Astronomy - June 2015

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

5 hours

Earth

40 minutes

Pluto

7 months

Proxima

Centauri

3 years

Fomalhaut

628 years

89 years 1,200 years

Kepler-22b

Years (logarithmic scale)

8,400 years

Gem

Cluster

From a resting reference frame 4 years 25 years

From the traveler’s reference frame

34 ASTRONOMY • JUNE 2015

as if they are still two sides of one coin, aware of and in tune with

their other half ’s identity without any lag across space and time.

This strongly suggests that the gap between bodies is not real on

some level. Emptiness is not what we assumed it to be. If even distant

objects are in contact, what does this say about space or separation?

And wait, it gets worse. Einstein’s relativity shows that space is

not a constant and therefore not inherently substantive. High-speed

travel makes intervening space dramatically shrink. Thus when we

step out under the stars, we may marvel at their distances and the

universe’s vast spaces. But it has been shown repeatedly that this

seeming separation between ourselves and anything else is subject to

point of view — what Einstein called a “reference frame” — and

therefore has no inherent bedrock reality. This doesn’t by itself

negate space but merely makes it tentative.

If we lived on a world with a very strong gravitational field or

traveled outbound at a high speed, those stars would lie at entirely

different distances. If we headed toward the star Procyon at 99 per-

cent of light-speed, we would find that it was actually less than 2

light-years away, not the 11 light-years we’d previously measured it to

be. If we crossed a living room 21 feet (6 meters) in length going at

that speed, every instrument in our perception would show that it’s

actually now 3 feet (1m) long. And if we could move at 99.9999999

percent of light-speed, which is perfectly allowable by the laws of

physics, the living room would now be barely larger than the period

at the end of this sentence. Space would have changed to nearly

nothing. Where, then, is the supposedly trustworthy space matrix,

the gridwork within which we observe the stars and galaxies?

In the mind’s eye?

More abstractly, we could even wonder whether space has an objec-

tive reality or is merely our minds’ efforts to give order to what we

see. Is space part of the mental logic of the animal organism, the

software that molds sensations into multidimensional objects?

Albert Einstein had strong feel-

ings against quantum entangle-

ment (and indeed, quantum

mechanics as a whole), which he

called “spooky actions at a dis-

tance.” He firmly rejected the

idea that physics might not be

“local” (objects must be in physi-

cal proximity in order to affect

each other) or “real” (meaning

here that objects have a prede-

termined state prior to being

measured). If locality did not

exist, then Einstein’s own laws of

relativity were flawed because

they were incompatible with

information being transmitted

instantaneously across space. If

reality did not exist, then ...

frankly this idea was simply

deeply disturbing. It was easier to

believe in “hidden variables,” or

the idea that, contrary to quan-

tum laws, particles have a “true”

state that is revealed, rather than

determined, by observation.

In 1935, Einstein, along with

Boris Podolsky and Nathan

Rosen, proposed the EPR

Paradox. They claimed that the

absurdity of entanglement —

twinned particles randomly

choosing complementary states

and then communicating that

information across immeasurable

space — must prove quantum

theory flawed, or at best incom-

plete. In 1964, John Bell contin-

ued their thought experiment,

developing testable hypotheses

(Bell’s inequalities) that would

prove we live in a classically

determined universe. So far,

experiments have consistently

disproven Bell’s inequalities,

negating Einstein’s paradox and

showing that the universe we live

in does not require local realism.

Weird as it sounds on a human

scale, the universe is measurably

unreal on a fundamental level.

And yet there is one loophole

left to close in Bell’s theorem,

probably the weirdest yet: free

will. Bell’s theorem suggests that

quantum mechanics could be dis-

proven if humans lack free will. If

we are preprogrammed in the

observations we make, then

entangled particles aren’t

required to perform any “spooky

actions.” The universe knows

what we will measure before we

start. Not all scientists put stock in

this interpretation, but others are

hard at work finding ways to test

this last holdout for a classical

world. Spooky. — Korey Haynes

ENTANGLEMENT STANDS

Time is relative at 99 percent the speed of light

10

0

10

3

10

–2

10

–4
10

6

How long does it take to get there?

If you could travel near light-speed,

what you measure as a quick jaunt

would be a lengthy wait for your

friends back home. ASTRONOMY: ROEN KELLY

Earth Baltimore’s inner harbor Human Fingertip Skin