us the proof for your theories. Then we can debate them. Until then, you’ve simply rambled off some “beliefs” that you have and nothing more.

    • Kurt Stocklmeir

      time and space are negative energy – if there was not time and space positive energy particles would have infinite energy – any thing that decreases energy of normal particles is negative energy – time and space are spin 1 tachyons – time and space have a negative temperature – time and space vibrate more fast than light – if time and space did not vibrate more fast than light normal particles would not be able to move on straight lines and energy of particles would change – all the vacuum is negative energy – positive energy particles are made up of spin 1 tachyons – all forces are spin1 tachyons – any force associated with attraction is negative energy – there are not any complete measurements – after a measurement there is only not certainty – all the universe is negative imaginary not certainty – all the universe has a negative temperature – not certainty has a negative temperature – it is simple to send information more fast than light using entanglement and weak measurement – my friend and I have particles that have entanglement – I tell my friend if they want to go to lunch to do measurements of spin on their particles at 4 o clock – I leave my friend I have particles that have entanglement with particles of my friend – my friend wants to go to lunch – my friend does measurements of their particles – at 4 o clock I use weak measurements looking at my particles to see if my friend did measurements – entanglement is associated with second law of thermodynamics – entanglement is associated with conservation of energy – not order is relative – second law of thermodynamics is relative – second law of thermodynamics is not true Kurt Stocklmeir

  • Michael Cleveland

    The world is full of examples of order seeming to arise from disorder. Life itself is one such example of a seeming decrease in entropy, but if you look at the energy exchanges, the total system, entropy always increases. I would like to see this discussed in terms of the total energy exchange, because the computer and its qbits are not a closed, isolated system. The observer and the “programming” inputs have to be taken into account, and I would warrant that when it’s all considered, entropy continues quite properly to do its thing.

  • WakeUpAmerica

    So … If I went back one day in time, everything would be exactly as it was one day ago, including me. So I suppose I wouldn’t know I’ve gone back in time. So, what’s the point? Wait, maybe this happens all the time. Maybe that’s what deja vu is all about! Maybe.

  • Gerald Wonnacott

    2 fuckin’ qbits, quantum weirdness, hardly time running backwards… Spare me the BS… Great, 1 particle – 2 places, actually an infinite number of places… Cool but the planet is still doomed by us!

  • Jaycypraea

    Well folks, it’s actually easy to go backwards in time!! All you have to do is go faster than the speed of light. Good luck with that gentlemen.

    • Michael Cleveland

      Let’s see, you throw the switch on your time machine and start back through time, only to return to the moment you threw the switch to go back in time. Of such are the pitfalls of time travel. Just try to get to your grandfather….

      • Jaycypraea

        Hmmm, something tells me you really don’t have a handle on this…………..

        • Michael Cleveland

          Well, it was a joke, a subtle one because it points to one of the major problems with the idea of time travel. The time traveler’s consciousness continues forward in time, down the slope of increasing entropy as he moves backward in time, up the slope. It presents a much more awkward paradox than the possibility of killing his grandfather.

  • Vanessa Saldana

    I need to go back in time i lost my favorite eye liner yesterday. N i got a date tonight but no eyeliner how do i go back in time to see were i lost my eyeliner dang man this blows

    • Michael Cleveland

      Well, first you need to invent the advanced Physics and engineering that will allow you to create and aim a wormhole (faster than light drives being out of the question), then determine the spatio-temporal coordinates (like where/when you last had the eyeliner), aim the system, and step into the hole (portal sounds so much cooler than wormhole). Or, you could just marry a really smart, sympathetic guy. (I know, I’m gonna catch hell for that one.)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+