Did They Just PRove Time Travel at the Particle Level?

What did they find out in their experiment?  Here is some more background:

It has long been known that single atoms can also display wave-particle duality.

To carry out their experiment, Truscott and his team collected about a thousand helium atoms, cupping them with lasers, and cooled them to one billionth of a degree above absolute zero. The crowded atoms bumped and jostled, knocking each other out of the laser trap, until eventually a single atom remained.

The team then allowed the atom to fall towards crisscrossing laser beams. The lasers split the atom’s trajectory into two possible paths. After the atom passed the crossroads, the equipment randomly switched to a set-up that either recombined the two possible paths, or did not.

The atom behaved in the same way as the photon. If the paths were recombined this produced an interference pattern typical of a wave, showing the atom travelled down two paths at once. If the paths were not recombined, the atom banged into one of the detectors at the end of each track, in the same way a pebble would.

So, which path did the atom take? Or did it take both? The same experiment gives two contradictory results – as Wheeler predicted it would.

This is groundbreaking!  And here is a traditional double slit experiment video as well!

thanks to cosmosmagazine.com for the great info



Pages: 1 2

95 Comments

  1. Brian Morris said:

    Well, according to String Theory there could be as many as 12 dimensions. Unfortunately, String Theory hasn’t been getting much support, recently.

    Reply
  3. Bryan Klaja said:

    @[100000422697922:2048:Jason Moore] , maybe we’ll get to go back in time and crack some heads in he dust bowl some day ! Lol

    Reply
  8. Nisan Catron said:

    I’m still confused though.

    If a person is parked at the ‘center of the universe’ and watches us rotate around the sun, seemingly ageless (a second to us is a thousand years to him)
    Why do we not see him age at the same rate?

    We must.

    The only other answer is that we are each the center of the universe and he seems ageless to us (now we have a contradiction).

    Reply
  9. Brian Morris said:

    Since the relative velocity of one-another would be the same from both perspectives (since they’re looking at each other) both would see time slowing down the same amount for the other. Time dilation would affect both equally, from each of their frames of reference.

    Reply
  16. Brian Morris said:

    Oh, I see what you mean. I meant that the twin paradox doesn’t apply, because we aren’t discussing an outbound and then inbound return trip. If you read the description, the twin paradox involves leaving and then returning, which creates two different inertial frames of reference. We haven’t been discussing that, thus far, we have been focusing on constant movement in a set direction (or set orbit).

    Reply
  19. Brian Morris said:

    No, it is. The satellites are always in the same inertial reference frame, whereas the ship has to move away, then stop, then move back toward us. That means it has two different inertial reference frames. However, this is starting to get into technical territory that I don’t feel comfortable discussing, as it is on the boundary of my knowledge of the subject matter. Anybody else care to weigh-in?

    Reply
  24. Scott Master said:

    Rule of thumb: If the headline of an article ends in a question mark, there’s a good chance they haven’t discovered anything new. F your clickbait.

    Reply
  33. Brian Morris said:

    Okay, I think I have figured out where the conversation got off track. I believe it has to do with the distinction between general and special relativity (the names of which I reversed, so I apologize for the confusion).

    So far, we have been discussing Special Relativity, which is concerned with objects in motion. Any object that is moving is in its own inertial frame of reference. Think of this inertial reference frame like the perspective of an observer. Any object that appears to be at rest from this perspective is sharing your inertial reference frame, while anything moving is in another reference frame.

    You are only in an inertial reference frame while moving at a constant velocity, which is why it’s so often discussed in relation to celestial bodies, which rarely undergo noticeable acceleration. While accelerating, you are not in an inertial reference frame, and therefore Special Relativity doesn’t apply; instead we need General Relativity.

    General Relativity is concerned with objects undergoing acceleration. The greater the acceleration, the more time slows down. In this case, as the person accelerating, you actually will see time appear to speed up for a person who is not accelerating, and your age difference will increase.

    So, as you can see, the twin paradox involves the space-traveling twin changing inertial reference frames when undergoing the acceleration required to change direction for the return trip. This causes additional time dilation due to the effects of General Relativity, not because of Special Relativity, as we had been discussing.

    This conversation has been quite enjoyable, and I am always pleased when a discussion forces me to go back and brush up on my science knowledge!

    Reply
  34. King Lu said:

    Wow this is the best convo I’ve ever read on fb lol. I read all of it I’m very interested in stuff like this. I just wish my grammar, punctuation and vocabulary were up to par to keep up lmfao. Writing is my worse subject :/.

    Reply
  35. Ralph Hall said:

    If it is so in the end it will also cease and all old souls will disappear there will be no eternal fire that’s torture,my Father isn’t into that that’s King James’s version!

    Reply
  36. Tudy Garza said:

    so time travel is possible but i saw a video about Stephen Hawkins denying time travel and calling the bible a book of fairytales

    Reply

*

*

Top