Or Quantum time machine.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731652-800-quantum-time-machine-how-the-future-can-change-what-happens-now/

Any thoughts on how this theory will fair down the track?

You need to subscribe to view the rest of the article.

What about the theory that if you knew the state of every atom in the universe, that you could predict the future? I.e. knowing the state of everything lets you know exactly what will happen. If you believe that this is the case, then everything is predetermined from the beginning. This would also include any time travel if it is even possible. So, there is no 'changing the future' it is always going to be that way (assuming time travel is possible).

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Or Quantum time machine.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731652-800-quantum-time-machine-how-the-future-can-change-what-happens-now/

Any thoughts on how this theory will fair down the track?

It was law discovered ages ago, by the even most primitive civilizations.It was called since superstition.
People think like that:
1.Black cat is crossing your path on Friday
2. You think - it may bring misfortune
3. you walk and cross anyway
4. Next day you broke the leg
5. You think that cat caused the misfortune/ disaster.

This is how people imagined things works, by many centuries.Here is how it works indeed.
1. You broke a leg on Saturday
2.You think that this misfortune is completely undeserved
3. Time passed, now is Sunday and you suffer even more
4.Your Faith decided there time to do something about this undeserved suffering
5. Your faith is sending a black cat two days back ( on Friday to warn you) 6. You have been scared by black cat this time and reverse from path
7. You didn't cross Black cat path, walk back home
8. Now you didn't break a leg next day
9. Now you think this superstitious thinking is completely stupid because nothing wrong happen anyway or something like that similar scenario could be the motor that drives our lives....
Quite difficult to prove, but so much easier to test the theory on the quantum level.
In the similar experiment, you set up a random trap for the photon from Einstein experiment. Photon shouldn't know where you set the trap - which one from two gates you closed so statistic should be evenly 50/50.But somehow in a real lift smart photon is able to foresee future and avoid your trap ruining perfect statistics.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
You need to subscribe to view the rest of the article.

What about the theory that if you knew the state of every atom in the universe, that you could predict the future? I.e. knowing the state of everything lets you know exactly what will happen. If you believe that this is the case, then everything is predetermined from the beginning. This would also include any time travel if it is even possible. So, there is no 'changing the future' it is always going to be that way (assuming time travel is possible).

that was naive thinking that you could always predict exactly outcome of the experiment.
Only in completely abstract, not existing in real world, Mathematics 1+1 =2In real life, you never know for sure. No physicist scientist give you precise or exact answer to any question. Just round up approximation.

But the earth is flat and under a dome and I watched a video and chemtrails.

Select to expand quote

saltiest1 said..
But the earth is flat and under a dome and I watched a video and chemtrails.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
You need to subscribe to view the rest of the article.

Bugger it's too long to post in it's entirety. I'll see if I can condense it.

The proponents say it will replace the need for entanglement, and Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"

Select to expand quote

But entanglement never did vanish. Instead, it made its presence felt in the laboratory. In the 1960s, Northern Irish physicist John Bell came up with a brilliant way to put spooky action to the test, and it has since passed with flying colours every time. The examination culminated in 2015 with a "loophole-free" Bell test hailed as the nail in the coffin for locality. Like it or not, spooky action at a distance - or non-locality - is a thing. Or is it? Retrocausality could save us from non-locality. The trouble is that it seems absurd at first glance. It jars with everyday experience, in which time flows forward and effect follows cause. But backward causation is no harder to swallow than entanglement - and it might just solve two of the greatest conundrums in physics.

"Certainly, John Bell himself thought his work revealed a deep tension with special relativity," says Huw Price, a philosopher of physics at the University of Cambridge. "The appeal of retrocausality is that it removes that tension." By restoring a kind of locality, retrocausality gives us the chance to rebuild quantum mechanics in a way that works with Einstein's theory of general relativity, which shows how gravity results from the warping of space-time by matter and energy. "Most people have tried to recast gravity in quantum terms, but maybe it is the other way around," says Ken Wharton, a theorist at San Jose State University in California. "Maybe what we need to do is recast quantum theory in space and time. Retrocausality looks like one way to do that." The notion that the present might influence the past in the quantum realm can be traced back to Paris in the late 1940s, when a young physicist called Olivier Costa de Beauregard spotted a way to explain pairs of entangled particles without invoking non-locality. Perhaps, he suggested, measuring one particle sent a signal back in time to the point in the past when the pair collided. The signal could then turn around and travel forwards in time with the other particle, ensuring its velocity was exactly in accordance with the measurement of the first one. If a signal took this path, you could preserve locality without requiring the two entangled particles to have determined their velocities at the point of their collision. No instant communication, no violations of relativity.

OK this should give an idea of what the article is about

You can get NewScientist for free, along with a collection of dozens of other magazines, by joining your local library. The library subscribes and makes electronic editions available to members.

PS Black cats are evil. Since my neighbour got 1, I have broken my leg. Previous nearby black cats have caused the worst hangover I ever had and the theft of a motorcycle

I will subscribe tomorrow but I still can't see the article. What is wrong?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
You can get NewScientist for free, along with a collection of dozens of other magazines, by joining your local library. The library subscribes and makes electronic editions available to members.

PS Black cats are evil. Since my neighbour got 1, I have broken my leg. Previous nearby black cats have caused the worst hangover I ever had and the theft of a motorcycle

But did the neighbour's black cat cross your path? If not, then I'm afraid it's just coincidence.

The bloody thing is semi resident in my back yard. And it can't be bothered to scare the birds that dine on my tomatoes away

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
I will subscribe tomorrow but I still can't see the article. What is wrong?

open up NewScientist. They have a banner with three top features turning over. The retrocausality one is at the bottom of the list. It will be in the print magazine this Saturday as the cover story. So if you join your local library and install the e-reader you can read it on Sunday morning with your croissant and coffee

Can anyone explain quantum entanglement in really simple terms for me?

Something I was reading was suggesting that if the particles/photons/whatever are separated, they keep the same state. On the other hand, if one has the state changed, the entanglement is lost, and the corresponding partner does not change.

Is that the way it works or supposed to work?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Can anyone explain quantum entanglement in really simple terms for me?

Something I was reading was suggesting that if the particles/photons/whatever are separated, they keep the same state. On the other hand, if one has the state changed, the entanglement is lost, and the corresponding partner does not change.

Is that the way it works or supposed to work?

Hehe. You don't get Newtonian based structural mechanics in simple terms. What hope is there for quantum mechanics? Just kidding....

Sorry, can someone please explain quantum entanglement for me, without micro nukes, thermite, or controlled demolition. I loose focus when I hear those terms used in an argument.
Just kidding....

Well, I'll try. At least as best as I understand it (generally from things I have learnted on Seabreeze.com.au forums) :

Quantum mechanics seeks to explain the missing 28 pages of the theory of the universe. The information in these missing 28 pages will prove that the universe didn't evolve but that it was pre-planned by 'them'. If anyone can reveal the information in these missing 28 pages they will probably win a nobel peace prize or something. The missing 28 pages are not actually missing and if you read them they don't contain any evidence of 'them'. But they are irrelevant and hardly the smoking gun of quantum mechanics anyway. The theory of quantum mechanics to explain the pre-planned universe remains a fact even without the missing info that isn't missing, and if you can't see it then you are a probably just a moron.

Entanglement is like when a solid object enters into an enclosed space very quickly and the space and object become entangled in a mess of aeroplane parts and bricks. The sudden and rapid increase in internal pressure caused by the addition of mass into the space will mean that nothing can ever escape through the now gaping hole in the wall of this enclosed space created by the object entering it (except for matter and energy). The object and space are so entangled they are the smoking gun of quantum mechanics. This entanglement would be seen on cctv, but this cctv is invisible to the average observer, providing further evidence of entanglement events.

electromagnetic waves cannot travel from a point higher than 30,000 feet. Any evidence of waves travelling from this height must be manipulated by an unseen 'pair'. This unseen 'pair' is empirical evidence of 'them'. If the evidence of the waves travelling from this height shows nobody ever claimed they did travel from this height then this is to be ignored as being outside of the now proven facts of the theory.

only matter (including thermite neutrinos) in a molten state can no longer support a load. If matter (dark or normal) does not melt then it must remain stationary and cannot accelerate at close to g for a short period of time. Hydrocarbon molecules oxidizing cannot generate enough energy to cause any matter to transition from solid to liquid. => ergo any such event is clear evidence of these 'dark' forces.

I can continue to clarify things if you like FormulaNova or you can read several very good internet threads on the subject. Most of the credible ones have been written by architects (mainly those who specialise in single storey domestic dwellings), seeing as these people have superior intellect and are well read in these complex things that most of the general population can't understand.

Lol.

What would happen if a quantum entanglement were to occur in a five sided building but leaving a hole that is smaller than the particles wings... I mean electron orbits?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Lol.

What would happen if a quantum entanglement were to occur in a five sided building but leaving a hole that is smaller than the particles wings... I mean electron orbits?

That is called quantum tunnelling.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
" is the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount."

I don't understand it all, but have been reassured by experts who say that if anyone tells you they do understand quantum mechanics, they don't.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

evlPanda said..
I will subscribe tomorrow but I still can't see the article. What is wrong?

open up NewScientist. They have a banner with three top features turning over. The retrocausality one is at the bottom of the list. It will be in the print magazine this Saturday as the cover story. So if you join your local library and install the e-reader you can read it on Sunday morning with your croissant and coffee

OK, done that, but I still can't see it earlier this week, as my above post still shows.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
OK, done that, but I still can't see it earlier this week, as my above post still shows.

Hmmm I think there's a fallacy here, we're looking at your above post now, not last week.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Sorry, can someone please explain quantum entanglement for me, without micro nukes, thermite, or controlled demolition. I loose focus when I hear those terms used in an argument.
Just kidding....

Gday FM,
It means that two particles that existed in the same place can be geographically separated but magically maintains some form of "link".
Example: I give one photon to you, and I take the other and fly to New York.
You make a state change to your photon. For simplicity, say you give it a positive charge .

I then look at my photon, and voila! It will now have the same positive charge as yours.

If you use a negative charge, mine will dutifully become negative charge too.

The cool part is they have become permanently linked. There is no physical connection between them in any way, but altering one directly effects the other.

so you could write a digital message , like 110011 using photons and communicate this pattern to anyone, anywhere (and indeed anytime) that has the other bunch of photons without any form of communication. The trick is the photons all had to co-exist someplace together, before being separated, for a "link" to be possible.

SB

I just read the article in the way I outlined tomorrow.

The only bit of it I understand is the idea of time bouncing

Select to expand quote

shaggybaxter said..

FormulaNova said..
Sorry, can someone please explain quantum entanglement for me, without micro nukes, thermite, or controlled demolition. I loose focus when I hear those terms used in an argument.
Just kidding....

Gday FM,
It means that two particles that existed in the same place can be geographically separated but magically maintains some form of "link".
Example: I give one photon to you, and I take the other and fly to New York.
You make a state change to your photon. For simplicity, say you give it a positive charge .

I then look at my photon, and voila! It will now have the same positive charge as yours.

If you use a negative charge, mine will dutifully become negative charge too.

The cool part is they have become permanently linked. There is no physical connection between them in any way, but altering one directly effects the other.

so you could write a digital message , like 110011 using photons and communicate this pattern to anyone, anywhere (and indeed anytime) that has the other bunch of photons without any form of communication. The trick is the photons all had to co-exist someplace together, before being separated, for a "link" to be possible.

SB

SB, the thing that I wasn't sure about is that some articles suggest people misunderstand the nature of the entanglement. Once the state of one is modified, the entanglement is lost, and presumably the states are not linked.

They say something like ' if they are measured, the state is the same regardless of distance between them', which appears to be a very different thing to being able to change one and see the same change on the other.

Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Sorry, can someone please explain quantum entanglement for me, without micro nukes, thermite, or controlled demolition. I loose focus when I hear those terms used in an argument.
Just kidding....

Just think of a woman's mind and thought pattern.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said.. They say something like ' if they are measured, the state is the same regardless of distance between them', which appears to be a very different thing to being able to change one and see the same change on the other.
Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

Well that's what I thought as well, but I can't say if it's correct or not.

At what point do the time travellers consume the lsd?
I went time travelling once, lost 3 days, seen some stuff wouldn't recommend it.

repeat it 15 times and welcome to my life! How many times do I have to watch this garbage before kid gets bored. I use add blocker pro for chrome. like 61 adds blocked in 45 min. chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus-free-ad-bloc/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb Nice download "block the bull****"

Select to expand quote

shaggybaxter said..

FormulaNova said..
Sorry, can someone please explain quantum entanglement for me, without micro nukes, thermite, or controlled demolition. I loose focus when I hear those terms used in an argument.
Just kidding....

Gday FM,
It means that two particles that existed in the same place can be geographically separated but magically maintains some form of "link".
Example: I give one photon to you, and I take the other and fly to New York.
You make a state change to your photon. For simplicity, say you give it a positive charge .

I then look at my photon, and voila! It will now have the same positive charge as yours.

If you use a negative charge, mine will dutifully become negative charge too.

The cool part is they have become permanently linked. There is no physical connection between them in any way, but altering one directly effects the other.

so you could write a digital message , like 110011 using photons and communicate this pattern to anyone, anywhere (and indeed anytime) that has the other bunch of photons without any form of communication. The trick is the photons all had to co-exist someplace together, before being separated, for a "link" to be possible.

SB

Yeh SB, except you are wrong about the physical link, obviously there is one, since the same thing occurs in two different places at the same time because something happened.

our problem is that we cannot determine the causality that makes things display the same behaviours in time across what we perceive to be space.

in essence, quantum entanglement suggests that space may not exist as we (humans) perceive it.

that said, quantum mechanics is not really testable by hypothesis, since we cannot perceive the medium in which to test it.

back to trees falling in forests really, more philosophy than science