Indivisible units of time and the quantum eraser experiment

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the concept of indivisible units of time, specifically Planck time, in relation to retro-causality as suggested by the Quantum Eraser Experiment. It argues against the notion of indivisible time, emphasizing that time behaves consistently across micro and macro scales, with variations in perception due to relative velocities and gravitational effects. The train analogy illustrates how choices made at one point can influence knowledge at another, highlighting the instantaneous nature of information transfer in quantum mechanics. Concerns are raised about the timing of quantum eraser experiments, suggesting they lack sufficient duration for retro-causality to manifest meaningfully. Overall, the conversation questions the validity of dividing time into smaller units and the implications for understanding quantum phenomena.
Gaz1982
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
If we take an indivisible unit of time (a Planck time perhaps), could the possible retro-causality hinted at in the Quantum Eraser Experiment be a process where the retro-causality goes back along the same plank unit rather than back in time per se

Metaphor - I don't travel to a different train carriage, just the back of the same carriage.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no indications of indivisible units of time. Time is the same on micro scales as it is in macro scales, it doesn't even have the same rate for different velocities or locations in a gravity well, meaning one second for one location could be two seconds for a different location but the physics remains the same locally. The quantum eraser experiments have been done with not nearly enough time for a delayed choice to affect what occurred at a fork "a long time ago" by photon propagation time scales.

In a train analogy, what happens is when the engine at the front of the train has a choice to go left or right and someone at the back of the train says "I don't know which way we are going". As soon as the engineer determines which track to take, the person at the back of the train "instantly" knows a choice has been made, long before any information could reach them.
 
jerromyjon said:
There is no indications of indivisible units of time. Time is the same on micro scales as it is in macro scales, it doesn't even have the same rate for different velocities or locations in a gravity well, meaning one second for one location could be two seconds for a different location but the physics remains the same locally. The quantum eraser experiments have been done with not nearly enough time for a delayed choice to affect what occurred at a fork "a long time ago" by photon propagation time scales.

In a train analogy, what happens is when the engine at the front of the train has a choice to go left or right and someone at the back of the train says "I don't know which way we are going". As soon as the engineer determines which track to take, the person at the back of the train "instantly" knows a choice has been made, long before any information could reach them.
How could we divide light traveling a Planck length in a vacuum?
 
Gaz1982 said:
How could we divide light traveling a Planck length in a vacuum?
Into as many "slices" of time that makes sense. If it were a very high energy gamma photon, it could have 1000's of waves in that distance.
 
Gaz1982 said:
If we take an indivisible unit of time (a Planck time perhaps), could the possible retro-causality hinted at in the Quantum Eraser Experiment be a process where the retro-causality goes back along the same plank unit rather than back in time per se
There's no particular reason to think that the Planck time is indivisible... but even if it were, how does it compare with the time differences involved in the delayed choice experiment?

jerromyjon said:
If it were a very high energy gamma photon, it could have 1000's of waves in that distance.
It would be a good exercise to calculate the energy of such a photon, see how it compares against the energy of various other interesting phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...