Light can be reflected not only in space but also in time
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
Edit: Now that I've read a bit more, it seems to me this is just reflecting light back but "all at once". Like if a light signal were a train going right and the first wagon is A (>>>[D][C][B][A]>>>), a normal mirror would make it bounce and the train would go back going left and wagon A arrives first (<<<[A][B][C][D]<<<). A """time reflection""" would make the train return backwards and wagon D arrives first like this (<<<[D][C][B][A]<<<). I understand it is like reflecting each wagon at the same time so the train comes back reversed. This looks cool but I think the article deliberatively makes it confusing so it sound like the movie TENET when it starts talking about entropy
The Schwarzschild metric for example is expressed in terms of time squared so time itself can take positive or negative values and give the same result. It also allows negative mass but those solutions are not symmetric with positive mass - the rs term that contains mass is not quadratic.
One consequence of this combination is if you consider "negative mass" to be just positive mass operating in reverse time (to avoid having to accept the ugly idea of negative mass in positive time), you end up with asymmetric effects.
i.e. the theory, not reality, is where time symmetry comes from. and this is also exactly why those theories have predictive capabilities
but reality is still asymetric in the temporal dimension
That's an interesting claim. Do you have any evidence of it?
Oh, wait. Do you actually believe time passes? You're going to need to start by proving we're not in a block universe, then.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an experiment that can disprove either assertion. As such, they're more claims of faith than claims about reality.
time is asymmetric BY definition. if time weren't asymmetric I would have to call it space instead. (seems like I'm using asymmetry and monotonicity as synonyms)
in my definition, passing is all time can ever do, and it must do it only in the 'same direction'.
finally, in my view it is space which enables backwards and forwards motion.
I don't follow you here. If time were not asymmetric it wouldn't suddenly just be space. What are you actually claiming here?
Sabine made a great episode on this recently, fwiw, and it’s worth watching if the subject interests you.
The basic structure of the piece is to put a claim in the headline that sounds like a sci-fi breakthrough, then spend the article explaining that this isn’t actually a sci-fi breakthrough.
Like, the entire article here is basically saying ‘there is such a thing as a time mirror. No, it doesn’t make light travel back in time.’
What it doesn’t do is remotely explain what a time mirror is and what it actually does do. No, ‘scientists made a time mirror out of a metamaterial that uses capacitive switches to add and remove matter’ does not answer what a time mirror is.
I can tell you I made a florb warper out of a piece of zinc suspended in a cup of tea and you’re still none the wiser what a florb warper is or what it means for florbs to get warped. But please don’t get the wrong idea - it’s nothing like the warp drive from Star Trek! After all, it uses tea and zinc, not dilithium! Still, we can headline the article about it ‘Scientists test warp device’.
Question: how do I check group velocity in media, to know how fast information traverses through that media? For example in water - how long does it take for my waterproof flashlight to get across a small body of water? As in where to find that information. I always thought I just have to look up the index of refraction, but that's just the phase velocity.
A time mirror causes a configuration to reverse in a way that’s a reflection of the original. Someone in a parallel thread gives examples of this.
They’re not the same thing.
IMO time crystals are more amazing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
Here's a gratutious example thanks to ChatGPT:
"Imagine a line of atoms that flip their spins periodically, creating a pattern that repeats not only in space (like the atoms are arranged in a regular grid) but also in time (like the atoms flip their spins at regular intervals). This repeating pattern in time, which occurs without continuously adding energy, is what makes time crystals so intriguing and different from other states of matter."
The article’s author says the “time mirror” means you send a signal into the experimental setup of wave guides e.g. “a-b-c” and it comes back “c-b-a”.
Furthermore, when the researchers introduce interference during the reversal they don’t see superposition as you might expect (wave-like behavior), but kinetic interactions (signals are acting like a collection of particles).
It may not be true (we know a large percentage of papers can’t be replicated I.e. they’re bullshit), and I have no context to know how important that finding would be, but it is explained.
> Just a few months after developing the device, Alù and his colleagues observed more surprising behavior when they tried creating a time reflection in that waveguide while shooting two beams of light at each other inside it. Normally colliding beams of light behave as waves, producing interference patterns where their overlapping peaks and troughs add up or cancel out like ripples on water (in “constructive” or “destructive” interference, respectively). But light can, in fact, act as a pointlike projectile, a photon, as well as a wavelike oscillating field—that is, it has “wave-particle duality.” Generally a particular scenario will distinctly elicit just one behavior or the other, however. For instance, colliding beams of light don’t bounce off each other like billiard balls! But according to Alù and his team’s experiments, when a time reflection occurs, it seems that they do.
It would be great if the author said that. She doesn’t say that, though. She says, “For instance, what is at the beginning of the original signal will be at the end of the reflected signal — a situation akin to looking at yourself in a mirror and seeing the back of your head.”
Which is a surprising thing for a person with a PhD in nanophotonics to say.
> what is at the beginning of the original signal will be at the end of the reflected signal
Leading with that would have made the whole thing a lot less interesting to non-physicists (possibly everyone, dunno).
Most science articles read like this to me. I wish this was the exception.
> The trick is to create a certain kind of reflection. First, imagine a regular spatial reflection, like one you see in a silver-backed glass mirror. Here reflection occurs because for a ray of light, silver is a very different transmission medium than air; the sudden change in optical properties causes the light to bounce back, like a Ping-Pong ball hitting a wall. Now imagine that instead of changing at particular points in space, the optical properties all along the ray’s path change sharply at a specific moment in time. Rather than recoiling in space, the light would recoil in time, precisely retracing its tracks, like the Ping-Pong ball returning to the player who last hit it. This is a “time reflection.”
> To do so, physicist Andrea Alù and his colleagues devised a “metamaterial” with adjustable optical properties that they could tweak within fractions of a nanosecond to halve or double how quickly light passes through.
So you have some volume of material and wave of light is passing through it. You alter the material everywhere in that volume so that the light does a 180 at every point along the wave at the same instant, reversing the stream of light. Any signal encoded in the light comes back in the opposite order you put it in, like you played a recording backward, or popped a stack until it was empty.
Isn’t that just like any material that light passes thru, which explains refraction?
Just sounds like they read Feynman’s QED book
Disclaimer: not a quantumelectrodynamacist
> Rather than recoiling in space, the light would recoil in time, precisely retracing its tracks, like the Ping-Pong ball returning to the player who last hit it.
Because to my mind, a ping pong ball returning to the player who last hit it seems like something I would describe as ‘recoiling in space’, not ‘recoiling in time’.
Returning stuff back the way it came is actually a thing people associate with ordinary mirrors - so if you’re trying to tell me how a time mirror differs from a normal mirror this ping pong ball metaphor is not exactly helpful.
I blame google just because they are famous
Clickbait.
“ In the acoustic version of this observation, you would hear sound similar to what is emitted during the rewinding of a tape.”
Yes.
“As a result, if you were to look into a time mirror, your reflection would be flipped, and you would see your back instead of your face.”
No.
That is not how it works.
Practically speaking what you would see is a frequency shift (color change).
Where does this bs come from?
Reversing a light signal (light bouncing off your face) does not result in a signal that doesn’t exist (light bouncing off the back of your head). This is just absolute nonsense. If no light bounces off the back of your head, there is no possible way to make light bouncing off the front of your face transform into the former… unless the front of your face and the back of your head are indistinguishable.
There’s science reporting trying to explain complex ideas in simple terms, and there’s just making stuff up. :|
Read the paper (2).
“At such a time interface, a portion of the input signal is time reversed, and its frequency spectrum is homogeneously translated as its momentum is conserved, forming the temporal counterpart of a spatial interface”
[1] - https://asrc.gc.cuny.edu/headlines/2023/03/scientists-demons...
No. If you ever see a headline that gives you that impression, its just someone sensationalizing something much more mundane. I've seen several of these over the years and find it pretty annoying.
I spoke with the client and I still don't understand what they're getting at. Sales said that our requirements are to create a device that can reflect light through time.
Suppose you're using Newtonian mechanics to model the behavior of a moving baseball that bounces off a brick wall. You write down some equations, do the experiment, the results match, yay science.
Now imagine your lazy coworker was supposed to do the same experiment, but he couldn't find any bricks, so instead of a wall he just built a tiny rocket engine inside the tennis ball that can exert exactly enough force to reverse its velocity. The ball's velocity changes in exactly the same way, except that it changes at a certain time (when your lazy coworker triggers it) rather than at a certain place (where the wall is). Would his results match yours?
For a single ball, yes. The behavior would be identical between these two scenarios. If you looked at a graph of the ball's location over time, you wouldn't be able to tell whether it had bounced off a wall or been "bounced" by a little rocket engine. Right?
Now consider a stream of baseballs. In your lab, your baseball cannon fires a stream of balls which all reverse velocity at a certain place in space, but your coworker is firing a stream of balls that all reverse velocity at a certain time. Would they also behave identically?
No, this time there are differences. For one example, the wall-balls would collide with each other (the ball that just hit the wall would run into the ball that's about to hit the wall) and the rocket-balls wouldn't (each ball reverses direction at the same time, so the spacing between the balls never changes). For another difference, they'd bounce back in a different order (the first wall-ball to be shot would be the first to return, whereas the last rocket-ball to leave the cannon would be the first to return).
That is more or less what this experiment is doing except they're using light rather than baseballs, and a substance with variable reflectiveness rather than tiny rockets. This might have repercussions for time symmetry, that's above my pay grade, but definitely doesn't involve time travel.
Let's call this burgeoning branch of physics "Wave Reversal Physics".
That sounds like a good name for now, Wave Reversal Physics...
Plus, that would be a better sell to the "Time can't be reversed" crowd.
Because anyone who's everyone who's anyone who's everyone in Physics -- who knows anything about waves -- know that they can be reversed.
Perhaps not in gigantic superclusters (as might be required for actual Time Travel), perhaps not yet, but as a single discrete wave in various mediums -- wave reversal definitely is possible.
Also, I should point out that that's for any wave which is not a pure sine wave.
That's because pure sine waves have a period -- but they do not have a reversed, (AKA phase-conjugate) form.
They are basically their own reversal at half-period.
Well, I take that back -- it could be argued that a 180 degree out-of-phase secondary sine wave -- is the reversed form of an initial one...
So phase could be one component of reversal in some wave types...
Anyway, point is, let's call this new subfield of Physics:
Wave Reversal Physics
...At least until/unless a better moniker is to be had! :-) <g> :-)
https://www.danfleisch.com/sgw/ https://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Waves-Guides/dp/110764...
Demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAy39ErqV34
I would imagine that due to the bending of space, some of the light would have taken a longer path and seem therefore delayed.
This is a “time reflection” officer and (obviously) proves i wasnt speeding.
(This is not an endorsement of Future Mirrors Inc.)
Among the first reasons for getting electricity was light. It took many centuries to go from "huh, this metal behaves odd when I put it in a jar of acid" (around the year 200) to light bulbs being invented to them making it into your day-to-day life around the year 1880 (if you were a rich person in the right country)
Based on https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/if-you-have-to-as... maybe you meant "you'll never know / I'm not going to tell you" (doesn't sound very nice) or "you've answered it" (umm, how?)
Most likely what they meant is that this is a development that only has “daily life” implications for those who work in theoretical physics as their day job.
Hence: if you have to ask, then this has no “daily life” implication for you.