Cloudscape

Updated article: Condensed Light

"It may also be possible all energy has the same constituents as photons are themselves composed of, which would likewise always have the speed of light. What those may be, however, is highly speculative, as they would be beyond the level even of elementary particles. If all elementary particles have the same basic constituents, however, this would explain how elementary particles can bring others into being. Photons themselves can be converted into any kinds of other particles, for instance. Usually, when two particles interact (read collide) with one another with enough energy, their kinetic energy is converted into other particles. However, if two photons interact with one another with enough energy, they are entirely converted into other particles. This is basically the time reversal transformation of the combination of matter and antimatter particles, which yields photons.

When photons are converted into matter, its energy is transferred into these particles. Thus, it is obvious that the energy in the photons is of the same form of that of the particles, and therefore, has the same particles at some level. That all forms of energy can be converted into one another seems to indicate that all energy fundamentally has the same constituents. Otherwise they could interact, but no more.

All this is, however, mere guesswork."

Some interpretations in physics dispense with causality; in that these interpretations are no longer scientific, since science is nothing but the investigation of causality, of why things are as they are. Physics without causality is no longer science, but mysticism. Believing something to be as it is without needing any explanation in physics is as unscientific as believing this in religion. Scientists who say that the occurrence of a physical event needs no cause are no better than creationists who say that the existence of God needs no cause, and surely polytheists believed the same in the past about their gods; but we only give up finding the cause of something and say that it "just is" when we are confused about it. Some things about modern physics are very confusing, but that does not give us an excuse to descend into despair to explain them.

Since Special Relativity has become a paradigm of modern physics, any phenomenon of faster-than-light communication has either been ignored or dismissed by physicists. Over the years there have been many experiments in which true superluminal velocities have been observed. Unable to dispute their results, mainstream scientists often represented them in such way that their significance was masked, using cyclical arguments or irrelevant metaphors. Scientists seem to fear that if proven possible, FTL travel would mark the end of Special Relativity.
There is no reason, however, why we should give up Special Relativity if we find that superluminal velocities exist; but perhaps we should nuance it somewhat. Nothing in the universe may be absolute. Natural laws tend to have exceptions. Natural laws are causes of phenomena, but they themselves are phenomena, and so we might assume that they as well have causes. Those causes might be changeable, like anything else in nature appears to be.
We live in a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to the possibility of life. For example, should the fine-structure constant (a dimensionless constant equal to 7,29 · 10^-3) be just 4% different, then stellar fusion could not produce carbon, and so life would be impossible. (There is, of course, a possibility of life that need other or less atoms, but the question is what life could do with just two non-inert atoms, hydrogen and lithium!)
This suggests two things.
The first is that there are, or have been, many other universes with other parameters. After all, if there were only one universe (or one region in the universe with distinct physical constants), it would be too much of a coincidence that it is inhabitable. That we live in a universe which happens to be fine-tuned to life because there could be no other universe to live in in the first place.
The second is that physical laws, or at least physical constants (which include the speed of light) are changeable (at least in very extreme circumstances), since they must have formed at some point in time to become what they are now. For our universe, this supposedly happened in the early stages of its birth (although there may be other universes where the laws of nature are still changing constantly). Some of the circumstances of the primeval universe are actually being simulated in particle accelerators, albeit over extremely small spaces. Who knows? Perhaps, one day, we'll get so far as to bend the laws of nature in our own particle accelerators.
In fact, such phenomena have already been observed.
Natural nuclear fission reactors are subterranean deposits of uranium which may undergo spontaneous nuclear reactions; one of the oldest of these nuclear fission reactors lies in Gabon, which has been discontinuously active for about 2 billion years. By analyzing the nuclear decay in these deposits, researchers have discovered that the fine-structure constant, which determines nuclear reaction cycles, has slightly changed over that time.

Phenomena Superluminal Phenomena

1) Inflation Period:
Perhaps the most dramatic instance of superluminal velocity in the history of the universe was at its very beginning: in the "inflation period," a period which lasted for a tiny fraction of the first second after the Big Bang, all the matter in the entire universe exploded at a speed far higher than the speed of light. In 10–33 seconds, the universe increased 1026 times in size. The diameter it had achieved at the end of this period was no more than 10 centimeters, but all this had happened in such a short time that this was by far the most extreme explosion ever. The velocity it involved was 1032 meters per second, or 3 · 1023 times the speed of light.
Many physicists would, as usual, dismiss this phenomenon by pointing out that space and time at this point were distorted by gravity. However, this argument confuses two unrelated frames of reference; from our frame of reference, the speed was faster-than-light. If this would happen again before our eyes and we could somehow observe it, then, supposing that it wouldn't destroy the entire world, we would observe a speed that is undeniably superluminal.

2) Gain-assisted superluminality:
Researchers have achieved faster-than-light communication by sending light pulses through a supercooled gas of exotic cesium atoms. The light pulse travelled so fast that it had actually exited the gas chamber before it had finished entering.
They claim that this leaves Special Relativity intact; the light pulse did not actually travel faster than light, they state, because the light pulse on the other side of the gas chamber was actually a reconstruction of the entering pulse, so that is not actually the same pulse. This interpretation does a poor job hiding the fact that either how, information was nonetheless passed through to the other side of the gas chamber faster than light. This contradicts Special Relativity, which says that under no circumstances information could travel faster than light; it may be that Wang and his colleagues were afraid to openly contradict Special Relativity, for fear of criticism or disregard of their research.

3) EPR paradox:
Observing either of a pair of entangled particles will instantly affect the other particle, no matter how far it is — a fact which has been experimentally verified. No matter how one interprets this, the information that either particle has been observed travels to the other particle instantly, or at least (and perhaps more likely) at a speed faster than we have as yet been able to measure.
It is claimed that this does not allow faster-than-light communication, yet regardless it has been proposed to use this phenomenon in quantum cryptography: by using entangled particles to transmit information, eavesdropping would be instantly detected since it would affect the other particle of the pair. In other words, the information of an instance of eavesdropping would instantly travel to the other particle; this is certainly communication.
The event of the observation of either of the particles has an immediate effect on the other. Einstein mockingly called this "Spokhafte Fernwirkung," and in the formulation of the EPR paradox claimed that this meant that quantum mechanics is incomplete. However, since this "spooky action at a distance" has been confirmed as factual, it would appear that it is rather Special Relativity which is incomplete.

4) Speed of gravity:
Although Einstein dismissed "spooky action at a distance" as impossible, the mainstream interpretation of General Relativity today itself uses "spooky action at a distance" to avoid faster-than-light speed. Tom van Flandern has calculated, based on observation of planets and binary quasars, that the speed of gravity must propagate at no less than 20 billion times the speed of light to accord with their angular momentum.
To avoid this, mainstream physicists interpret gravity as the curvature of space-time rather than an actual force of nature, like electromagnetism. While representing gravity in this way may render the nature of gravity more obscure, however, it does nothing to change the fact that, be it through space-time curvature or through an actual force, gravity propagates at a certain speed. If gravity is represented as space-time curvature, the fact remains, obviously, that mass has an effect on space-time curvature; this effect cannot be random, and therefore requires a signal from the mass that causes it: this signal must be faster than light.
The effect of mass on gravity is such that it can affect the other side of the observable universe in just two seconds. In other words, information is passed at faster-than-light speed, the information of gravity; in the space-time curvature representation, this is the information space-time needs to know just in what way it should curve in accordance to the mass that causes it to do so.
The only way to deny that this is a faster-than-light effect is by detaching the effect from its cause, in which cause one has to give up the entire idea of gravity. In gravity, cause and effect are related at a speed that is faster-than-light, and only through sophistry can one deny this, unless observations are somehow wrong.

5) Virtual particles
Similarly to gravity, electromagnetism appears to propagate at faster-than-light speed through virtual photons. The nature of virtual particles is still unknown, but they are thought by mainstream physicists to be a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Again, most physicists dismiss the faster-than-light nature of virtual particles because they are virtual; that is, they exist only for a very short time. Outside of their interaction, they do not exist. However, this is irrelevant, as their interaction itself is superluminal; therefore, their interaction might also be used to allow superluminal communication.

6) Opposite or closing speeds:
Special Relativity states that regardless of the frame of reference, nothing can go faster than light. Actually, one doesn't need to think far at all to see that this is plainly impossible: when two photons move on a straight line towards or away from each other, than from our frame of reference they do so twice as fast as the "speed of light." When you tell this to a mainstream physicist, he will say that from the frame of reference of either of the photons themselves, the photons will not move faster than light, thereby changing your question so as to best suit an answer which accords to Special Relativity; the frame of reference of the photons is not very relevant, however. Since all motion is relative and all things in the universe are in motion, it is easy to travel towards something at faster-than-light speed from the frame of reference of the Earth. That is to say, when you have reached your destination which was 200 light years far, it might be that less than 200 light years have passed in the universe.
This is probably the least relevant of all faster-than-light phenomena, since it does little to bring us closer to faster-than-light travel or communication, but it is a faster-than-light phenomenon nonetheless. One can hardly move a star towards a spaceship: while it may be possible to move a star by means of a stellar engine (a type-2 Dyson sphere), it would not be very worthwhile to use this simply to accelerate space traffic.
The least that this means is that we should reformulate the Special Relativity: "Nothing can travel faster towards or away from an object than light would travel towards or away from it." At least, that is how it tends to be.

7) Current cosmic inflation:
The observable universe is 93 billion light years or 28 billion parsecs across in diameter. Every second, the universe expands by 2 trillion kilometers in diameter every second, or 20 million times the speed of light. The matter at one end of the universe moves away from the matter at the other end with the same speed.
Mainstream physicists argue to this that it is not the matter in the universe which is expanding, but rather its space. But be it through the three dimensions we know or through some esoteric "fourth dimension," this expansion of space is in itself a kind of movement, albeit the movement of space. This is, again, nothing but another interpretation of the same thing; but an interpretation which is so abstruse that is hard to find arguments against it. Again, however, matter is moved faster than the speed of light; that is to say, the distance between them grows at a speed faster than light could cover it.
Physicists keep finding new ways of formulating "movement" to mask faster-than-light phenomena. All right, so let's call "movement" "the expansion of space between two objects." In that case, in accordance with this new formulation let me likewise reformulate my question! Is it possible to expand or shrink the space between two objects so that the objects move towards or away from each other faster than light would?
That the observable universe is able to increase the space between its ends faster than light does seem to give us hope that we might ourselves find ways to expand the space between masses faster than light could pass the same space.
Actually, there are plenty of physicists, including Feynman, Dirac, and, earlier mentioned, Tom van Flandern, who did not give credence to the theory that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time, believing it to be a force of nature just like any other. Either how, it is quite clear that, in whatever way, the space between two objects can expand faster than the speed of light, and it is happening every second. How one interprets this changes little about the fact.

7) Quantum tunneling:
Perhaps the most significant FTL experiment aside from Wang's gain-assisted superluminality was conducted in Köln. Unlike Wang, Mintz was less timid about the results of his experiments, but like Wang's, Mintz' research has not gotten as much credit as it deserved.
Critics found it more difficult to find arguments against Mintz' research, mostly because the experiment was so simple that it was hard to make it seem complicated: the setup of the experiment consisted of an amplifier, a 20 centimeter long tube, and Mozart's 40th symphony in the form of microwaves.
This experiment used quantum tunneling, which is manifested in the earlier mentioned virtual particles, in this case virtual photons. This proves that, despite claims of the opposite, virtual photons can effectively be used as a means of faster-than-light communication.
Quantum tunnelling is a phenomenon in which a particle can spontaneously pass a finite potential barrier in the form of a virtual photon, which is then reconverted into a standard particle. Mintz wave transducer made use of the Hartman effect, the effect that, if a barrier is thick enough, the tunneling time (the time it takes for a particle to get past the barrier through quantum tunneling) becomes independent of the thickness of the barrier and inclines towards a constant value.
The tube, which was called a wave transducer. The wave transducer, which was about 11 centimeters wide, was far too small for microwaves, which start at a wavelength of 30 centimeters, so that normally, they would net be able to get through. Virtual photons, however, could get past the wave transducer through quantum tunneling. On the other side, the tunneled photons went through an amplifier, which then played Mozart; not at very high quality, but enough to be recognizable as Mozart's 40th symphony. In this way, the symphony had been transmitted at 4,7 times the speed of light.

It is often argued that while the group velocity (the speed of the whole of the wave, which may change in dimensions) may exceed the speed of light, the front velocity (the speed of the front of the wave) always remains the same. There are, indeed, phenomena in which some kinds of wave velocities (be it phase velocity, group velocity, energy velocity or signal velocity) are superluminal yet the front velocity remains unchanged, such as negative refractions and atomic coherence effects, but when the wave is observed to have arrived at its destination before light in vacuum would normally have done so, surely this argument is no longer satisfactory. If the wave as a whole has reached at superluminal speed, then obviously so has its front, in violation with Special Relativity.

There have been so many observed FTL phenomena, and many more will follow in future, that we can no longer ignore them. Sooner or later, modern physics will be forced to review its principles, at least insofar as to nuance them. Again, natural laws tend to have exceptions.

Micro black holes, when no mass is added to them, usually evaporate instantly in the form of Hawking radiation. Since all their energy is converted into photons in this process, creating micro black holes might be a potential source of energy in future. Such energy source would be even more effective than antimatter, since half the converted energy in matter-antimatter reactions is lost in the form of neutrinos.

Quantum waves are perhaps much like macroscopic bundles of light. These bundles of particles can be at two places at the same time depending on how broad they are. A first pulse in the bundle of particles would leave a gap, which would then be filled in by a second pulse and so on, causing a wave function to arise.
After some research, it turned out I am not quite alone in this position, and a minority of physicists has espoused a similar or identical position known as the Bohm interpretation, rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is is also known as the De Broglie-Bohm theory or, originally, as the pilot wave theory.
According to this theory, particles seem to behave like waves because they move together in a wave function, somewhat like air atoms in sound waves. To the critical mind, this theory divests one from a burden of confusion brought about by the Copenhagen interpretation, be it rightly or no. It appears to solve many of its paradoxes, such as indeterminism, acausality and unlocality, that to the intuition are simply unacceptable.

The butterfly effect says that very small changes can have very large results. It is famously quoted that the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brasil may cause a tornado in Texas — imagine! This is more than just a thought experiment; it actually happens.
This is so because of chaos. The Universe is so complex that extremely small changes may have extremely large consequences. For one thing, the world consists of atoms, and all of those atoms, in the whole world, are connected to one another at the speed at sound of their respective material; above all, those atoms in turn consist of quanta of energy, and all those quanta, in the whole universe, are connected to each other at the speed of light and perhaps beyond.
This is so because the universe is emergent. Every layer of existence arises from the layer below it; the human level arises from the cellular level, the cellular level from the atomic level. When the butterfly flaps its wings, the energy of its motion spreads across the atoms around it across the entire planet and even the entire universe.
At the atomic level, it takes at most 19 hours before its energy has spread across the planet in the form of sound waves; it gets no further than the earth for a very long time because there are few atoms in space. However, at the quantum level, it takes just one fiftieth of a second before it has spread across the planet, and a hundred thousand years before it has spread across the entire galaxy, in the form of light waves.
After all, the way the butterfly moves affects the way light shines on it, and so too the way it will shine onto other elementary particles, which will then in turn affect other elementary particles until every atom in the world is very, very slightly different. Very, very slightly, but that is enough given that this counts for every atom in the whole world to potentially have dramatic consequences.
Next time you see a butterfly, run for your lives.
It might go even further than that. The mass of the butterfly has a very tiny influence on the Earth's gravitational field, and the flap of its wings will change that influence. This effect is extremely small, of course, but quantum mechanics is so extremely chaotic that even so, it may still have enormous effects. The tiniest gravitational wave will affect the atoms it affects, and even if it is just by a femtometer, that's more than enough, as the atom affects all other atoms on the same planet. If gravity travels faster than light, then its gravitational influence will also have a faster effect on the universe than its electromagnetic influence, despite the fact that the latter is much stronger.
Tom van Flandern calculated that the speed of gravity is 20 billion times that of light, and if this is true, it would take two years and four months for the flap of a butterfly to affect the entire observable universe. Through an incredible snowball effect, the slightest movement of a single atom could, in this way, change the course of history throughout the entire observable universe.
If one thinks about this further, this becomes so frightening that it will profoundly change the way one looks at the world. For this is far, far more than a bit of scientific trivia; it casts a different light on the meaning of everything we do in our lives.
Over an infinite amount of time, every action, every event, will randomly cause infinite suffering as well as joy, and also prevent infinite suffering and joy. It will, in fact, have infinitely diverse consequences. That is to say, given that the universe is infinite; even if it is not infinite, then this effect will still be inestimably large. In a universe that is not only infinitely large but also infinitely complex, this infinite butterfly effect is not only infinite over time but also instantly (see entry "subcosmic and supercosmic levels").
Whatever we do, then, will cause cataclysms far greater than we could even begin to imagine, from human to astronomical extent. What, then, is the meaning of our actions here and now, if not for the enrichment of our own lives?
Nothing we do will make the slightest difference in the long run: for whatever we do, both the destruction as well as the creation we cause without even trying to do so is already infinite, and so neither will be greater, nor can either be made greater or smaller; the two will always be equal, since they are both infinite, and infinity divided by infinity is undefined.
In this aspect, all entities in the universe are equal in worth; all of us are Gods, and so is every tiniest bit of energy. Everything in the universe is so infinitely connected that it has no use to cling to such values as dignity except for ourselves and our own lives.
We should but love, then, for the beauty of love, not for what it does to others or to the world; this I say for all kinds of love, from the love of a friend to love of one's occupation. If one sees how people benefit from one's love, then that is a beautiful thing; but it is no more than that. It is not of any actual importance to the world; only to one's own world.
From the viewpoint of severe psychopaths, there is no reason at all to love someone, nor, aside from law, any reason not to kill someone if they wish to. After all, it does not make a difference to themselves, and neither does it make a difference to the universe. But they will never know the beauty of true love unless they somehow learn to see it.
Many people go so far as to state that everything we do is done out of selfishness. This is one perception, but it is no more than that, a mere way of looking at things: it is no more or less correct than any other. Though one could interpret this as selfishness, it is merely an interpretation. It is indeed true that, one way or another, we do whatever we do for our own feelings; even if we do something for others, we do so merely for our own feelings, be it our feelings for others or our feelings about ourselves. One could then say that we do everything for our "self."
The fact of the matter is, this merely depends on how one defines "self." If the self is our consciousness, and we are conscious of other people, then to the extent that we are conscious of them, they become part of ourselves. The only reason why we are ourselves more than we are others is because we are more conscious of ourselves, since, after all, we live in ourselves, and so are conscious of all our perceptions; whereas, if we have compassion for others, we share only part of their perceptions, so that we are them to a far lesser extent than we are ourselves.
Put in a more scientific way: from a neurological viewpoint, our selves are usually defined as our brain, or rather as the contents of our brain. It appears that we are not the matter our brain comprises but rather the information it stores; but this information concerns both ourselves and others. When we empathize with someone, we construct a "scale model" of his or her feelings within our own brain (at least, of what we think his or her feelings to be). In this way, our brain attempts to integrate part of someone else's feelings — a purely evolutionary mechanism, one could say, but also the most beautiful mechanism of our organism, for it gives us the ability to love. When one empathizes with someone, one could say that one thereby becomes partly unified with them, as one's emotions become partly synchronized with theirs. Love is a connection with other beings. When we love someone, whatever we do we still do for ourselves, but our selves have come to partially include another person or their feelings.
Should we still love, then, if love is useless but to ourselves? That love is useless on the whole does not make it meaningless. Love is the most beautiful thing in the universe, not only to the people we love but also to ourselves.

In what we are, all of us are of infinite value to the universe, yet in what we do none of us will ever make even the most infinitesimal difference to it. We can only make a difference to our own lives, though what our lives are includes the connections they have with others'.

If the universe is infinitely complex, it must involve infinitely many levels both below the quantum level as above the astronomical level. All of these would have varying degrees of complexity, some of them as high as our own level. Some levels, like our own, would be able to support life. Such level could be called a "habitable level." In habitable levels below the quantum level, time would go much faster from our perspective, while in habitable levels above the cosmic level, time would go much slower from our perspective.
There is no reason why such levels would be impossible; however, if these levels exist at all, it may not be possible to connect with them. In fact, perhaps it is natural to assume that there are habitable levels beside our own just as it is natural to assume that there are habitable planets beside our own. Science has already shown us that we are far from unique; why should our level, then, be unique? Would it not be too much of a coincidence if there were only one level at which life is possible, that of chemistry? In no way we appear to live in the center of the universe; why should this aspect be an exception? Such chauvinism has betrayed us too often before to be closed to this possibility altogether.

Infinite levels of complexity below the quantum level ("subquantum levels") would mean that there are also infinitely diverse systems below it, some of which would be able to sustain higher degrees of complexity than others. Each level below the quantum level would affect the higher levels, but would do so in such chaotic ways that their effect would appear to be random.
We might never be able to observe those worlds, but although the Planck length may be the smallest size that we can observe, and therefore the smallest size that matters to us, that does not mean that there could not exist anything smaller; we simply can never connect to whatever exists at such level, at least so it seems for now.
Infinite levels of complexity above the cosmic level ("supercosmic levels") would mean the same thing. In an infinitely complex Universe (with capital U, referring to all of existence) there could be forces of infinite speed, although they might not occur except at an infinitesimal frequency; this could, for instance, bridge the distances between separate universes (which would in turn be but particles!) so that they could interact at faster-than-light speed. This would not have to be necessary for there to other levels above the cosmic level, however; suppose that nothing goes faster than light (which would, however, be very unlikely if the universe is indeed infinite in complexity), then this would merely make the interactions in supercosmic levels much slower; they could still, in effect, take place, even if there are no other forces than the ones we know already.
Since our universe expands so rapidly, it could not take part in any interactions because it would dissolve before it could do so. However, if again we assume that the Universe (with capital U) is infinite, there must be infinitely other universes (small u), and some would have density parameters which would make them stable for a long term. Most subatomic particles are very unstable, lasting only a fraction of a second; but the few that are stable are enough to form a viable level.
There are two ways in which stable universes might interact with one another: one is through forces which to us are still unknown. In that case, it is possible that our own universe has a charge we are not aware of; after all, since it does not manifest to ourselves, we cannot detect it. Indeed, if there are habitable subquantum levels, then the hypothetical inhabitants of an electron who have come to discover that they live on an electron might think it to be neutral, not seeing that there are particles beyond their own and calling their particle "the universe."
The other possibility is that stable universes interact with one another through the same forces present in our own universe. Some universes might be electromagnetically charged; even if none have a very great charge, then still, either how every universe is likely charged to some extent, even if that charge comprises only a few elementary charges. Though this is small on our level, this may have an entirely different meaning at supercosmic level. Given enough time, even the slightest force, no matter how small, will have an affect. The only thing that can prevent this is that it would be countered by another force, but those would not or barely occur in the space between universes.
Just how long this would take does not matter at all, as time is relative; on supercosmic levels, a billion years might be a very short time, just like a femtosecond is a very short time to us. In contrast, on quantum level a femtosecond is a very long time, and most subatomic particles do not survive that long.
The effects of a force depend on time as well as space. This is testified by the gravity that keeps superclusters together; certainly that force is not relevant to us, that is to say, not on our level. Time and space are relative, and what to us is a very long time may be but a very brief instant on supercosmic levels, while what to us are very vast distances may be but very short intervals on those levels.
Thus, regardless in what way or at what speed, if there are universes beyond our own then they will interact. Very slowly to us, they will move to form greater structures which in a higher level might be similar, for instance, to stars on the astronomical level — which will then again form greater levels and so on. If the speed of light is an absolute limit, the only difference this makes is that the greater levels will move slower, but even so, in that frame of reference it is not slow in itself. It must also be noted that, should there be an inhabitable supercosmic level, this slowness would also affect consciousness, so that it would not perceive its world as slow at all.

As of January 2009, one could state that on a 2 mg iron pin, this number would have a theoretical limit of roughly 2 · 10^34: a billion yottabytes, or a sextillion terabytes. Though it will remain unanswered how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Stanford researchers showed angelical skill in dancing on a similarly sized copper chip.
Storing 35 bits per electron, the researchers left the initials of the Stanford University in the interference patterns of electrons. This is analogous to classical holography, which uses the interference patterns of photons on a much larger scale. The technology has therefore been called quantum electronic holography.
Surpassing the past record of IBM, Stanford University wrote the letters on bits the size of 30 angstrom, which is slightly greater than the diameter of a hydrogen atom. It must be noted fairly, however, that while the holographic "projection" itself was just a few carbon atom diameters across, the "projector" was more than twice as large.
Those who still believe Moore's Law is about to become obsolete, raise your hand.

For more information about this amazing feat: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/30/stanford.writes.worlds.smallest.letters

To travel back in time is to travel back in space. What appears to be the most esoteric of technologies, then, actually happens daily. Step backward in the selfsame way you stepped forward, and your body has traveled through time.
The same applies to a molecular, atomic or subatomic level: if two classical particles collide on a straight line, both will travel back in time as they rebound. If every quantum in the universe could move in exactly the opposite direction, it would regress to what it was earlier. Doing so in any closed system would cause the same for that system.
However, doing so would require to surmount the obstacle of Heisenberg uncertainty - at least, it likely would. If the movement of every particle in an isolated system would be reversed at the same moment, however, it’s possible that they’d move in exactly the same way, but in the other direction. This could be so if Heisenberg uncertainty is caused by the system itself. If it is not, Heisenberg uncertainty would violate causality, as it would mean that it is purely stochastic, independent of the state of the system.
It’s possible that one wouldn’t need to know the position and momentum of every the quanta in order to revert their motion, however: doing so would, in principle, require only one very simple alteration: changing the sign of their mass.
As kinetic energy is proportional to mass, if the mass will change sign, so will the kinetic energy. Therefore, its vector will change sign, which means that it will move in the opposite direction. If the mass of every particle in an object would change sign, then, the object would regress to its former state. This makes the manipulation of mass extremely important, as it may allow any lost information to be retrieved. Most notably, this technology could be used to revive people upon information-theoretic death. If this method would be applied on a large enough area, it could save anyone or anything from the worst cataclysm long after it has happened.
If we could also control the absolute value of mass, we could also control time in any way at all: that is, we could really manipulate time like we do in motion pictures, pausing, rewinding, going forward - even though we’d not need to know the past or future to do so: we could; we could slow it down or speed it up, raise it to infinity or stop it. And this all would in no way entail the absurdly high energies of ultrarelativistic speeds.
Another way of manipulating time without needing to reach the speed of light, however, is manipulating the speed of light itself, as lowering the speed of light could make it easier to travel through time: right now, we’d have to speed up to a speed of three hundred million meters per second, so that it would take a mass of two thousand tons an energy of 10^22 joules to slow down time thousandfold. But suppose that we’d have to speed to only three hundred millionths of a meter per second, then this would take only 10^–10 joules, 10^–32 times less.
Aside from time travel, changing mass would have many more applications. For instance, as E=mc^2, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy the speed of light should change if the mass of an object would change, which could make the applications in time travel said above possible.
Also, changing the mass of an object would automatically change its speed. In this way, though we cannot undo energy, we can undo its effects: for mass is what impedes energy it in its expression in movement. And if forces are mediated through exchange of momentum, then controlling mass, which will change momentum, could allow us to control the mediation of forces. If we could control mass, then, we could control the universe. The Higgs boson, supposed to be responsible for mass, fully justifies its apellation “God particle.”

Perhaps vacuum energy serves as an “ether” through which quanta propagate. The vast majority of the waves in vacuum energy would be a noise called vacuum fluctuations, consisting of virtual particles - these would in some respect be much like the waves of the sea.
Through interference, these wavelets could then cohere to collectively form a coherent whole, just like any other wave. This would explain why quantums can be at two positions simultaneously - much like a wave. Rather than fundamentally being both waves and particles, they would then be waves on small scale which manifest as particles on a large scale: if a large number of waves are superimposed, a single crest results. This single crest is a particle.
So, elementary particles aren't both particles and waves - they're just waves. Only the collective whole of elementary particles behaves as a system of particles.