Science Scientists manage to reverse entropy and the arrow of time via quantum computer - not quite time travel but

OK guys.... it's fully bullshit.

Quantum Computers = not real
Quantum Entanglement = not real (Quantum computing depends on this)
Time travel = Not real
This experiment = Pressing rewind on a simulation

No time travel occurred. Sorry to break the boring truth to you...

Someone said it's like smashing a vase then getting it to reassemble. No, it was actually taping a vase falling and breaking, then playing that tape in reverse. Yeah, it's really that lame.
 

spvcxghxztpvrrp

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
i fucked up

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613123/no-ibm-didnt-just-reverse-time-with-a-quantum-computer/amp/
No, scientists didn’t just “reverse time” with a quantum computer
Amazing headlines about time machines are a long way off the mark, sadly.

If you believe what you read on the internet, it’s been an exciting 24 hours for quantum physics.

The headlines have been incredible. Newsweek (Scientists Have Reversed Time in a Quantum Computer), Discover (Scientists Used IBM’s Quantum Computer to Reverse Time, Possibly Breaking a Law of Physics) and the UKs Independent newspaper (Scientists ‘Reverse Time’ With Quantum Computer in Breakthrough Study). Cosmopolitan magazine also chimed in: Scientists just turned back time and its like Back to the Future is coming true. There are many, many more.

The trigger for all of these was a Scientific Reports paper with the provocative title “Arrow of time and its reversal on the IBM quantum computer.” In it, the authors claimed to have performed an experiment that opens up lines of research, in their words, toward “investigating time reversal and the backward time flow.”

If you had difficulty understanding how scientists accomplished such a counterintuitive feat, don’t worry. They didn’t.

Some simple physical models are symmetric in time. Think of an idealized version of the Earth orbiting the sun, where each is a perfect sphere. Look at that system going forward in time, and the Earth orbits in a clockwise direction. “Reverse” time and instead the Earth will travel in a counterclockwise orbit. Both are equally realistic. Or think of two billiard balls colliding. You can run the video in either direction and it still seems physically plausible.

The real world is not that way. Things look different going forward in time from how they would were time reversed—in a number of different ways, among them that entropy (very loosely speaking, a measure of disorder) increases. This is a law both of physics and of common sense. (For a fun and sad exploration of how strange reversing the flow of time would make things, check out Time’s Arrow by Martin Amis. And if you really want to get into the weeds on the physics of time travel, try here.)

So if they didn’t invent time travel, what did these scientists actually do?

Think about pressing rewind on a video. That “reverses the flow of time,” in a way. If you’ve never seen it before, it’s kind of neat. It might let you see things—like steam flowing back into a tea kettle or Humpty Dumpty spontaneously assembling from a jumble of broken pieces—that appear to “reverse the arrow of time.” The paper in question describes a quantum-computing version of such a video running in reverse.

A closer analogy is a lens, like what one would find in a telescope, a microscope, or eyeglasses. A lens can be used to focus light—“reversing” the dispersal of light that had gone out of focus. The authors of the paper, from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, and ETH Zurich, say their technique might be useful for testing quantum programs. This is correct. But it’s a lot less interesting than a time machine.

As Scott Aaronson, director of the Quantum Information Center at the University of Texas at Austin, says, “If you’re simulating a time-reversible process on your computer, then you can ‘reverse the direction of time’ by simply reversing the direction of your simulation. From a quick look at the paper, I confess that I didn’t understand how this becomes more profound if the simulation is being done on IBM’s quantum computer.”

Other quantum computing experts we spoke to agreed. One, who did not wish to be named, said: “I don’t know how useful this is … it doesn’t mean that these guys made a time machine. They certainly didn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of physics.” He added: “This is the type of hype that is going to give quantum computing a bad name.”

He’s right. Wild headlines don’t just give quantum computing a bad name. They do damage to science as a whole by convincing the public that science is so bewildering it’s beyond their comprehension. It’s tough enough to explain the paradoxes that actually exist in quantum mechanics without sensationalist embellishment. Time, whether any of us likes it or not, marches on.
 

flexedupicedout

nigga gotta feed his family
kiwifarms.net
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-physicists-reverse-quantum.html
the actual paper to go with it is right here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.10057.pdf




tldr: group of scientists starts with a set of qubits in a specified initial state which then gets randomised and they manage to effectively reverse the entire process that caused that randomisation, thereby reversing entropy and the arrow of time. it may and might not be full-blown time travel any time soon, but essentially breaking the second law of thermodynamics is quite the start.
I am way too stoned for this
 
Still, reversible computing is a cool thing in itself. I have heard it said (my misunderstanding?) that reversible computing is incapable of doing any real calculation, let's see if quantum computing changes that.
Guys, have you ever seen a simulation? Or even a starcraft replay? Many simulations let you rewind. This is all that happened here. If future states can be predicted by current states, then previous states can be determines as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan

ToroidalBoat

Token Hispanic Wacky Delly Friend
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
...or he exists because of it.
There's an idea called the "Novikov self-consistency principle," which goes something like "any changes to the past were part of history all along." And if time is just another dimension like space -- stuff in space is consistent in a single moment -- I think that's how it works.*

Of course that would mean that the lack of known time travelers in history could mean time travel is never invented. It's like the Fermi paradox, but with time travel.

*(One could argue that free will doesn't exist from a linear perspective, but does from a timeless perspective, if the past and future are unalterable.)
 
Last edited:
There's an idea called the "Novikov self-consistency principle," which goes something like "any changes to the past were part of history all along." And if time is just another dimension like space -- stuff in space is consistent in a single moment -- I think that's how it works.*

Of course that would mean that the lack of known time travelers in history could mean time travel is never invented. It's like the Fermi paradox, but with time travel.

*(One could argue that free will doesn't exist from a linear perspective, but does from a timeless perspective, if the past and future are unalterable.)
Sure, the ramifications of time travel would depend on whether time is truly a dimension, like you say. I've put more thought into this than a sane person should, so here's where I'm at on that:

Space has 3 dimensions. There's the north/south dimension, the east/west dimension, and the up/down dimension. Any movement can be tracked along these 3 axes. If I move 1 unit north, and 1 unit west, I will be in the same place as someone who started from where I was, then went 1 unit west, then 1 unit north. In other words, to get somewhere in space, you must travel the distance.

Obvious, right? But the distinction is important, because of relativity.

Time is considered a dimension by many. In a sense, any given thing in the universe happens at a place and time, so there are 4 dimensions overall, right? If you don't know when something is going to happen, what are the odds you'll be in the right place at the right time?

However, it breaks down when you get to relativity.

Let's say I have 2 watches, both set to the exact same time, and they're really good watches so we know they won't break during the experiment. Let's say I put a watch on a rocket, have it fly around the earth at a very high velocity, then come back to me. SpaceX built me a good rocket! Now, as you probably have read or heard, an object travelling at a higher rate of speed experiences time more slowly. Or, in another way of putting it, my space watch is going to come back to me no longer synchronized with my earth watch. My earth watch will have travelled through more time than the space watch. My earth watch might say, for example, it's 2:30, while the space watch says it's 2:28. I went through 2 more minutes than the space watch did.

And yet, despite the fact that space watch started from the same point in time as I did, travelled through less time than me, then ended up back to me, but still having had missed that time. To me, that says time isn't a dimension.

You can't replicate that with the three space dimensions. No matter how fast or how slow you go, you gotta travel every last inch of space to get somewhere, there's no skipping a couple feet somehow. However, with time, you can have two objects start from the same point, go do stuff, come back to the same point, and have travelled different amounts in the end.

So, due to that thought experiment, I say time is NOT a dimension, but in fact more of a... universal.... thing that happens to stuff.
 

2 litre soda

For what we do, we have to grovel?
kiwifarms.net
Ahhhh

See, that's why you gotta put a subtitle in. Otherwise asses like me are gonna not click the video and ask you dumb questions, even when you were JUST helping them make their point.

I'm still not gonna click the videos though. Do they agree with or contradict what I said?
Ha, that's fair dude. Nah, they agree with you completely. Time gets weird when you move fast and/or move away from things, basically, but we can figure out how to compensate for it. If we couldn't calculate it, we couldn't have things like GPS satellites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spvcxghxztpvrrp
Ha, that's fair dude. Nah, they agree with you completely. Time gets weird when you move fast and/or move away from things, basically, but we can figure out how to compensate for it. If we couldn't calculate it, we couldn't have things like GPS satellites.
Yeah, exactly, relativity perfectly describes the time dilation, like you say, if it didn't GPS wouldn't work.

But to me that demonstrates time isn't really a dimension. If I am at X=0 and move 10 units in the positive direction, now I'm at X=10. There's no other way to get from X = 0 to X = 10 without moving 10 units in the positive X direction. Regardless of speed.

However, on the other hand, my space watch got from 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM, but according to its own measurements, it only went through 58 minutes of time. It essentially "teleported" those additional 2 minutes, if we take time to be a dimension.

If time was a dimension, it simply shouldn't be possible for this mismatch to occur. The space watch should either show up at 2:28, or it should measure the full hour. It certainly shouldn't start at 1:30, go through 58 minutes of time, then end up at 2:30.

Now... what does that make time? I really don't know. The best I can do is describe it as a thing that happens to you vs a dimension that you travel through and occupy.

So, let me get to the point. If my model of time is reasonably close to correct, that means basically, Terminator 2 style time travel is logical and would work. You could go through events one way, time travel, go back through those events another way, and both would have happened to you.

That would mean a "timeline" is totally relative, there is no "true timeline". A time traveler's timeline could include events non-time travelers have no memory of, because he traveled back and did it again.

That would kinda sorta imply parallel universes, otherwise the universe you time travel from would need to cease to exist. I mean, otherwise the timeline has to wait on the time traveler to figure out what actually happened, and a closed loop (again, like Terminator 2) would mean time was essentially stuck. That doesn't seem to fit with the "no objectively true perspective" that relativity posits.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino