TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Physicists rewrite a quantum rule that clashes with our universe

90 点作者 akeck超过 2 年前

13 条评论

hinkley超过 2 年前
&gt; But the extra photon wasn’t created by that special process, so instead of disappearing when you turn back time, its wavelength will eventually get impossibly small, concentrating its energy so greatly that the photon collapses into a black hole. This creates a paradox, absurdly implying that — in this fictional, expanding universe — microscopic black holes convert into photons. The thought experiment suggests that a naïve mashup of unitarity and cosmic expansion doesn’t work.<p>The Laws of Thermodynamics state that you can’t create a photon from nothing, so isn’t introducing an “extra photon” into the universe already a paradox? Who would be the least bit surprised that paradoxes create paradoxes?
评论 #32993926 未加载
评论 #32993898 未加载
评论 #32993623 未加载
评论 #32993335 未加载
评论 #32992872 未加载
评论 #32994143 未加载
dls2016超过 2 年前
Dang, I did my phd in L2-based spaces... completely worthless now!
评论 #32993813 未加载
评论 #32991353 未加载
denton-scratch超过 2 年前
IANAP. The article says that as the Universe expands, &quot;new space&quot; gets created. is that correct? I thought it was space itself that expanded. I didn&#x27;t get the reasoning, but the Paradox of the Irreversible Photon seems to be an implication of this creation of new space.<p>I find the article frustrating, because I can&#x27;t follow the reasoning, because they&#x27;ve left out critical steps. I wonder where I can find an explanation of this stuff that I can understand.
评论 #32993899 未加载
评论 #33007208 未加载
danwills超过 2 年前
I found this fascinating! Unitarity does seem to suggest that the future somehow equals the past, which does seem to leave a bit of explaining to do (why would time exist&#x2F;happen at all?) I also like the way that the new &#x27;isometry&#x27; method resolves this by extending into a new dimension. It reminds me of the idea of the self-organisation of space (from previously dimensionless information) proposed by process-physics back in the 90s.
评论 #32992005 未加载
plaguepilled超过 2 年前
Possibly a dumb question, but why does that article state a photon&#x27;s wavelength increases with time? I am paraphrasing the line where they explain how expanding universes suggest black holes cause photons in the thought experiment.<p>Also, if we do chuck out unitarity, does that mean we can &quot;break&quot; experiments like stern Gerlach by just making them take a really long time?
评论 #32997273 未加载
评论 #32991529 未加载
评论 #32999261 未加载
kleiba超过 2 年前
<i>When particles interact, the probability of all possible outcomes must sum to 100%. Unitarity severely limits how atoms and subatomic particles might evolve from moment to moment. It also ensures that change is a two-way street: Any imaginable event at the quantum scale can be undone, at least on paper.</i><p>I know, I&#x27;m just a mesely computer scientist and not an honorable physicist, but these two sentences from the third paragraph don&#x27;t make sense to me.<p>Why does the fact that the you cannot exceed a probability of 1.0 when considering all possible outcomes (which is typically one of the foundational axioms that build the basis of the definition of probability) be limiting?<p>How does the bit about &quot;can be undone&quot; (at least at quantum scale!) follow? What is meant by &quot;at least on paper&quot;?
评论 #32992157 未加载
评论 #32993685 未加载
评论 #32993949 未加载
评论 #32992893 未加载
_cs2017_超过 2 年前
The article didn&#x27;t really explain why expanding universe is in any kind of a conflict with unitary. The fact that a randomly added photon would become a black hole in the past isn&#x27;t convincing since one can&#x27;t just add a particle out of nowhere.
评论 #32993722 未加载
评论 #32992859 未加载
评论 #32996194 未加载
renox超过 2 年前
I wonder if there is an experiment which could test this &quot;rule&quot;?
amluto超过 2 年前
This is an interesting theory for an expanding universe, but it seems to imply that the universe <i>cannot</i> contract: in a contracting universe, the time evolution operator would have to be a dimension-reducing isometry, which doesn’t exist.<p>It would certainly be interesting if the true laws of quantum gravity don’t allow contraction regardless of initial conditions.
cycomanic超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m not a quantum physicist, but it seems like theoreticians always resolve to adding more dimensions when they can&#x27;t solve a problem. In a way this sounds like string theory 2.0.<p>Also it might not be clear to every one, but unitary also implies energy conservation, I assume isometry also conserves it otherwise it would be a pretty big ask to adopt it.
评论 #32993330 未加载
评论 #32992319 未加载
评论 #32993074 未加载
评论 #32992282 未加载
martin1975超过 2 年前
So is the rule or the universe off? Or is there something else missing to a more complete description of the quantum universe?
评论 #32991429 未加载
评论 #32991719 未加载
michaelwww超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m not a physicist but how much of modern physics is real and not just math?
评论 #32994507 未加载
评论 #32992339 未加载
Bolkan超过 2 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;TG15s3Brbrw" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;TG15s3Brbrw</a>