Professor predicts human time travel this century

Apr 04, 2006 By Lisa Zyga feature
Professor Predicts Human Time Travel This Century
Ronald Mallett, Professor at the University of Connecticut, has used Einstein’s equations to design a time machine with circulating laser beams. While his team is still looking for funding, he hopes to build and test the device in the next 10 years.

With a brilliant idea and equations based on Einstein’s relativity theories, Ronald Mallett from the University of Connecticut has devised an experiment to observe a time traveling neutron in a circulating light beam. While his team still needs funding for the project, Mallett calculates that the possibility of time travel using this method could be verified within a decade.

Black holes, wormholes, and - each of these phenomena has been proposed as a method for time travel, but none seem feasible, for (at least) one major reason. Although theoretically they could distort space-time, they all require an unthinkably gigantic amount of mass.

Mallett, a U Conn Physics Professor for 30 years, considered an alternative to these time travel methods based on Einstein’s famous relativity equation: E=mc2.

“Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing,” said Mallett, who published his first research on time travel in 2000 in Physics Letters. “The time machine we’ve designed uses light in the form of circulating lasers to warp or loop time instead of using massive objects.”


• PhysOrg.com iPhone / iPad Apps
• PhysOrg.com Audio Podcasts / iTunes
• PhysOrg.com Android apps
• PhysOrg.com Blackberry app
• Join PhysOrg.com on Facebook
• Follow PhysOrg.com on Twitter
To determine if time loops exist, Mallett is designing a desktop-sized device that will test his time-warping theory. By arranging mirrors, Mallett can make a circulating light beam which should warp surrounding space. Because some subatomic particles have extremely short lifetimes, Mallett hopes that he will observe these particles to exist for a longer time than expected when placed in the vicinity of the circulating light beam. A longer lifetime means that the particles must have flowed through a time loop into the future.

“Say you have a cup of coffee and a spoon,” Mallett explained to PhysOrg.com. “The coffee is empty space, and the spoon is the circulating light beam. When you stir the coffee with the spoon, the coffee - or the empty space - gets twisted. Suppose you drop a sugar cube in the coffee. If empty space were twisting, you’d be able to detect it by observing a subatomic particle moving around in the space.”

And according to Einstein, whenever you do something to space, you also affect time. Twisting space causes time to be twisted, meaning you could theoretically walk through time as you walk through space.

“As physicists, our experiments deal with subatomic particles,” said Mallett. “How soon humans will be able to time travel depends largely on the success of these experiments, which will take the better part of a decade. And depending on breakthroughs, technology, and funding, I believe that human time travel could happen this century.”

Step back a minute (sorry, only figuratively). How do we know that time is not merely a human invention, and that manipulating it just doesn’t make sense?

“What is time? That is a very, very difficult question,” said Mallett. “Time is a way of separating events from each other. Even without thinking about time, we can see that things change, seasons change, people change. The fact that the world changes is an intrinsic feature of the physical world, and time is independent of whether or not we have a name for it.

“To physicists, time is what’s measured by clocks. Using this definition, we can manipulate time by changing the rate of clocks, which changes the rate at which events occur. Einstein showed that time is affected by motion, and his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”

Although the jet-flying clock regained its normal pace when it landed, it never caught up with earth clocks - which means that we have a time traveler from the past among us already, even though it thinks it’s in the future.

Some people show concern over time traveling, although Mallett - an advocate of the Parallel Universes theory - assures us that time machines will not present any danger.

“The Grandfather Paradox [where you go back in time and kill your grandfather] is not an issue,” said Mallett. “In a sense, time travel means that you’re traveling both in time and into other universes. If you go back into the past, you’ll go into another universe. As soon as you arrive at the past, you’re making a choice and there’ll be a split. Our universe will not be affected by what you do in your visit to the past.”

In light of this causal “safety,” it’s kind of ironic that what prompted Mallett as a child to investigate time travel was a desire to change the past in hopes of a different future. When he was 10 years old, his father died of a heart attack at age 33. After reading The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, Mallett was determined to find a way to go back and warn his father about the dangers of smoking.

This personal element fueled Mallett’s perseverance to study science, master Einstein’s equations, and build a professional career with many high notes. Since the ‘70s, his research has included quantum gravity, relativistic cosmology and gauge theories, and he plans to publish a popular science/memoir book this November 2006. With help from Bruce Henderson, the New York Times best-selling author, the book will be called Time Traveler: A Physicist’s Quest For The Ultimate Breakthrough.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

3.9 /5 (1507 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Time travel? Maybe

May 11, 2010

Imagine that you're a science-fiction writer on a tight schedule. You'd like to play in the vast expanses of the universe, but you have too much scientific integrity to conjure up a warp drive or a DeLorean out of thin air. ...

Time travel may be possible but won't be economical

Oct 08, 2007

Marty McFly sped his souped up DeLoren into his parent’s past in Back to the Future, but whether we will ever make the journey to our ancestors time is as much an economic issue as one of science, according to a physics ...

Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox

Jul 21, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The possibility of going back in time only to kill your ancestors and prevent your own birth has posed a serious problem for potential time travelers, not even considering the technical details ...

What is time?

Apr 13, 2005

The concept of time is self-evident. An hour consists of a certain number of minutes, a day of hours and a year of days. But we rarely think about the fundamental nature of time. Time is passing non-stop, and we follow it ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nilbud
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2007
So if I travel at 150mph every day on my way to and from work I'll live longer, fascinating.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2008
I have yet to see anyone devise a real life clock experiment who's results can't be explained away as a change in friction or some other "normal" physical property inherent in the mechanism.
Mallard44
2 / 5 (3) May 12, 2008
So if I travel at 150mph every day on my way to and from work I'll live longer, fascinating.


Crank it up to the speed of light.
Mallard44
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2008
There is a suspected vortex or time portal near where I live. I am trying to find info on this concept.
bitchz
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2008
You know why time travel is impossible?
Because, no one from the future has visited us yet! Sorry to bust your bubble.


He said when you go back, it will be into a different universe. And there's theoretically an infinite number of universes. ( http://en.wikiped...retation )
Eisenfaust
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2008
Thing is... how do you KNOW that no one has come back from our future/alternate future? There's no telling whether or not they did, it's possible they just didn't tell anyone. Perhaps everyone in the future or alternative future are actually dead, and thus cannot travel back. There's simple no way to tell... out of sheer irony, maybe it's creating the time machine that killed us in those alternatives. (Be clear, I'm not saying time travel will cause our deaths, I'm saying that it's a possibility, and we can't know any different...)

Moving on... so if you went back in time and enacted the grandfather paradox, killing your own grandfather, you would never be born in the universe in which you killed him, yet you would still exist there. Curious. This of course brings about the problem; would you ever be able to get back to your original universe after you went back in time? this would mean that time travel is essentially a one way trip... sure you can go back to the future but it's never (unless you're obscenely lucky) your future, the one you first came from. It's the ultimate holiday, I suppose...
Tobster
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2008
Ok, let me help you all :-)

What happens when you move faster than the sound? Are you in the past? Are you travelling back in time? The answer is no -> you just hear the past, but you are not in it.

Let s take up the same idea with light. If I travel away from earth faster than the light and look back after a while, I see the past, but I am not in it. Do I travel back to earth faster than light and I arrive on earth, I am back in the present. Maybe it is possible to start at place A and in the same moment arrive at place B. The quantum experiments in austria or italy(?) proved this to be possible.

Conclusion: It is not possible to travel back in time, just to see the past -> that way the grandfather paradoxon is not hurt. And it all makes sense ?

:-) now hit me with the reasons why I am wrong :-)

Cheers Tobias
pacplyer
not rated yet Aug 23, 2008
Tobias,

Just my opinion: I could be wrong here.

We are always looking back in time when we hear or see anything. I'm not sure that sound can be compared to light beyond the principles of the doppler effect.

Time is a fiction that we conscious beings have invented to keep track and navigate our "moving target" lives. A lifespan for us is 22,000 days. A lifespan for a mayfly is one day. For an old tree 2,500 years. For a bacterium only an hour. Different life forms experience time elapsing at different rates.

So, my theory is that our lives are like an 8mm movie where each day is a frame. Although in "Gone with the Wind" we could go back to frame 13335 were Sherman's cannonball crashes into Atlanta, nobody else is there anymore. Kind of like this thread here. By now most of the people who started it months ago have advanced to other threads in their future. We can change this discussion of the past and win the argument from our point of view, but it won't change their impression of this argument because their attention has moved on!

So if I go back in time to kill my Father, it will not effect my conscious world because my brain already passed through that decision tree, that fork in the road. It will however cause a shift in the timeline to a "new universe" and if I stick around and run into people I grew up with, they will not know me.

By killing my father in this example, I have derailed the past onto a parallel universe. Nobody on this timeline will know I've done it.

Maybe that's what bush did. He's an alien from a parallel universe who's highjacked our universe!

Fun to think about huh?
cris1970
not rated yet Oct 24, 2008
Going back in time is exciting. But, changing the past have lots of consequences. Altering the past will eventually create a new set of events that would eventually create a new "present time". In fact, depending on the extent of alteration, we (at this time) might not exist. So, if we go back in time, we have to make certain of the alterations that will be done. It's like editing a bad scene in the film that we are looking at right now.
Ryan77
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2008
I think i might have a theory that would work. what if you somehow got winds going faster than light, sound going higher/lower and faster than sound together in a Big jar or something then put a mirror on the bottom and top and if im not mistaken you would see the past/future at the exact frequency of the speed.
Yes
not rated yet Jan 02, 2009
For now mallet needs funding for his project, and he will only get it if he promises to have somebody travel in time. Like with the life on mars project where NASA said they were going to find life on mars to get the funding.

Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2009
I think the issue here is relativity. As an object approaches c it gains infinte mass and infinte dimension. Effecrtively to travel in time you would have to cease to exist. The energy barrier would kill you long before you got a chance to see your grandfather, let alone kill him. Effectively, there isn't enough energy in the Universe to fend off the energy of the Universe's ability to shred your particles. Attempting to travel back in time would just tear you gluon from gluon, similar to what entering a supermassive black hole would be like, except without a singularity of matter but rather a singularity of energy.
koolmuse
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2009
I have only one question. It seems every scientist should be asking.

If a future generation will be capable of time travel%u2026can send back a cure for cancer%u2026warn the human race about Hitler and George Bush%u2026

%u2026%u2026then where are they?!

Why aren%u2019t they here?

This leads me to believe that time travel, if possible, will never be achieved by mankind.
Otherwise they%u2019d be here doing all these great things now....or maybe a long time ago.

I suppose one could speculate that they are here%u2026.that they are the %u201Caliens%u201D in the UFOs. Paaaalease!.....which are not spacecraft at all but time machines. While that would make a good movie....(I would go to see)... it doesn%u2019t explain why they do not reveal themselves or at least a lot of useful technology and knowledge.
If you really want to get stupid%u2026you could say that the time-traveler %u201Caliens%u201D know they cannot interfere with the time/space continuum %u2026like Michael J Fox did; but can only observe us%u2026. But that wouldn%u2019t explain how or why %u201Cour children%u2019s children%u201D would be kidnapping and terrorizing some of us%u2026.they%u2019re distant ancestors.
So if they are unable to help us %u2026or our ancestors%u2026that really makes time-travel kindofa useless endeavor;%u2026except for perhaps educational purposes.
It is possible that it could serve the time travelers themselves, and future generations in terms of justice and criminal behavior, natural disaster etc..

Somebody could go crazy thinking about this.
But the whole thing really doesn%u2019t make much rational sense to me.
Because they ain%u2019t here!%u2026and they should be.
koolmuse
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2009
What happened with %u2019s.... I'm sure I didn't type that in there.
boomtheroom
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2009
the reason no one has not come back yet is because the time machine has not been created yet.once it has been made and effectively working, the people from the future will have a portal ,if u will, to travel back to . i guess like a stargate.at this point in time we have created nothing for them to travel to. if you consider the time machine to be a bridge ,we have not yet made the other side..
JordenDurant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2009
I am new to this site. I agree with what most of you are saying however you need to take into mind the Wheeler model; the multiverse theory, in which case the Grandfather paradox would not be hurt. It seems everyone is looking linear-opposed to side to side. I believe provided enough energy, it is through a large gravitational distortion that time travel is not only possible, but would enable us to interact with the past of not our same timeline yet one closely like it; not at all related to velocity but a tear/break in the fabric of space time. mail me jordendurant@yahoo.com
Yes
not rated yet Feb 16, 2009
I hope and I am quite sure that there is no such thing as a Wheeler model reality.
It is too complex to be true. It is like explaining the motion of the stars including the sun with the earth standing still in the universe.
Mathematically it is possible but you run into physical impossibilities while the furthest star in this model rotates once every 24 hours around the earth in an enormous circle.
When you find after a while that the speed of light in vacuum is limited and fixed, you simply discard the useless model and start looking for some other explanation that makes more sense.
Just wait for this Wheeler model to be discarded.
I hope we will outlive this model.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2009
In order to travel back in time you'd need a lot of energy. I'm willing to bet that when we do "crack" time travel we discover it requires more energy than the universe has available.
Roach
not rated yet Feb 17, 2009
Time travel is possible today at work has absolutely dragged and my weekends seam shot before I get home. If time can slow and accelerate around me that much then it must be possible, but that being said there is a theory that states that once time travel is invented it instantly becomes invented in every time. Jumping tracks in a multiverse is an interesting concept except that whoever goes on the first trip might as well say good bye to everyone because that first jump is completely blind and if they survive they will most likely never return home, not to this universe anyhow.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2009
You know why time travel is impossible?
Because, no one from the future has visited us yet! Sorry to bust your bubble.


Correction, there's no evidence of them having visited us yet...
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2009
Quantum_Conundrum posted
I have yet to see anyone devise a real life clock experiment who's results can't be explained away as a change in friction or some other "normal" physical property inherent in the mechanism.


Look harder then because its been done. Long term experiments with atomic clocks in airplanes have resulted in cumulative time changes in comparison to control clocks that didn't move. Atomic clocks are NOT subject to friction. Also every cyclotron, synchrotron or collider has shown that short lived particles last longer when traveling close to the speed of the light than they would at lower speeds. Time dilation is real and every test has matched theory.

Time travel however is open to question.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2009
Yes posted:

I hope and I am quite sure that there is no such thing as a Wheeler model reality.
It is too complex to be true


What is so complex about it?

My thinking on this is that the Universe exists because it can mathematically. I can extend that to all possible universes. IF they CAN exist THEN I see no reason for them not existing.

You sound a bit like I did when I ran into the idea that electrons did not orbit the nucleus. Then I ran into the reality of synchrotron radiation that made it clear that electrons CANNOT be orbiting the nucleus. So I had to change the world in my head.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
not rated yet Mar 02, 2009
Ethelred posted:


I hope and I am quite sure that there is no such thing as a Wheeler model reality.
It is too complex to be true


What is so complex about it?

My thinking on this is that the Universe exists because it can mathematically. I can extend that to all possible universes. IF they CAN exist THEN I see no reason for them not existing.

You sound a bit like I did when I ran into the idea that electrons did not orbit the nucleus. Then I ran into the reality of synchrotron radiation that made it clear that electrons CANNOT be orbiting the nucleus. So I had to change the world in my head.

Ethelred


So let me ask a question. Are you saying that mathematically "nothiing" can't exist?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Mar 02, 2009
Sorry about the mis-quote in the above, I don't know what was wrong with the old quoting system.

I guess some people still insist on fixing things that aren't broken....
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2009
So let me ask a question. Are you saying that mathematically "nothiing" can't exist?


No.

Ethelred.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2009
I guess some people still insist on fixing things that aren't broken....


Yes they do, its my favorite method of messing up own PC.

I usually do the quotes by hand. Copy paste put in the q and the /q. So far, that always works. And that way I can use Notepad instead of losing everything I typed by accidentally hitting the wrong button.

By the way what I said in a slightly different way was:

Any universe that is mathematically consistent may exist simply because it can.

This would explain why math works in our universe. Some find this fascinating. They tend to be mathematicians.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2009
So let me ask a question. Are you saying that mathematically "nothiing" can't exist?


No.






Ethelred.


Well then, why does something exist instead of nothing...wouldn't that be a mor simple mathematical conclusion?

The universe goes to one HELL of a lot of bother of existing if there were the alternative of not existing...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2009
Well then, why does something exist instead of nothing...wouldn't that be a mor simple mathematical conclusion?


I don't see it that way. I see logic as the enabler. Logic and math are there, whether a universe exists or not. The complexity is in the logic. The universe merely follows from it. So I don't see it as the universe going to the trouble of existing. It is the math that exists, it is expressed as a universe.

Of course if it was too much trouble than nothing could wonder why anything exists. Math and logic would still be true but nothing would know it and this discussion could not take place -

BRAIN STORM

Therefor the Universe must exist solely to enable this discussion. Sorry but it had to be said, otherwise the Universe could have ceased to be.

No this is not so an much explanation as it is a Wild Assed Guess but then neither does a god really explain anything and most people claim the gods aren't subject to laws so gods don't even have logic to justify their existence.

I doubt that it is possible to find a sure answer. I am sure that not knowing the answer won't make gods real any more than my questioning the existence of gods would make them unreal should they exist.

Basically it comes down to this. A god that can only exist if we are ignorant isn't much of a god. And that is what a god of the gaps is.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2009
Oh by the way. The Professor's idea of using light is crap. He claimed was based on the idea that energy has mass therefor it would simply be replacing solidified energy with energy in the form of light. The energy density would have to have a mass density equal to degenerate matter. That is one heck of a lot of energy. No mirror could withstand that intensity since no mirror is perfectly efficient. Plus if the field of light is going to warp space guess what happens to the mirrors and support structure. They warp, which would disperse the light.

Yes this went through my brain today while I was working. I assumed that his idea, that isn't in the article, was that since light isn't subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principal it would be possible to reach a higher energy density than even degenerate matter.

I wonder how much light can be packed in fiber optics?

Ethelred
GuestLee
3 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2009
You should always go back to basics. The basic facts here are (1)time is simply the interval between two events, and (2) an effect can never preceed a cause. Twist, bend or swirl as you might, these are inescapable.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Mar 05, 2009
http://en.wikiped...ke_curve

Theoretical yes, but if you could find a superstring and fly around it in the proper way effects could proceed causes....

Of course this is radically different than trying to use LASERS to accomplish something similar. I'm highly skeptical, but then again people used to be skeptical about the world being round...
11235813
3 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2009
Lets say that it does work. Hypothetically. You build this rotating laser matrix, step inside and turn it on. It speeds up the rate that time progresses, so for example it speeds up time to twice the normal rate. Just keeping it simple here. Time is only progressing at a faster rate while the machine is on, right? So if the machine is on for 2 hours, it took you 1 hour to move through 2 hours of time. So what if you wanted to go 1000 years into the future and it would take you a second to get there... the machine would have to be running for the full thousand years. Doesn't sound very practical.

Another problem: Lets say, using another method, that you could travel forward in time instantly. Just simply leap into the future. The matter where you were would no longer be there. or you could materialize inside of it or some other matter. and if you could aim your machine in space as well as time and aimed at the exact spot you left... what happens when you occupy the same space as the air? Simple solution in either case is to take a ship with you but, meh. :P
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2009
The basic facts here are (1)time is simply the interval between two events, and (2) an effect can never preceed a cause. Twist, bend or swirl as you might, these are inescapable.


Time is what a clock measures. Some physicists think that time is a matter of perception. Einstein late in his life thought that all time might be laid out at once from a point of view outside the Universe. I think that sort of thing is dubious but then I experience something we call time so I tend to think it is a bit more real.

In a multiple universe view of quantum mechanics travel back in time would NOT have effect precede cause since the traveler's time-line would not see the effect before the cause and the traveler's existence would be the cause in the new universe and again effect would not precede cause.

I don't think time travel is possible IF there is only one universe. If the multiple worlds model of quantum mechanics is the right model than time travel MAY be possible even though not necessarily feasible.

Ethelred
Pickens
3 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2009
Lol! Of course going back in time is impossible. It's an exercise in meaninglessness! Who says time is something that you "can travel" anyways? Time is simple change; nothing more and nothing less. You can have more change (like time "speeds" up), less change (like time "slows" down), or no change (like time stays "still"), but you can't have negative change. I hope that clears things up. Also, even if the "super string" theory of "alternate universes" is correct (which I HIGHLY doubt) you would still NOT be traveling to the past through time; instead, you would be traveling to alternate universes. Also, c is the universal speed limit...it is the speed of time! Once you reach c you will have used up all of the available time in the universe!
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2009
Time is simple change; nothing more and nothing less.


Time is what a clock measures.

Also, even if the "super string" theory of "alternate universes" is correct


That is not an inherently string based concept. Nor is it a requirement for the String hypothesis to be correct.

String Theory isn't.

Once you reach c you will have used up all of the available time in the universe!


No. If you COULD reach the speed of light then you would not experience time. Not quite the same thing as using up all of time. Light does not experience time in a vacuum but it still can be absorbed or slowed down by traveling in something other than a vacuum.

Only things without mass, like photons, can reach the speed of light.

Ethelred
Pickens
not rated yet Apr 15, 2009
Time is what a clock measures.

Yes. And what do clocks measure? Change.

That is not an inherently string based concept. Nor is it a requirement for the String hypothesis to be correct.

String Theory isn't.

Fine, not String Theory. My point is that even in the "parallel universe" theories you are not actually traveling through time (forwards or backwards) you are actually traveling to parallel universes.

If you COULD reach the speed of light then you would not experience time. Not quite the same thing as using up all of time. Light does not experience time in a vacuum but it still can be absorbed or slowed down by traveling in something other than a vacuum.

Only things without mass, like photons, can reach the speed of light.


Yes, we know that c can only be achieved my massless particles; the point is that change stops occurring at c.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Apr 15, 2009
Yes, we know that c can only be achieved my massless particles; the point is that change stops occurring at c.


Minor quibble. Change NEVER stops occuring....even at c. Basically at c ALL change occurs. You see everything play out that is going to happen in the universe in a plank second. Time does not stop at c, all change occurs at c.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2009
Yes. And what do clocks measure? Change.


Seems so. The answer I gave was from Einstein. He seems to have been feeling a bit literal that day.

Fine, not String Theory.


Not quite my point. "String theory isn't" as in its not a theory. Its an unfinished hypothesis that makes no predictions that can determine whether it is true or not. Unfinished because some important mathematical steps have never been done. According to Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble with Physics, most people working in Strings thought a specific step had been done but when Smolin asked the person that was supposed to have done the work that person said it wasn't so. The lack of names and specifications are due to me not having the book available. Your mileage may vary.

http://en.wikiped...e_Smolin

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

My point is that even in the "parallel universe" theories you are not actually traveling through time (forwards or backwards) you are actually traveling to parallel universes.


Not necessarily. If you could go back in time, then you could go back to any given point in time within the same universe. However you would not be able to return to the same time and universe you came from and see any change. The changes would be in an alternate universe. Think of it as a branching system.

Start in A, go back in time, thus generating branch B and umpteen others but B for simplicity. Now to get to A you have to go back in time to before you caused the branch and then go forward WITHOUT causing another branching. That seems difficult for large magnitudes of difficult.

the point is that change stops occurring at c.


Only for the particle reaching C. That particle can be changed by something that is still experiencing time. Light gets absorbed for instance. It can even be redshifted which makes me wonder if photons don't experience time in some way.

Ethelred
Pickens
not rated yet Apr 24, 2009
Minor quibble. Change NEVER stops occuring....even at c. Basically at c ALL change occurs. You see everything play out that is going to happen in the universe in a plank second. Time does not stop at c, all change occurs at c.


Not from POV of the particle. All change has occurred, means that all time has occurred, therefore there is no more time left. Again, from the POV of the particle. If this happens in "Plank time" (which is the smallest meaningful measurement of time), then it implies a time inside of time. Makes no sense to me; I believe in only 1 time dimension.

Only for the particle reaching C. That particle can be changed by something that is still experiencing time. Light gets absorbed for instance. It can even be redshifted which makes me wonder if photons don't experience time in some way.


Particle has experienced time, all of it. The particle can be affected by anything that can interact with it.

IMO, alternate universe theory is quite ridiculous. As far as going back in time within that frame work, the fact that you went back in time already means that you are in another universe to begin with. That's the problem w/that theory; there's just too many darn combinations of possible alternate universes. Still doesn't change the fact that if time = change you still can't "travel" change.
Pickens
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2009
To elaborate on alternate universe theory: let's pick point A (1990), point B (2000), point C (2009), let's say these points lie in U1 (Universe 1.) As you live your life in U1, you go past point A, then B, and then C. At all these points, there was always only 1 of you in U1. Now at point C you decide to hop into your nifty time machine and go back in time to point B. You set all of your knobs and power up the flux capacitor and presto whammo you traveled back in time to B. But wait, there's 2 of you at B BUT in U1 there was only 1...therefore you are NOT in U1.

Kind of like the old "psychic" that see's the future. He has this "vision" of his friend crossing the street and getting hit and killed by a car. So the next day he see's his friend about to cross the street and he pulls him back & saves him! Wow! Only one thing, he didn't see the future because had he seen the future he would have seen himself save his friend!
aguirard
not rated yet May 05, 2009
It's unfortunate that this technology apparently cannot be used to stop Pauly Shore from ever having made any movies.
tobbA
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2009
One thing I have a hard time understanding is, why would an entire new universe be created if you travel back in time? To me creating a new universe sounds like somthing that would require an infinate amount of energy, not something that happens because you send something spinning in a circle of lasers...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2009
One thing I have a hard time understanding is, why would an entire new universe be created if you travel back in time?


As I see it time travel can only be possible if there is more than one universe. The Multi-Universe model of Quantum Mechanics is the way I see time travel as being something other than impossible.

With a single track universe, such as in the Copenhagen Model, any form of time travel would cause a paradox. There would no need to kill ones grandfather to generate a paradox. I don't think the universe gives a flying fornication about anyone's grandfather. Anything that changes the information of the universe would generate a paradox.

In a Wheeler Multiverse universes are generated by many if not all events where there is Quantum Uncertainty involved. Time travel would just generate one more such universe and there would be no changing of the future in the probability line that traveler came from since the traveler would then be in a new timeline.

'New' is a somewhat tentative word there. If Wheeler was right then I find it likely that the Universe or Multiverse exists simply because it can. That is, it is mathematically valid and therefor exists because it is not prohibited by paradoxes. So in that case time become highly problematic in the sense we normally use.

Yes I am up in the air about time in a Wheeler Multiverse Ethelred variant.

[Q]IT MAKES MY BRAIN HURT. - Professor P.T. Gumby

WELL, IT WILL HAVE TO COME OUT THEN. - Dr. T.R. Gumby

via Monty Python[/Q]

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred

because i laugh at his hysterics.
Pickens
not rated yet Jun 04, 2009
In the end, "Multiverse time travel" it's not REALLY time travel; instead it is ACTUALLY travel to another universe. Therefore, time travel cannot occur.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2009
That's a different definition of Multiverse. In this one you GENERATE a new universe. The new universe and the old universe are or rather IS the same exact universe up until the change brought about by moving something into the past.

You don't travel to another universe. You split the old single universe into two different paths. Much more than two of course because in this hypothesis ALL uncertain events that are possible actually occur.

Its time travel. Just not unilinear time travel. Such a thing has paradoxes and I think that is against the rules. Maybe not, but my thinking is the ALL universes that are mathematically valid can exist. The question is, do they?

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Yes
not rated yet Jun 05, 2009
Multiverses are glue physics, like the existence of intermediate heavy W bosons and the existence of gluons.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2009
Not really. There is evidence for gluons and W bosons. I like the idea of a Multiverse. I am not married to it despite what I am about to say.

One of the things that I particularly like about a Multiverse, whether its based on Wheeler's work or not, is that a single, solitary, only one there is, Universe really has a lot going against it.

Why does it exist rather than not?
Why is it fit for life?
Why is it fit for intelligent life?
Why does math and the universe fit together perfectly so far?
Why something exist at all instead of nothing?

All great things for the religious despite the total lack of evidence to support any particular religion and the fact that the questions apply to a god exactly as well. Mathematical principles would be valid whether anything notices them or not. Whether there is a universe or not.

Whats good about a Multiverse? Ethelred version - not invented by Ethelred but I didn't get it from any particular person I just ran across this one key idea somewhere.

Why shouldn't a universe exist as long as it is mathematically valid?(not exactly the way I recall seeing it.) That is, that there is way to get it started and there are no paradoxes to make it go boom and or stop before getting started.

That covers ALL those questions above. Every single one. If it wasn't just philosophical wanking it would be a great idea but it may not be subject to testing. Then again quantum computers, if they can be made to work, will lend credence to the idea of a Multiverse.

In universes that are possible but can't support life and intelligent life at that, nothing notices the existence of the Universe. It is irrelevant to life and questions as to why exists because nothing cares.

In Universes that support intelligent life questions of reasons arise but there is no reason except that it can exist. The bad part is that universes can exist that are quite nasty. Life just starts asking questions when the universe runs into fine tuning problems. We live a universe that may have a fine tuning problem though it will not become important for several billion years. Any claim that the universe is perfectly tuned for US is a sign of ignorance or wishful thinking.

Evolving self generating universes not only become possible but certain. Thus massively increasing the number of universes that are finely tuned to produce more universes having long periods of stability like ours seems to be having.

Universes that allow time travel and ones that don't become certain to exist. Universes that people argue about time travel become certain. Universes that people don't argue about it either have time machines or very boring intelligences.

Nothing in this requires that you strain credulity. All you need to do is stop claiming its crazy without a single reason for the claim. Not once has anyone here or anywhere else given a valid reason for their thinking. Not Lee Smolin or Peter Woit either. See this thread:

http://www.physor...877.html

Anyone that wants to respond to this might be better off going there. I haven't looked at yet today though and with the philosophy fans that are there it could have turned into a turgid mess. I may post this there as well with some editing. Its more appropriate there but not much more.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2009
never mind
timefighter
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
If we travel through time as professor Mallet is willing to congress, "We will travel through other universes", he states. Therefore, people of the generation we are traveling to would obviously exist. He in addition, wants to advice his father about not smoking and change his future entirely. Do you think a time machine would consider people of this age, with the age we have have traveled to and people living in it? If yes, than the earth would suffer crisis of over populated societies, resources are going to be limited, developed inventions would not exist due to the untechnological past ages ans therefore people are going to suffer living as time travelers. Do you think, Professor Mallet, that Physicits need to consider not only their concerns but also people's concerns on living through time in the past? I think inventing something takes its risks, and just living through the time we are living in the current moment is better than trying to travel through it and consider harmful circumstances.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2009
If yes, than the earth would suffer crisis of over populated societies,


If there is only one Universe, and clearly Mallet does not think so, then time travel is impossible. Therefor no overpopulation of time travelers.

If any time traveler enters a new variation of the universe, the only way I can see time travel as possible, then no one else would be able to enter that same variant universe as they would also generate a new variant of their own. Again no overpopulation of time travelers.

So you are worrying over nothing.

By the way I doubt that Professor Mallet comes to this site. He might but he hasn't made any comments.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
nuge
not rated yet Jun 15, 2009
When in doubt in physics, think about conservation laws because they, at least, seem pretty certain. If I took all my mass/energy and put it in another moment in time, am I not removing mass/energy from the universe at this instant, and creating mass/energy in the universe at another instant? Doesn't this violate conservation of energy?

Maybe thats a naive argument.

Anyway, assume time travel is possible. If I decided to travel backward or forward in time at this moment, wouldn't I end up in space somewhere, because the Earth, Solar System and the whole galxay are all moving all the time at several kilometres per second? The place in the universe where I am now has never been occupied by the surface of the Earth at Adelaide, Australia before this moment, and probably won't be again.
bugmenot23
not rated yet Jun 17, 2009
one of the fundamental problems in time travel that every one seems to forget is the huge distances in time you need to travel. and that's against a head wind.

if you try to go forward in time a little, you are already being pushed forward by time and can add a little speed to putter a long a little further into the future.

to go back in time, you are already travelling at 299792458 meters per second in the dimension of time.

even if you could create a machine to twist you fully into the time dimension in such a way that time stopped flowing against you, you would have to travel 299792458 meters just to go back one second.

you would have to travel the distance between the earth and the sun to travel back a mere 8 minutes.

to travel back to a year ago to tell yourself the lotto numbers for the year, you would need to travel just over a fifth of the distance to Alpha Centauri.

you may want something faster than walking to travel that far...
Pickens
not rated yet Jun 30, 2009
Ethelred, you say "You don't travel to another universe. You split the old single universe into two different paths. Much more than two of course because in this hypothesis ALL uncertain events that are possible actually occur." You contradict yourself. It's quite alright because it's the whole Multiverse time travel concept that's flawed. You are NOT traveling back in time because the instant you arrive you are already in an alternate universe from the one you came from. It's not that hard see. Non-Linear time travel is no time travel at all! You say everything's the same except...and that "except" makes all the difference of the universe! Additionally, this travel is irreversible and you can NEVER return from whence you came.
The Multiverse theory is way too fantastical: schisms can occur anywhere there is quantum uncertainty...do you realize the amount of universes that can stem from this? I don't think so.


To answer some of your questions:

Why does it exist rather than not? This is interesting. I think that there isn't an option; if it can it does...if it can't it won't.



Why does math and the universe fit together perfectly so far? Not that perfectly. There are tons of things that exist only in math and do not have physical equivalents. This is mostly due to the fact that math is based on our observation of the physical.



Why something exist at all instead of nothing? This is simple as there is no choice here since nothing does not exist. So then, this question is really asking the same as the first. There is no such thing as non-existence as this is an exercise in meaninglessness; there is no other option but to exist. There are things that are not possible and so they may exist only in the mind but they exist.
Pickens
not rated yet Jun 30, 2009
nuge, I agree with your observation of the violation of laws of thermodynamics caused by possible time travel. On your questions about the position of the earth & other bodies, I have heard these before. It's true that everything in the universe is in motion...but even if time travel was possible, I don't see why you would end up in empty space somewhere...unless you took a wrong turn! You see, if you go (without time travel) to where the earth was 10 years ago then you would end up in empty space because the earth isn't there now. It's not really empty space but I think your point is that the earth isn't there. What you have to realize is that it's there NOW but it WAS there in the past and if you are traveling to the past then it was there. Of course, I am assuming that this time traveling is "space-time" traveling and so you are also traveling distances, as bugmenot23 suggests in his comment.

Anyways, time's not something you travel. Time is simply change and you can't travel change.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2009
Ethelred, you say "You don't travel to another universe. You split the old single universe into two different paths.


Yes.

Much more than two of course because in this hypothesis ALL uncertain events that are possible actually occur."


Of course.

You contradict yourself.


I don't see you showing any such thing. It is not enough to claim it. Show where.

It's quite alright because it's the whole Multiverse time travel concept that's flawed.


No more so than ALL other models. Frankly I don't see a flaw in the Multiverse concept.

You are NOT traveling back in time because the instant you arrive you are already in an alternate universe from the one you came from.


Yes. That is my point. You are NOT in the same Universe you came from.

Non-Linear time travel is no time travel at all!


Sure it is. Its just not H.G. Wells Time Machine time travel. It's traveling along a branching path. Sure are a lot of people telling me things I figured out already. Even mentioned.

You say everything's the same except...and that "except" makes all the difference of the universe!


No bleep Sherlock. You couldn't time travel otherwise. It's still time travel. Its just not your Great Grandfathers idea of how time travel could work if it could work.

! Additionally, this travel is irreversible and you can NEVER return from whence you came.


Possibly, and I am aware that it might not be possible. I think I mentioned it. The only way you could go back to where you came from is to:

Go back to in time to before the branch point

KEY IDEA - WITHOUT INTERACTING WITH ANYTHING - and that is part that may be impossible.

Then go forward again. Again without interacting with anything else. It is conceivable that a method of time travel could be found that would be outside of the normal branching structure and therefor would inherently only interact with a universe when you reenter it. Yes that is a lot of supposing but its the only way I can think of to go back to where you came from.

The Multiverse theory is way too fantastical:


Applies equally to all models. The Copenhagen Model is worse. It requires a magical interaction by observers, that is, somehow the collection of atoms that makes up the observer magically becomes privileged in way that even Newton would have noticed was crap. Bohr seems to have been into mysticism. That is not a guess on my part. Allegedly a number of the early researchers on QM seem to have been into mysticism to one degree or another.

schisms can occur anywhere there is quantum uncertainty...do you realize the amount of universes that can stem from this? I don't think so.


I do. High order infinity is the answer. You may not however be aware of ways that the order of infinity might not be also be infinite.

Think of a data base. A multi-dimensional database, now make a copy of it and change ONE bit. They could stay separate or you could just record the difference. I think of it like a plain with a discontinuity where there are two (or more of course) possible results.

Example:

You get up in the morning and choose to put on a blue tie.

You get up in the morning and choose to put on a cyan tie.
(color names chosen to make the sentence lengths match.)

The universe would otherwise be the same. Nothing notices the difference afterward. The difference is purely isolated and local to the tie and the space on the tie rack. Yes it would be a bit more complex than that. The idea is that often the difference will not propagate along the time stream. There is also the possibility that very similar paths could influence each other and thus damp out perturbations. This would decrease the number of branches. I go back and forth on this. Wildly mulitvalent as opposed to merely ambivalent.

Sometimes I think of it all being in existence at once. Sometimes I think of it being an iterative process and therefor it is NOT all in existence at once. It could even be both since the idea is that the only thing that matters is that its mathematically valid.

Any way I look at it I think its better than the magical observers or special beings that create universes.

Why does it exist rather than not? This is interesting. I think that there isn't an option; if it can it does...if it can't it won't.


See, you going down the path of enlightenment. This way lies the Multiverse. We will meet together with Alice at the Tea Party or perhaps the Queen croquet match.

Why does math and the universe fit together perfectly so far? Not that perfectly.


I think of it the other way around. The universe fits within the math but does not use all the math.

There are tons of things that exist only in math and do not have physical equivalents.


In OUR universe. In others things will be different. A different set of axioms and different constants. Only testing can tell us which universe we are in. This is the way the String Hypothesis must work also. This bothers a lot of people that grew up thinking of only one universe. They keep looking for ways to generate the basic constants of the Universe. If there IS only one possible universe they should be able to achieve their desire. If there is more than one possible universe than they are wasting a lot of time.


Why something exist at all instead of nothing? This is simple as there is no choice here since nothing does not exist.


That is not simple. Claiming it is simple does not make it so. The question is not what is. The question is WHY IT IS. And why you think other universes aren't.

There is no such thing as non-existence as this is an exercise in meaninglessness;


Wrong. Why do you believe in the non-existence of other universes? It may not be answerable but it is not meaningless. The question may lead to answers that you will not reach by assuming that this is the only universe.

The real question is if there is a way to find out about the existence of other universes. At least in part the answer is only if the universes can interact in some way. If they can't then you can't have time travel either.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2009
nuge, I agree with your observation of the violation of laws of thermodynamics caused by possible time travel.


There is no violation IF you look at it as a multiverse. You are simply transferring energy from one universe to another.

n! You see, if you go (without time travel) to where the earth was 10 years ago then you would end up in empty space because the earth isn't there now. It's not really empty space but I think your point is that the earth isn't there.


Usually people simply ignore this. However its possible to do otherwise. You CANNOT simply travel in time. You have to travel in space as well. I tend to think of a space ship based time machine and not something out of H. G. Wells. Then again in his way the machine is still in contact with the Earth as he moved. The Earth would push back. He would be subject to acceleration during time travel.

You guys are looking for ways to make things look impossible. Others are looking for ways to make them at least seem possible. The problem with your way is that won't find anything new. Kind of like Creationism where they can't learn how things might have evolved since they refuse to look.

Time is simply change and you can't travel change.


You can't have change without time. You can't travel change but you may be able to travel in the path of the time that change occurs in. After all change also occurs in space and we certainly can travel that way.

Here is an insight to the way the Universe works for you:

We can travel in space because we exist at more than one point in space. If we only existed at a single point we would not be able to travel in space. We could only be carried along by space itself.

If you can't see this at the moment try this. How do we travel in space? We must cause an energy differential of some sort between points along the line of desired travel. ALL methods of transit have this as the essential part of movement.

To travel in time we would have to figure out a way to create an energy differential in time. Can't think of one myself since I only exist at one point in time as far as I can tell. I have thought that since our positions are Uncertain then our times must also be Uncertain. Perhaps something can be done with that.

Yes, I have thought on this subject from first principles and not just from wishful thinking.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


QubitTroll will be released from my sig at the end of June. It is now the last day, my time.
Pickens
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2009
Ethelred, The contradiction...I believe I showed it but here it is again: in the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation), the moment you arrive in the past, you are in an alternate universe so you are NOT in your original past nor could you ever be; furthermore, this "new" universe will NOT evolve the same way as yours did because it's different which means you will NOT return to the present from which you came. Second point here, all these "time travel" actions CANNOT be undone and hence you can never return to where you came from because the moment you got to a point further in the past than before, you branch off again into another universe yet again. Pretty clear, I think. It gives the illusion of time travel, but does not accomplish it but what it does undeniably accomplish is travel to another universe.

You mention "WITHOUT INTERACTING WITH ANYTHING"...yeah right! That can't even be done in one's own universe, regardless of time travel! This is as likely as "being able to know the values of all of the properties of a system at the same time."

The Multiverse theory is way too fantastical, but you say that it "applies equally to all models." I don't see how? There are many models that MUCH less fantastical than MWI. You mentioned the Copenhagen Model as being worse, but I don't see how? You say "[Copenhagen Model] requires a magical interaction by observers, that is, somehow the collection of atoms that makes up the observer magically becomes privileged in way that even Newton would have noticed was crap..." That's certainly 1 way of seeing CM but another is that "it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of a system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities. " Doesn't sound too fantastical to me. Furthermore, there's a HELL OF A LOT more empirical evidence for CM than there is for MWI! Don't get me wrong, I agree that Schrödinger's cat being dead & alive at the same time is BS but that's just a way of looking at it: i.e. it's not actually dead & alive at the same time. Some really really smart guy once said "the moon is still there even when we don't look at it."


In MWI, schisms can occur anywhere there is quantum uncertainty...do you realize the amount of universes that can stem from this? I don't think so.--- you say infinity...perhaps, but what does it really mean? Well, think about this: every particle/wave in the universe X number of properties X number of possible value of each property X every combination thereof add to that chaos theory and...get the picture? Completely and utterly ludicrous! Not to mention the fact that MWI is unclear as to what can make a branch and how and if these branches interact with each other. Way too Marvel Comics for me.

You claim "[all] that matters is that it's mathematically valid" but all that means is that it's mathematically valid and nothing else. Just because something is mathematically valid doesn't mean that there exists a physical manifestation of it. Remember, math comes from the physical and NOT the other way around. That's why there is so much correlation between math and the physical: math is modeled after the physical and through experimentation we DISCOVER new things (not invent.) However, we have the ability to use induction to derive and predict things but they are not always true.

Examples of the mathematical which is not physical:
(1) The number i (the square root of negative 1)
(2) Negative numbers
(3) Paradoxes
There are many solutions to equations that have no physical meaning.

You say, "In others [universe] things will be different. A different set of axioms and different constants. Only testing can tell us which universe we are in." BTW, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this.

"This is the way the String Hypothesis must work also. This bothers a lot of people that grew up thinking of only one universe." BTW, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this either. String Theory is another fantastical that requires exactly 11 dimensions in order to work (some require thirty something dimensions.) Also, there may be many universes but there's only 1 Universe. Some may choose to use Multiverse/universe instead of Universe/universe, but this is semantics. However, I am still not convinced that there is more than 1 universe.

"They keep looking for ways to generate the basic constants of the Universe. If there IS only one possible universe they should be able to achieve their desire."
We have. Remember: c, Plank, Boltzman, Avogadro, etc.
See:
http://physics.ni...dex.html

"If there is more than one possible universe then they are wasting a lot of time." But, according to experimentation there aren't more than 1 universe so they're not wasting time. As evidence, see the above list of constants.


"Why does it exist rather than not?" I said, because there isn't an option...that means that non-existence is not a possibility. One could say non-existence does not exist, but it sounds silly. Why? Because non-existence is meaningless; it's a paradox. However, this does not require MWI.


"Why does math and the universe fit together perfectly so far?" You say that "it's the other way around. The universe fits within the math but does not use all the math." I ask you this, what came first: the Universe or math? The Universe. Math is a human attempt to explain things that we observe in the Universe. However, math is still a subset of the Universe; even though there are things in math that are not physically expressible in the Universe. By saying that it's the other way around, you are putting the cart in front of the horse.


"Why something exist at all instead of nothing?" I say that it is simple because in this question there is no choice since "nothing" does not exist.
You replied, "Claiming it is simple does not make it so. The question is not what is. The question is WHY IT IS. And why you think other universes aren't." I don't think that I answered "what" as you speculated, but did instead answer why, as you required. Look again. But I will rephrase: The question is a moot point or not a question at all. Nothing does not and cannot exist; that is, it is not possible. Therefore, the question boils down to Why something? Which isn't a question at all.


I said "There is no such thing as non-existence as this is an exercise in meaninglessness." You responded, "Wrong. Why do you believe in the non-existence of other universes?" I don't. I believe that other universe are not possible. I believe they exist in theory and theory alone. Consequently, I am NOT wrong: there is NO such thing as non-existence. If you think that a nothing does exist physically, can you show me one? You can't, can you?

You say, "It may not be answerable but it is not meaningless. The question may lead to answers that you will not reach by assuming that this is the only universe." Contradiction: if it is not answerable then how can it lead to answers? I am not saying that because it's unanswerable that it is meaningless; I am saying quite the opposite: it is unanswerable because it is meaningless! Like if I ask you to answer the following question in quotes: "New York" So what's your answer? There is no possible answer because, as a question it is meaningless.

Cheers!
Pickens
not rated yet Jul 01, 2009
Ethelred, on the definition of time:

I stated: "Time is simply change and you can't travel change."
You said, "You can't have change without time. You can't travel change but you may be able to travel in the path of the time that change occurs in. After all change also occurs in space and we certainly can travel that way."

You never outright disagreed with my definition of time yet went on with your point of time travel. My definition of time is time = change, so the terms are equivalent and interchangeable. Also, one of the consequences of this definition is that you cannot travel back in time. To illustrate this, I will use a "mathematical substitution" in your statement and see if it makes sense:

"You can't have time without change. You can't travel time but you may be able to travel in the path of the change that time occurs in. After all time also occurs in space and we certainly can travel that way." Doesn't make much sense, right?


As far as your insight on how the universe works for me:
"We can travel in space because we exist at more than one point in space. If we only existed at a single point we would not be able to travel in space. We could only be carried along by space itself." Not sure what you really mean here, so I cannot agree. What things exist only in 1 point in space? I don't think that's possible so I don't understand your point on this and disagree with your conclusion.

"If you can't see this at the moment try this. How do we travel in space? We must cause an energy differential of some sort between points along the line of desired travel. ALL methods of transit have this as the essential part of movement." OK.

"To travel in time we would have to figure out a way to create an energy differential in time. Can't think of one myself since I only exist at one point in time as far as I can tell. I have thought that since our positions are Uncertain then our times must also be Uncertain. Perhaps something can be done with that." Not entirely sure what you mean. An "energy differential in time" as opposed to what, an energy differential outside of time? Of course you can't think of it because it doesn't make sense! How can you "create an energy differential in change?"


Cheers!
Pickens
not rated yet Jul 01, 2009
(From above, correction)

I am not saying that it's meaningless because it's unanswerable; I am saying quite the opposite: it is unanswerable because it is meaningless! Like if I ask you to answer the following question in quotes: "New York" So what's your answer? There is no possible answer because, as a question it is meaningless.







Ethelred, on the definition of time:



I stated: "Time is simply change and you can't travel change."

You said, "You can't have change without time. You can't travel change but you may be able to travel in the path of the time that change occurs in. After all change also occurs in space and we certainly can travel that way."





You never outright disagreed with my definition of time yet went on with your point on time travel. My definition of time is time = change, so the terms are equivalent and interchangeable. Also, one of the consequences of this definition is that you cannot travel back in time. To illustrate this, I will use a "mathematical substitution" in your statement and see if it makes sense:



"You can't have time without change." (OK so far.) "You can't travel time but you may be able to travel in the path of the change that time occurs in. After all time also occurs in space and we certainly can travel that way." Doesn't make much sense, right?





As far as your insight on how the universe works for me:



"We can travel in space because we exist at more than one point in space. If we only existed at a single point we would not be able to travel in space. We could only be carried along by space itself." Not sure what you really mean here, so I cannot agree. What things exist only in 1 point in space? I don't think that's possible so I don't understand your point on this and disagree with your conclusion.





"If you can't see this at the moment try this. How do we travel in space? We must cause an energy differential of some sort between points along the line of desired travel. ALL methods of transit have this as the essential part of movement." OK.





"To travel in time we would have to figure out a way to create an energy differential in time. Can't think of one myself since I only exist at one point in time as far as I can tell. I have thought that since our positions are Uncertain then our times must also be Uncertain. Perhaps something can be done with that." Not entirely sure what you mean. An "energy differential in time" as opposed to what, an energy differential outside of time? Of course you can't think of it because it doesn't make sense! How can you "create an energy differential in change?"





Cheers!
Zilaan
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
What if time exists in past present and future simultaneously? Time is measured by rhythm, it's a perceptual illusion and memory is what makes that illusion to seem real, so why do we remember the past? For survival reasons and that%u2019s obvious, our brains have that characteristic. The concept of past only exists because we can remember it and in an empirical way we can also experience the past just by looking at the stars at night, as they are light years away, the energy that we perceive (light) is actually arriving at us with a lag of years, even the sun light as a lag of 8,3 minutes until it reaches earth.



What happened in the past was once present and our senses experienced that present, so logically, I think, present is what only exists and the future hasn't happened yet. But because we remember the past we can try to predict future events based on the past. This seems to be quite simple and obvious.



What if chaos and randomness where also an illusion? If we had all the knowledge of every existing element in the universe and their relations, laws, how they react with each other's producing chain events starting from the supposed big bang, we could understand how everything was, is and will be in the future. Isn't chaos the result of unpredictability based on the unknown factors that make things happen in a certain way? What if we had the knowledge of everything that exists and all the %u201Calmost infinite%u201D relations between them? What seems chaotic would be logical and we would be able to predict the future and know the past. If we had that knowledge we could know everything but that knowledge is in the universe itself, physically impossible to be understood by us but it exists, it's there. So I think the illusion of time can only be travelled this way without leaving the present.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2009
Ethelred, The contradiction...I believe I showed it but here it is again: in the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation), the moment you arrive in the past, you are in an alternate universe so you are NOT in your original past


Well I don't see it that way. It is the same universe up to the time of the branching. You seem to be arguing by using a definition I don't find relevant. However you cut it you are still in your past at the start.

I did say that this isn't H. G. Wells Time Machine.

e; furthermore, this "new" universe will NOT evolve the same way as yours did because it's different which means you will NOT return to the present from which you came.


I said that. Quit repeating me.

Again I point out that I have thought of that stuff. Mentioned it several times now. And mentioned mentioning it also. Would you please quit going over things we agree on as if I didn't already point it out. It will save a LOT of space.

Pretty clear, I think. It gives the illusion of time travel, but does not accomplish it but what it does undeniably accomplish is travel to another universe.


Saying it won't make it so. Its still time travel. The universe is the same up to the branch point. Thus you can learn how things happened in the past. Transmitting that back to the future is problematical at best. Only you and others that went with you would know unless you can find a way to outside of the normal universe thus not affecting things as you go down and then back uptime.


You mention "WITHOUT INTERACTING WITH ANYTHING"...yeah right! That can't even be done in one's own universe, regardless of time travel!


I did say you would have to go outside of the universe. It might be close enough to simply travel in space. Then you could return to a Universe that is similar but not identical to the one you left. Perhaps to one where the you of that universe isn't there because he too is traveling in time.

The Multiverse theory is way too fantastical, but you say that it "applies equally to all models." I don't see how?


That is OK, I see how. Now if only I can show you. Again.

That's certainly 1 way of seeing CM but another is that "it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of a system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.


That is not the Copenhagen model. The Copenhagen model has collapsing probabilities that are dependent on an observer.

All right there are some models that make more sense than the Copenhagen model. Besides the Multiverse. I have even posted one. I was bit hyperbolic I guess.

My previous statement on at least two other threads.

There is no need for the observation to be done by anything conscious. Any particle will do. Massive or not. At that point the observed and the observer become entangled and remain that way until the entangled system is observed by an outside particle. Iterate to infinity or the edge of the Universe, whichever comes first.


Still I think that the Multiverse is better than the Copenhagen model which I think is crap.

Furthermore, there's a HELL OF A LOT more empirical evidence for CM than there is for MWI!


Actually there isn't any. There is no way to tell them apart in fact. At least in Wheelers model. Since one gives answers to a lot of difficult questions and the other doesn't I go for the one that does.

I agree that Schrödinger's cat being dead & alive at the same time is BS but that's just a way of looking at it: i.e. it's not actually dead & alive at the same time


Not in the Copenhagen model. There it is both alive and dead until there is an observation.

. Some really really smart guy once said "the moon is still there even when we don't look at it."


The Moon isn't being destroyed via an Uncertain decision.

In MWI, schisms can occur anywhere there is quantum uncertainty...do you realize the amount of universes that can stem from this? I don't think so.--- you say infinity...perhaps, but what does it really mean?


Why do you keep repeating things? And this time you got it wrong. Which could be why you think I don't realize things.

I said infinity to a very high order. I take it that you don't understand what that means. Let me see if I can find a link. This stuff is a real brain fryer so don't say I didn't warn you.

http://en.wikiped...te_hotel

Your brain will hurt. Well mine did a little.

get the picture?


Before you did. You need to learn to deal with infinities. Not to understand them in an intuitive way because I don't think that is truly possible but to deal with them as best you can.

The key idea is that the universes are just a set of numbers and as long as they are valid and without contradictions in a mathematical sense then they can exist. You are getting hung up on the idea of matter and energy. Those are just numbers in a multiverse. At least in my version which is based on my understanding or misunderstanding of Wheeler plus those questions that get asked.

And no I still maintain that I am not married to these ideas. I kind of like the one above as well.

Like Schrodinger's Cat I can be in two phases at once.

Not to mention the fact that MWI is unclear as to what can make a branch and how and if these branches interact with each other.


Its clear if they don't interact. If they do then yes its unclear. Lots of things in physics are unclear. You have to learn to live with it. Now to make it worse.

If they interact its not clear but if there is a multiverse, as I propose, where ALL possible universes exist, then some interact and some don't. Worse isn't it? Its still valid mathematically which is all that counts at the moment.

You claim "[all] that matters is that it's mathematically valid" but all that means is that it's mathematically valid and nothing else.


No it means more than that. It means its possible.

Just because something is mathematically valid doesn't mean that there exists a physical manifestation of it


You are repeating yourself. Yet Again. I think you are a multiverse all on your own.

Remember, math comes from the physical and NOT the other way around.


No. Not at all. Try reading about infinity for starts. Math often has no connection to reality or none that anyone has found yet. See number theory for a case where something was found after decades of circle jerking. We use it for SSL for instance.

(1) The number i (the square root of negative 1)


Just try telling that to a electrical engineer. They use imaginary and complex numbers frequently. I have asked some of them about this just to be sure.

(2) Negative numbers[q/]

Those clearly exist. You really can't do much physics without using them.

(3) Paradoxes


Not in math. Paradoxes show a flaw in your math if you get one.

There are many solutions to equations that have no physical meaning.


Yes. So what? They may have meaning in another universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse they do have meaning.

BTW, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this.


Did I claim there was? There is no empircal evidence for String Theory either. Or Quantum Loop gravity that Peter Woit the String hater is enamored with.

String Theory is another fantastical that requires exactly 11 dimensions in order to work (some require thirty something dimensions.)


I haven't run across one with thirty dimensions. Standard string theory(now there is an oxymoron) has ten. Brane theory has 11. Last time I looked anyway.

However, I am still not convinced that there is more than 1 universe.


Neither am I but it does answer the question of why we exist. Why there is something instead of nothing.

We have. Remember: c, Plank, Boltzman, Avogadro, etc.


Sorry but those numbers are derived from observation and not theory.

No theory can produce all the constants. Not yet anyway. You have heard of renormalization haven't you? Its in the standard model so you can't derive those numbers from the standard model. Not from string theory either as there are at least 10 to the 500th string models. Only testing will tell what the constants are unless someone comes with a stunningly brilliant new theory. Aetherwave gets a few constants right, allegedly from first principals, but it gets a lot of constants wrong and even the ones they claim are right require a loose definition of right.

As evidence, see the above list of constants.


Sorry but again they were derived from observations of THIS universe.

said, because there isn't an option


YA. It isn't an option. Its a question. We know we exist. The question is why./YA

I ask you this, what came first: the Universe or math?


The math. We need not exist for math to be valid.

However, math is still a subset of the Universe;


You REALLY have that one wrong. Its a superset.

By saying that it's the other way around, you are putting the cart in front of the horse.


See your own statement coming right up.

even though there are things in math that are not physically expressible in the Universe.


So its a superset.

"Why something exist at all instead of nothing?" I say that it is simple because in this question there is no choice since "nothing" does not exist.


Do you ever get tired of repeating yourself. My fingers are getting worn out.

but did instead answer why, as you required. Look again


No please no. Not another yet again. I looked the first time. I found your answer to be invalid. It still is. For the same reasons.

The question is a moot point or not a question at all.


I am not the one that asks it. So it isn't moot. But it is similar to why is the sky black. The answer has the potential to produce real meaning.

Why do you believe in the non-existence of other universes?" I don't. I believe that other universe are not possible.


So you just contradicted yourself. You don't believe in other universes. You just said so. So why don't you. They ARE possible. The math shows that. Wheeler did the math not me. I couldn't do it if my life depended on it.

. I believe they exist in theory and theory alone.


That is a belief and not a fact. I have the advantage here. I am not going on belief. Just spitwadding about the way things might really be. Or might not.

Consequently, I am NOT wrong: there is NO such thing as non-existence.


Funny you think all universes except this one don't exist. So you therefor do believe in non-existence. For all other possible universes. Kind of like me with religions. I believe in on less than the all the believers do.

However I neither believe nor disbelieve in other universes. I just find it more likely than not that other universes exist.

Your misunderstanding of what I said about constants makes it clear that you having difficulties with this. Much like I am having difficulties typing anymore.

If you think that a nothing does exist physically, can you show me one? You can't, can you?


Gosh that is so devastating. No it isn't. It has no meaning in this context. Then again YOU claimed that imaginary numbers don't exist in reality.

" Contradiction: if it is not answerable then how can it lead to answers?


May is the key word you missed. May be unanswerable. It may be answerable. When we have better theories of physics we may find evidence for other universes. Brane theory has other universes for instance.

"New York" So what's your answer? There is no possible answer because, as a question it is meaningless.


Bets? Though just saying New York doesn't actually have a question it sure implies one.

The place is dirty, crowded and arrogant. Its on the wrong side of the US too. The porn industry there was owned by the mob. A previous Mayor was also. The longshoreman still are.

You need more imagination. I can answer about New York for quite a while. If I run out of real complaints I can make some up.

I am not going to deal with your other posts for a bit. You are as bad as me and even I run out of time. I have to go back to work today. Two days off and the monsters want me to work again.

Ethelred
Pickens
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Ethelred,

You complain about the repetition but I was only quoting previous posts in an attempt to emulate your style of posting so that we would have one less point of contention, but that didn't work either.

You say that somethings (or many) that I have stated are wrong and untrue - and I think the same of many of yours. I have presented factual evidence and proof for my key points as well as try to re-explain in an attempt to elucidate, but to no avail. I don't think you did the same but I am sure you feel the same about me.

Well I tried. I guess we won't see eye to eye! However, I hope we can continue to post without stepping on each other's shoes.
Pickens
not rated yet Jul 02, 2009
Zilaan,
Interesting concept of time existing in past present and future simultaneously. I have read about this before but never quite understood it. Can you elaborate on it? The trouble I always found is that this concept seems to require more than 1 time dimension. Anyways, I hope you can explain it better.

You asked, what if chaos and randomness where also an illusion? They are! That's because chaos can be though of just another type of order and..."a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated." Doesn't sound so random, huh?

Can everything be known, though. I don't think so. In quantum physics: "The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic."

Cheers
SmartK8
not rated yet Jul 23, 2009
I still think, that our reality is 1D, as in array of the bits. Because there's a bigger chance that we're a simulation, than a real thing. Therefore I'd like to say to the reality admins: "Gimme more money, dammit!".
rajnish
not rated yet Aug 26, 2009
I am new to this site, gone through all of your discussions, I think one thing is sure that one has to travel faster than light or at least with the speed of light. as soon as the travelling speed comes to normal speeds we will be back in present after a lapse time duration by which we are ahead in time. Am I right or???
mail me: rajnish10276@yahoo.com
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2009
I am new to this site, gone through all of your discussions,


Perhaps you meant all of THIS discussion.

Am I right or???


Not according to some ideas.

Going in circles around a spinning black hole, in the opposite direction of the spin, may allow for travel back in time. Of course it may require that you go so close to the Hole that survival is not an option due to tidal effects.

Ethelred

Sorry for the new signature. But It Needed Killun.

From QubitTamer's fake profile

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Qubitwit gets the rest of August in my signature for aiming his idiocy at me. Again.