Can Information Travel Back in Time through Quantum Physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical possibility of encoding information in particles that could travel back in time, particularly through concepts in quantum physics. Participants explore various interpretations of quantum mechanics and their implications for time travel, while also considering the narrative needs of a fictional story.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it is theoretically possible to encode information in particles that travel back in time, referencing theories in quantum physics about "forwards" and "backwards" photons.
  • Another participant notes that while some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest the possibility of signals traveling back in time, these interpretations are not universally accepted.
  • It is mentioned that quantum mechanics and relativity have an "uneasy coexistence," and that faster-than-light signals cannot be used for communication due to the no-signalling theorem.
  • A suggestion is made to consider general relativity and wormholes as a means for time travel, although one participant expresses frustration with the overuse of wormholes in science fiction.
  • Another participant acknowledges the no-signalling constraint but expresses a desire to find a more plausible explanation for time travel in their story, indicating a preference for originality over clichés.
  • One participant introduces the concept of causal loops and materials where light appears to travel faster than light in a vacuum, noting that while these ideas are not generally accepted for signaling, there are some experimental loopholes that could be explored.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of time travel and the use of various theoretical frameworks. There is no consensus on a definitive approach, and multiple competing ideas are presented regarding the plausibility of time travel in fiction.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in current theories, such as the no-signalling theorem and the challenges of reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. There is also a recognition of the dependence on narrative needs in fictional contexts.

Gnophos
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Is it theoretically possible to encode information in particles which travel back in time? I realize this is a can of worms question. I am also not too sharp with QP. Isn't there a theory in Quantum Physics that there are "forwards" and "backwards" photons which meet each other in time? So I am wondering if data could be carried that way.

Feel free to speculate. I'm writing a story and I am simply looking for a general excuse for a hypothetical device being able to send back messages in time. So the audience won't care whether the theory holds up in a room of qualified scientists, only whether it sounds "believable" that messages can be sent backwards.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Umm... hello?

I know there is a separate area for Time Travel posts, but this really does relate to QP. Does anyone understand my question? or should I have posted it somewhere else?
 
The uneasy coexistence

Although some interpretations of QM postulate signals that travel instantaneously (as in Bohmian mechanics) or back in time (as in the transactional interpretation) these are by no means universally agreed upon. Also, QM exhibits something which has been called the 'uneasy coexistance' with relativity. This means that although it is possible to use signals that travel faster than the speed of light to explain some phenomena, these can NEVER be used for communication. This is shown by the so-called 'no-signalling' theorem.

Your best bet for time traveling signals, if you want to make them scientifically plausible, is to make use of general relativity (via wormholes) and possibly the many-worlds interpretation of QM in order to avoid time travel paradoxes.

However, there has never been a strict requirement that fiction should be scientifically plausible in the first place. Despite the fact that series such as Star Trek employ scientific consultants, devices such as 'inertial dampers', 'transporters' and 'replicators' remain highly dubious from a realistic perspective. Therefore, I suggest you use whatever sort of device is needed to make your story work.
 


Originally posted by slyboy

Your best bet for time traveling signals, if you want to make them scientifically plausible, is to make use of general relativity (via wormholes) ...

I totally agree with all of slyboys answer but the suggestion about wormholes leaves me cold.. It is SO overdone. Nearly all Sci Fi writers, TV programme makers etc use the 'wormhole' solution. It is a bit of a cop out really, I think.

In class (I teach Physics), all I ever hear when we discuss BB Theory, QM, Relativity, etc is 'wormholes wormholes wormholes...!" I'm SICK of hearing about bloody wormholes!

So, if you do use 'wormholes' yes, your audience will be familiar with the idea, but why not think of a new idea - it will make your work standout from the rest.
Slyboys last paragraph is spot on!
 
Hey, thanks, guys. I think I know what you're talking about, slyboy, when you say that no signalling is possible. That's a shame.

I will still look for some rational explanation, though (I wanted the story to be just a little more plausible than Star Trek pseudo-science). Wormholes are a possibility, but a little cliche, as Adrian Baker pointed out. Well, you've given me something to think about. Back to the drawing board, I guess. :)
 
Rudy Rucker likes to use causal loops for this kind of thing and materials in which light appears to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (see his short story collection 'Gnarl').

Although most physicists agree that none of these things can be used to signal faster than light, there are a few loopholes in current theory and experiment that might be exploited. Recently, experiments were done to test no-signalling using these sort of materials and the findings supported the consensus view, but they were not entirely conclusive.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/16/12/3
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/9/3/1
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K