Scientists simulate backwards time-travel

[Sparkster]

Has anyone else heard the news about this? In 2014, scientists at the University of Queensland claimed to have successfully simulated quantum particles traveling backwards through time using photons. In one case, a photon was passed through a wormhole and interacted with it's older self. In another case, a photon traveling through usual space-time interacted with a photon which was indefinitely trapped in a closed timeline curve.

 

[Einstein]

Nope. Never heard of that. You would think something like that would be talked about more. But I smell a rat, over your mention of wormholes. Those are made by worms.

 

[Darby]

Has anyone else heard the news about this? In 2014, scientists at the University of Queensland claimed to have successfully simulated quantum particles traveling backwards through time using photons. In one case, a photon was passed through a wormhole and interacted with it's older self. In another case, a photon traveling through usual space-time interacted with a photon which was indefinitely trapped in a closed timeline curve.

Yes, this came up a year ago on one of the threads.
It's a real paper and it was peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. You read a pop-sci "interpretation" of their paper on one of a dozen or so sites (not counting the sites that simply reprinted the original pop-sci articles).

The Queensland U team took a particular solution to General Relativity (there are an infinite number of such solutions, BTW) and successfully created a simulation based on their what-if. In other words they asked the question, "What if the world is actually like "this" is this the proper solution for quantum particles traveling through a wormhole?" And then they found a positive solution. But the question still remains, "Is the world actually like "this"?" meaning do their experimental assumptions truly mirror the real world? They didn't invent a time machine if that's what you think that their paper is indicating. It was a gedankenexperiment.

I always caution members over reading pop-sci articles written by amateurs about real science and real scientific papers. The writers tend to sensationalize, rarely get the facts right and usually have no clue about what they are talking about.

You can buy the actual published paper for $32 or rent it for 48 hours here:

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/ncomms5145?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version&show_checkout=1&tracking_action=preview_click

 

[Sparkster]

Nope. Never heard of that. You would think something like that would be talked about more. But I smell a rat, over your mention of wormholes. Those are made by worms.

Well, I hadn't thought of that you know. Wormholes are created by worms lol. They must be some pretty big worms! I also didn't realize that there were worms in space! Seriously though, this news was published quite widely in June 2014. The article "Experimental Simulation of Closed Timeline Curves" was published in peer-reviewed journal, Nature.

 

[Sparkster]

Yes, this came up a year ago on one of the threads.It's a real paper and it was peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. You read a pop-sci "interpretation" of their paper on one of a dozen or so sites (not counting the sites that simply reprinted the original pop-sci articles).
The Queensland U team took a particular solution to General Relativity (there are an infinite number of such solutions, BTW) and successfully created a simulation based on their what-if. In other words they asked the question, "What if the world is actually like "this" is this the proper solution for quantum particles traveling through a wormhole?" And then they found a positive solution. But the question still remains, "Is the world actually like "this"?" meaning do their experimental assumptions truly mirror the real world? They didn't invent a time machine if that's what you think that their paper is indicating. It was a gedankenexperiment.

Wow, a lot of assumptions and derogatory comments there. First of all, yes I know it was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal and no, I did not read a pop-sci interpretation of it. I actually wrote about it myself on a couple of sites. No, of course I didn't think they "invented a time machine". The keyword being "simulation".

I always caution members over reading pop-sci articles written by amateurs about real science and real scientific papers. The writers tend to sensationalize, rarely get the facts right and usually have no clue about what they are talking about.

So now you are saying that writers like myself are "amateurs" and trying to make out like we are stupid because of your own ridiculous preconceived assumptions. I, myself, have qualifications in science and I find your comments to be extremely rude, disparaging, degrading and incredibly insulting. How small-minded of you.

 

[Darby]

WSo now you are saying that writers like myself are "amateurs" and trying to make out like we are stupid because of your own ridiculous preconceived assumptions. I, myself, have qualifications in science and I find your comments to be extremely rude, disparaging, degrading and incredibly insulting. How small-minded of you.

And, unfortunately, in most cases the assessment is true. In the majority of cases of pop-sci treatments of real science the writer sensationalizes, gets the facts wrong and/or demonstrates a lack of subject knowledge. Like it or not, big or small mind, rude or otherwise the caveat emptor (actually lector) stands.
Your case above: You now claim to be a technical writer. Good. Let's go back to your initial post:

So as a polished, professional writer of scientific articles who didn't read a pop-sci article but read the peer reviewed paper or interviewed the actual researchers in order to get the information to write your own article (its one or the other if you didn't read a pop-sci article about it). If so, why did you state in your initial post,

In one case, a photon was passed through a wormhole and interacted with it's older self. In another case, a photon traveling through usual space-time interacted with a photon which was indefinitely trapped in a closed timeline curve

.They did no such thing. It was a simulation. It didn't happen. You sensationalized it...or you didn't understand the paper. In either case, as presented in your post, you got the information wrong. See what I mean?
Anyway, where can we see your article? We'd like to see what you actually published. Maybe you did a better job with writing an article than your post because you took your time with the article and crafted it a bit more precisely.

Just to cross check how about a list of your published articles and where we can see them.