statistical disproof of timetravel...

[headscratcher4]

http://www.samkass.com/theories/timetravel.html

;)

[Dr. Popalot]

If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now? Think how financialy successful they would be if the knew what the stock market was going to do, which sports team was going to win, etc. Don't give me that baloney that it would be prohibited by some type of prime directive. Human nature would indicate that the temptation would be to great for some to resist.

[Dancing David]

The biggest problem I see with time travel is the intrinsic motion of the earth, the sun and the galaxy. Sure you could go back in time(I doubt it) but then you would need an intergalactic spaceship to get back to the earth.

Peace

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The biggest problem I see with time travel is the intrinsic motion of the earth, the sun and the galaxy. Sure you could go back in time(I doubt it) but then you would need an intergalactic spaceship to get back to the earth.

Peace

Hmmm, it would depend, I suppose. Let's say you went back THROUGH time, that is like the original Wells version where you actually existed in all times between now and the past just in an accelerated fashion, and in the wrong direction. I would assume gravity would still keep you well anchored to the Earth. But if you just popped out of this time, and then into another time, I could see your point.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The biggest problem I see with time travel is the intrinsic motion of the earth, the sun and the galaxy. Sure you could go back in time(I doubt it) but then you would need an intergalactic spaceship to get back to the earth.

Peace

Exactly, where would you go back to? We aren't sitting still.

If you went back in time, you would also need to travel to stay near Earth. And to do that, you would have to know where to go. And to do that, you would need to know what orbits we are in. After all, it is possible that we are moving through space at a few % of c (at least relative to some objects).

Further, we have no idea what accelerations are acting on us as we travel with Earth. We are in an elliptical orbit around many objects. Relative to some objects, we likely traverse some strange arc, possibly like a giant yo-yo.

So don't start up your time machine quite yet...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, so let's say we have a time travel machine. It's like a box with a door. I get inside and turn on the machine. What does it look like from the outside the instant it moves in time, say, 1 femtosecond? How does it guarantee to move the entire machine at the same rate through time so it doesn't disperse in time?

When particles are sped up to near the speed of light in an accelerator, why don't they vanish into the past?

Fun little article in Skeptic Vol. 10 No. 1.

~~ Paul

[Trueblood]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now? Think how financialy successful they would be if the knew what the stock market was going to do, which sports team was going to win, etc.

Two things:
First:
There's a theory that one couldn't travel back to before the time that the time machine was invented. The thinking goes that a "real" time machine would be a wormhole with one side that had been sent traveling really really fast. Time dialation would cause the two sides to be out of sync, and poof, time machine.

Second:
This "news" story (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/scitech_story.cfm?instanceid=57352) details a man who supposedly did just that! Consider the source. :D

[jj]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now? Think how financialy successful they would be if the knew what the stock market was going to do, which sports team was going to win, etc. Don't give me that baloney that it would be prohibited by some type of prime directive. Human nature would indicate that the temptation would be to great for some to resist.

No no no no no.

They were here, they caused the internet boom, but then the quantum state of the market got improbable enough that it tunneled and they all went broke. :D :D :D :D

(err, do I need to explain that there's sarcasm here?)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

True said:There's a theory that one couldn't travel back to before the time that the time machine was invented. The thinking goes that a "real" time machine would be a wormhole with one side that had been sent traveling really really fast. Time dialation would cause the two sides to be out of sync, and poof, time machine.
Huh? How would the spinning part of the wormhole even stay "attached in time" to the front part? Seems to me you'd end up with a wormhole to nowhere.

~~ Paul

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now?

How do you know they aren't? Bill Gates appears to be quite unusual. (Except for his fabled holidays on Cruise ships full of naked women).

[Khalid01]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The biggest problem I see with time travel is the intrinsic motion of the earth, the sun and the galaxy. Sure you could go back in time(I doubt it) but then you would need an intergalactic spaceship to get back to the earth.

Peace

Of course Planet X would keep you firmly planted on the ground. Although has been approaching us, its influence extends through the electronmagnetic spectrum, and through spacetime. Just read Quinn's post in Banter to see what harrowing things Planet X can do!:D

And all of those people from the future? They're just controlling our minds from Star's- I mean "Time's End".

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Trueblood
There's a theory that one couldn't travel back to before the time that the time machine was invented.

What might happen, then, when you first switched on this time machine? Would all the time machines from the future suddenly arrive?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Exactly, where would you go back to? We aren't sitting still.

If you went back in time, you would also need to travel to stay near Earth. And to do that, you would have to know where to go. And to do that, you would need to know what orbits we are in. After all, it is possible that we are moving through space at a few % of c (at least relative to some objects).

Further, we have no idea what accelerations are acting on us as we travel with Earth. We are in an elliptical orbit around many objects. Relative to some objects, we likely traverse some strange arc, possibly like a giant yo-yo.

So don't start up your time machine quite yet...

I think this is patently false....

You see we are traveling through time right now....just in the other direction....and I have no trouble keeping up with the Earth.

[RedCoat]

Originally posted by Andonyx


I think this is patently false....

You see we are traveling through time right now....just in the other direction....and I have no trouble keeping up with the Earth.



You are correct, we have no trouble keeping up with the earth. Our velocity vector is the same as the earth's, so our relative velocity is zero.

However, the earth's velocity (and ours with it) changes with time, since it is are rotating around the sun.

If you traveled instantly to a different point in time, to end up in the same location on the earth in which you started, you would need to instantly change both your velocity and position at the same instant. This instantaneous step-function change in velocity/position would be required to "make up" for the changes in velocity/position that happened in the time you "skipped".


-RedCoat

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now?

I can think of so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I can think of so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start.

Well, yeah, so can I. I do wonder what you'd come up with. No, I'm not making this into a challenge, I know that my approach and yours are very different, and I wonder what reasoning you'd use.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by RedCoat




You are correct, we have no trouble keeping up with the earth. Our velocity vector is the same as the earth's, so our relative velocity is zero.

However, the earth's velocity (and ours with it) changes with time, since it is are rotating around the sun.

If you traveled instantly to a different point in time, to end up in the same location on the earth in which you started, you would need to instantly change both your velocity and position at the same instant. This instantaneous step-function change in velocity/position would be required to "make up" for the changes in velocity/position that happened in the time you "skipped".


-RedCoat

Hey that's correct, unfortunately it is also exactly what I posted about the forth message of this topic. I'm not taking Issue with Dr. Chinese's claim, I'm on a one man crusade to stop people from posting before they read the entire topic.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now? Think how financialy successful they would be if the knew what the stock market was going to do, which sports team was going to win, etc. Don't give me that baloney that it would be prohibited by some type of prime directive. Human nature would indicate that the temptation would be to great for some to resist.

They're already here, that's why everythings so fecked up! Damn time tourists!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I can think of so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, yeah, so can I. I do wonder what you'd come up with. No, I'm not making this into a challenge, I know that my approach and yours are very different, and I wonder what reasoning you'd use.



Reverse time travel is possible but is beyond human beings intellectual ability to ever acheive. Or it is within out intellectual capacity but humans die out before it gets invented. Or it does get invented but creates inevitable paradoxes ensuring that no-one could ever travel to the past. Or it could be phenomenally expensive to travel backwards in time. Or we do invent time machines, we do travel back in time, but do not travel back to this particular era. Or people do travel back to this era but do not shout it from the roof tops. Or they do shout it from the roof tops but don't get believed eg truebloods news story http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/scitech_story.cfm?instanceid=57352

BTW, personnally I do not believe that reverse time travel is possible.

[RedCoat]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Hey that's correct, unfortunately it is also exactly what I posted about the forth message of this topic. I'm not taking Issue with Dr. Chinese's claim, I'm on a one man crusade to stop people from posting before they read the entire topic.

I apologize.

-RedCoat

[Acrimonious]

I'm currently hanging out in May 21, 2003.

A while ago, I was chilling in June 3, 1999.

Before that, I was shooting the breeze in October 15, 1985.


Some day, I hope to visit such times as April 3, 2007, August 30, 2015, and maybe even December 1, 2059 if I'm lucky and my time machine holds up during the long trip.

[kedo1981]

Why are there no time traveling tourists? Because there is no such thing as TIME to travel in.

Time is merely a human perception; like when we look at clocks; or a theoretical construct: like what Hawking talks about.

But not a “real” “structure” in the universe like gravity or light or space.

Einstein mused about this idea (ain’t say-en he believed it) and other big brains have expressed this (“idea”)

[Mark]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Why are there no time traveling tourists? Because there is no such thing as TIME to travel in.

Time is merely a human perception; like when we look at clocks; or a theoretical construct: like what Hawking talks about.

But not a “real” “structure” in the universe like gravity or light or space.

Einstein mused about this idea (ain’t say-en he believed it) and other big brains have expressed this (“idea”)

Isn't it true that at a quantum level, all "nows" are simultaneous? I'm not sure how that would translate into a time machine, though...

[Larspeart]

Stephen Hawkings was the 1st person I heard post that VERY simple question to the time travel idea; 'if it were possible, how come we have never seen one?" I think that alone wold be GOOD irrefutable proof that it not only doesn't exist now, but never will.

That, or humanity is gonna die out in the very near future, lol!

Also, I really like the other posters notion of the 'standing still' idea. That Earth, the galaxy, the sun, etc all move, very fast to boot. If you were to take the idea fo existing on all planes, at all times in one space (which I think is crap) then it woudl be possible.

[St_Hereticus]

It would seem to me that time travel into the past would be forbidden by the laws of conservation of mass/energy. If a time traveler were to travel backward in time even a short duration (say, one minute), then the universe, at the instant of his departure, would contain less mass/energy than it did before he left. And the universe at the instant of his arrival in the past would contain more mass/energy than it did before his arrival.

Time travel into the future, however, is not forbidden, since we're all doing that right now!
But, I suppose that even future time travel would be forbidden, by the same conservation laws, if the travel were other than continuous, i.e., we pop out of the "here and now", and pop into the "there and then".

[jj]

Originally posted by Larspeart

That, or humanity is gonna die out in the very near future, lol!



Ack! It's the "Planet X" theory again! :D :D

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus
It would seem to me that time travel into the past would be forbidden by the laws of conservation of mass/energy. If a time traveler were to travel backward in time even a short duration (say, one minute), then the universe, at the instant of his departure, would contain less mass/energy than it did before he left. And the universe at the instant of his arrival in the past would contain more mass/energy than it did before his arrival.

Time travel into the future, however, is not forbidden, since we're all doing that right now!
But, I suppose that even future time travel would be forbidden, by the same conservation laws, if the travel were other than continuous, i.e., we pop out of the "here and now", and pop into the "there and then".

Not really.

If a person moves left one foot, does the universe contain more or less matter / energy?

It is posited that not only does time function as a dimension from a mathematical standpoint, but in a real physical sense as well.

Certain particles may be operating on a different time line than we are, and they do not violate conservation.

Other theories of the relationship between time and space include that within a certain distance of black hole space is warped so severly that time and space axis actually switch places. You then move through time, not space. (The old, the person never perceives that they will fall into the hole, theory.)

Finally look at it this way. if you are correct you could trvael back in time, and then return the instant you left.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Stephen Hawkings was the 1st person I heard post that VERY simple question to the time travel idea; 'if it were possible, how come we have never seen one?" I think that alone wold be GOOD irrefutable proof that it not only doesn't exist now, but never will.It's the time travel version of the Fermi paradox. And Hawking was far from the first to pose the question.That, or humanity is gonna die out in the very near future, lol!Sounds like the Doomsday Argument.

Do a Google on Rotating Cylinders and Global Causality Violation

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Stephen Hawkings was the 1st person I heard post that VERY simple question to the time travel idea; 'if it were possible, how come we have never seen one?" I think that alone wold be GOOD irrefutable proof that it not only doesn't exist now, but never will.

That, or humanity is gonna die out in the very near future, lol!

Also, I really like the other posters notion of the 'standing still' idea. That Earth, the galaxy, the sun, etc all move, very fast to boot. If you were to take the idea fo existing on all planes, at all times in one space (which I think is crap) then it woudl be possible.

I always hear the example of moving away from the Earth at the speed of light, if you could travel out at that speed for a period of time relative to your perception, say a month, and then come back at the speed of light, everyone you knew would be long gone, dead and buried, etc. Meaning that time had slowed down for you, relative to everyone on Earth.

If time isn't a physical property and is just the measurement of the movement of matter through space or electrons around a nucleus and so on, shoudn't you be the one to grow old and die rapidly travelling at the speed of light, relative to everyone on Earth?

Since no one's actually done it yet, I guess we don't know for sure yet. I personally believe there is no physical property called time, it's just a measure of relative movement.

[Mark]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I always hear the example of moving away from the Earth at the speed of light, if you could travel out at that speed for a period of time relative to your perception, say a month, and then come back at the speed of light, everyone you knew would be long gone, dead and buried, etc. Meaning that time had slowed down for you, relative to everyone on Earth.

If time isn't a physical property and is just the measurement of the movement of matter through space or electrons around a nucleus and so on, shoudn't you be the one to grow old and die rapidly travelling at the speed of light, relative to everyone on Earth?

Since no one's actually done it yet, I guess we don't know for sure yet. I personally believe there is no physical property called time, it's just a measure of relative movement.

Actually, time dilation has been proven in NASA experiments.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Mark
Actually, time dilation has been proven in NASA experiments. Particle accelerators. Airplanes. We know that time dilation happens, as well as we know anything.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
If time travel were possible then why aren't time travelers form the future here now? Think how financialy successful they would be if the knew what the stock market was going to do,

The problem is, the additional buying of the stocks would change the future price, and hence start a time paradox. I saw some theoretical physics guy (don't remember his name) on TV talking about how such paradoxes are mathematically impossible.

[Sindai]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I always hear the example of moving away from the Earth at the speed of light, if you could travel out at that speed for a period of time relative to your perception, say a month, and then come back at the speed of light, everyone you knew would be long gone, dead and buried, etc. Meaning that time had slowed down for you, relative to everyone on Earth.

Nitpick: you can't travel at the speed of light, only very close to it, because nearing the speed of light has other effects besides slowing time. it increases mass. As you approach the speed of light your mass approaches infinity, making it impossible to accelerate significantly.

Since no one's actually done it yet, I guess we don't know for sure yet. I personally believe there is no physical property called time, it's just a measure of relative movement.

As pointed out already, it has been done. Put an atomic clock in a plane and keep one on the ground. Synchonrize them, the fly the one in the plane around at high speed for a while. Compare the time on both clocks. The one on the plane will be a miniscule amount behind the one on the ground.

Also, particles near the speed of light in particle accelerators behave as though time is slowed for them.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Particle accelerators. Airplanes. We know that time dilation happens, as well as we know anything.
Also GPS systems which must incorporate the Lorentz transformation into their calculations to work properly. As Pixy said, relativity works.

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Certain particles may be operating on a different time line than we are, and they do not violate conservation.
Antimatter, such as positrons, etc., are thought to travel backward in time, but it is continuous travel; they don't "pop" in and out of various "nows", so I don't think they would violate any conservation laws.
Finally look at it this way. if you are correct you could trvael back in time, and then return the instant you left.
That's a good point. That way the universe would not decrease in mass/energy at the leaving/returning instant. But what about arriving in the past? Wouldn't there still be more mass/energy at the instant of arrival?

It's difficult to wrap the mind around the concept of time. One physicist (Julian Barbour) even thinks that time doesn't exist at all, that it is only some kind of conceptual illusion!

[rockoon]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Particle accelerators. Airplanes. We know that time dilation happens, as well as we know anything.

I am confused about time dialation.

If everything is 'relative' - why is it that the person traveling away from the earth ages more slowly than the people on earth?

Isnt the situation 'relative' - the people on earth are moving just as fast relative to the traveler as the traveler is to the people on earth.

The only thing I can come up with is that its the -acceleration- that matters and not relative velocity. But if thats the case why dont they say so?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus

Antimatter, such as positrons, etc., are thought to travel backward in time, but it is continuous travel; they don't "pop" in and out of various "nows", so I don't think they would violate any conservation laws.
[/B]

I could be wrong but I don't think anti-matter is supposed to travel backwards in time. It has opposite charge and equal mass.

I think you're thinking of tachyons....

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

In the meantime, here's this as well on Anti-matter:

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

The creation of a matter and anti-matter particle has been witnessed, and so has the corresponding annihilation. If the two particles were traveling in different directions in time, that could never happen.

[St_Hereticus]

Tachyons are theoretical particles that always travel faster than light. Anti-matter, such as a positron, can be viewed as an electron traveling backward in time. This is the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, a discussion of which you can find at Dark matter, Antimatter, and Time-Symmetry (http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021).

[Ian]

Could Einstein-Rosen-Bridge wormholes be used in time travel
to connect one place in space-time on earth with
another place in space time where earth was in the past?

[davefoc]

rockoon asked:
If everything is 'relative' - why is it that the person traveling away from the earth ages more slowly than the people on earth?

This is basically the famous twins paradox. There are many sites on the internet that discuss it.

I think, I am on the edge of understanding it (which also means that I am on the edge of not understanding it ).

To calculate the time dilation of the twins separating all that is required is special relativity(Special relativity deals only with problems where acceleration and gravity is not an issue.). The time of the opposite twin for both of the twins seems to be slowing down.

So for the stationary twin the situation is rather simple. He sees time for his twin in the rocket as going slower whether the twin is going away or coming towards him. The lorentz transformation for time dilation can be used to calculate the amount the clocks of the separating twins are slowed down.

The situation for the twin in the rocket is more complicated and general relativity must be used to take into account his acceleration.

So if the theory of relativity is going to resolve this apparent paradox the acceleration of the rocket must cause his clocks to run slow enough to eliminate the apparent paradox. At this point I am out of my league and can't do the calculations, but I believe when they are done the paradox is eliminated.

I have seen arguments that general relativity is not required to resolve this paradox, but the description that I gave above is basically what I interpret my physics book to be saying about it and I didn't understand the arguments that general relativity is not required.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davefoc,

I have seen arguments that general relativity is not required to resolve this paradox, but the description that I gave above is basically what I interpret my physics book to be saying about it and I didn't understand the arguments that general relativity is not required.

General Relativity is not necessary to understand the Twin Paradox. You just have to understand where the asymmetry between the two twins lies. That asymmetry is in the fact that one of the twins remains in the same inertial frame throughout the experiment, and the other one does not. Note that this makes no references to General Relativity. It is not that some time difference "accumulates" during the acceleration and deceleration periods. That notion can easily be disproven.

The asymmetry is especially clear when you look at the different effect that length contraction has on the two twins. Let's say twin B is going to Alpha Centaury and back at 0.8c. Twin A sees twin B's spaceship contract in length by approximately a factor of two. Twin B sees the distance from Earth to Aplha Centaury (the distance he is travelling) contract by a factor of two.

That's quite a difference, wouldn't you say?


Dr. Stupid

[daver]

Originally posted by davefoc
rockoon asked:


This is basically the famous twins paradox. There are many sites on the internet that discuss it.

I think, I am on the edge of understanding it (which also means that I am on the edge of not understanding it ).

To calculate the time dilation of the twins separating all that is required is special relativity(Special relativity deals only with problems where acceleration and gravity is not an issue.). The time of the opposite twin for both of the twins seems to be slowing down.

So for the stationary twin the situation is rather simple. He sees time for his twin in the rocket as going slower whether the twin is going away or coming towards him. The lorentz transformation for time dilation can be used to calculate the amount the clocks of the separating twins are slowed down.

The situation for the twin in the rocket is more complicated and general relativity must be used to take into account his acceleration.

So if the theory of relativity is going to resolve this apparent paradox the acceleration of the rocket must cause his clocks to run slow enough to eliminate the apparent paradox. At this point I am out of my league and can't do the calculations, but I believe when they are done the paradox is eliminated.

I have seen arguments that general relativity is not required to resolve this paradox, but the description that I gave above is basically what I interpret my physics book to be saying about it and I didn't understand the arguments that general relativity is not required.

There are three inertial reference frames involved--the stationary twin (twin A), the outgoing twin (twin B) and the returning twin (twin B'). Say twin A starts a stopwatch when twin B passes him, and stops it when twin B' passes. Twin B starts a stopwatch when he passes twin A, and stops it when he passes twin B'. Twin B' starts it when he passes twin B, and stops it when he passes twin A.

All three twins think time is passing more slowly for the other twins. Twin A thinks that time is passing equally slowly for twin B and twin B' ; twin B thinks that time is passing more slowly for twin A (as slowly as twin A thinks time is passing for twin B), but that for twin B' time is passing REALLY slowly. Twin B' also thinks that time is moving more slowly for twin A, and really slowly for twin B. Everyone agrees on the time the various stopwatches show at the end (and that the sum of the times on stopwatches B and B' is less than that on stopwatch A). What they DON'T agree on is the time on stopwatch A when B passed B'.

I can run through the numbers for a specific example if you want--it's not all that difficult.

[Eos of the Eons]

Time is merely a human perception; like when we look at clocks; or a theoretical construct: like what Hawking talks about.


That's about it. It's the measurement we make of our perception of time passing. The future hasn't happened yet. You can't go somewhere that doesn't exist.

The past is the past, it's not still existing. Our ancestors are dead, and the dinos are extinct. They aren't all existing somewhere waiting for us to time travel to see them.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons



The past is the past, it's not still existing. Our ancestors are dead, and the dinos are extinct. They aren't all existing somewhere waiting for us to time travel to see them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at a quantum level isn't this the exact opposite of what is happening? All "nows" are occuring simultaneously.

[Ian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at a quantum level isn't this the exact opposite of what is happening? All "nows" are occuring simultaneously

How can all now's occur simultaneousl if all the stars in the sky's light left them thousands or millions of years ago?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ian
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at a quantum level isn't this the exact opposite of what is happening? All "nows" are occuring simultaneously

How can all now's occur simultaneousl if all the stars in the sky's light left them thousands or millions of years ago?

Keeping in mind that I am not a quantum physicist, my understanding is that at a quantum level, the universe counts time differently from how we do at a macro level. In other words, our perception of time is exactly that: our perception...a local phenomenon if you like. Which is why the question has been posed, "Why can we remember the past and not the future?"

Maybe Stimpy will show up and clarify it; the mathematics of it give me the willies.

[Eos of the Eons]

Bah, Quantum mechanics is all theory and no proof. :p :)

[Correa Neto]

I remember reading something (from Hawkings?) that correlated time travel and the possibilities of multiverses.

Basically it stated that if a guy builds a time machine, there´s a chance that it works and a chance that it does not works, and also a chance that he decides to go back say, to 1985 and not to, say, 1984. There´s a version of the universe (parallel or alternate universes) for each one of these (and all other) possibilities (including every possible quantum state for every particle existing in the universe and all possible combinations provided by this). No overcrowding here.

This could help solving the problem regarding the scarcity of time travelers without invoking doomsday. Would also help solving some paradoxes such as the grandfather paradox. One could indeed travel back in time and kill his/hers grandfather, but he would have arrived on a universe where he never existed.

[Eos of the Eons]

Yeah sure, mix time travel and multiple universes. Both of which are impossible. It's like saying putting Bert with Ernie makes them real boys.

It's all fun to think about, but that doesn't make it possible.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Yeah sure, mix time travel and multiple universes. Both of which are impossible. It's like saying putting Bert with Ernie makes them real boys.

It's all fun to think about, but that doesn't make it possible.

Respectfully, if you don't understand the math your opinion is not worth much here. Neither is mine...but I try not to have an any opinion on this stuff; I just enjoy what the physicists/mathematicians say is possibly happening.

Multi-universes are impossible? May I ask why?

[Eos of the Eons]

I have some links to some great folks who are actually educated on the mathematics of all this. Lots of stuff on quantum theories. They all agree with you.

So yeah, that's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. My pea-brained non-mathematical opinion. Nothing any of these scholars has said has changed my mind yet, and they all say say none of ithas been 'proven in the real world'.

So until I see a multiple universe, then all the proof otherwise through those great equations will not change my mind.

It's up to you all to prove there are multiple universes. It's my job to remain skeptical until I see more than math.

It's like saying "show me god and THEN I'll believe there is one".

I'm saying I don't go on faith, no matter how big their brains are compared to mine.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I have some links to some great folks who are actually educated on the mathematics of all this. Lots of stuff on quantum theories. They all agree with you.

So yeah, that's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. My pea-brained non-mathematical opinion. Nothing any of these scholars has said has changed my mind yet, and they all say say none of ithas been 'proven in the real world'.

So until I see a multiple universe, then all the proof otherwise through those great equations will not change my mind.

It's up to you all to prove there are multiple universes. It's my job to remain skeptical until I see more than math.

It's like saying "show me god and THEN I'll believe there is one".

I'm saying I don't go on faith, no matter how big their brains are compared to mine.

Well, you are falling into the fallacy (popularized by Rush Limbaugh) that "my opinion is as good as anyone else's." Not always true, and certainly not so with regard to quantum theory, which is bound to make anyone's head spin.

There is evidence for the multi-universe theory...but it's all mathematical and you and I can't follow it. I'll wager you have never personally seen Vladimir Putin either. But that doesn't mean he isn't there.

Btw, it is not a matter of being "pea brained." It is a matter of personal knowledge and education. I will put my knowledge of Fender Guitars up against any quantum physicist any day!

[Eos of the Eons]

I really don't care if my opinion isn't as good as someone else's. It's my opinion, and I stated why. I think it's a good enough reason. Noone has to agree. I'm sure I'm not totally alone in my viewpoint. I don't have to agree with you either. You feel it is possible. I feel it isn't. No big deal.

Interesting drive to your side though :D Math math math. It's like those religious folks that say the bible says so, so it's true. Your math says so, so it's true.

I'm not sure if I understand the math. I've seen it, had it explained (talk to Quetz at nightly.net), and I still don't find that convincing enough to change my opinion.

Oh, I'm stubborn too. I will believe it only when I see a parallel universe.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I really don't care if my opinion isn't as good as someone else's. It's my opinion, and I stated why. I think it's a good enough reason. Noone has to agree. I'm sure I'm not totally alone in my viewpoint. I don't have to agree with you either. You feel it is possible. I feel it isn't. No big deal.

Interesting drive to your side though :D Math math math. It's like those religious folks that say the bible says so, so it's true. Your math says so, so it's true.

I'm not sure if I understand the math. I've seen it, had it explained (talk to Quetz at nightly.net), and I still don't find that convincing enough to change my opinion.

Oh, I'm stubborn too. I will believe it only when I see a parallel universe.

Uh...comparing mathematics to faith in the Bible is a very odd thing to say (or think). I don't know how to respond to that.

In any case, I didn't say there are parallell universes, I said there is (some) evidence for them. There is; that's not an opinion, that's fact. But they may not exist anyway.

[Eos of the Eons]

Ah, any evidence other than math? That's what I'd like to hear about


And the other point. I'll use this annoying analogy. For proof of gravity one only has to jump off a building. You don't just believe it is possible even though there is math for that too. Someone was telling me there was no visible verifiable proof of evolution and used that.

So I can understand your point of education and knowledge over just plain saying 'it can't happen'.


The thing is that she believes in god and doesn't demand the same proof that she demands for evolution for his existance :confused:

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Ah, any evidence other than math? That's what I'd like to hear about


And the other point. I'll use this annoying analogy. For proof of gravity one only has to jump off a building. You don't just believe it is possible even though there is math for that too. Someone was telling me there was no visible verifiable proof of evolution and used that.

So I can understand your point of education and knowledge over just plain saying 'it can't happen'.


The thing is that she believes in god and doesn't demand the same proof that she demands for evolution for his existance :confused:

Try this link for possible evidence. I draw no conclusions at this point.

http://fusionanomaly.net/multiverse.html

Edited to add:

At first glance, it appears there may actually be hard evidence for the multiverse. Very interesting!

[Correa Neto]

Current theories call for the existence of a "multilayered multiverse", in four levels. Some months ago there was an article on Scientific American about this, and it was quite clear and with pretty little math involved.

Eos of the Eons, basically you are sticking to your daily experience, A.K.A. common sense. I know that it may seem a weird declaration on a skeptical forum, but "common sense" is something that has to be put aside when dealing with relativity and quantum. Common sense does not apply to relativity. In many ways, inital evidences for relativity were just in the math. Later ,"material" evidence started to pour in. The same is valid for many aspects of quantum mechanics. Even the good old and trusty Newtonian mechanics can put you in several situations where the "common sense" will not help. Math is the only way out.

Imagine when you are dealing with the so called "theory of everything", that links quantum mechanics to relativity, and is one of the sources of the multiverses idea.

[Ian]

Could a wormhole connecting two points of time and space be formed between two different space-time coordinates in which Earth at one year in the past is connect with earth in one or more years in the future and Earth in the present.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Bah, Quantum mechanics is all theory and no proof. :p :)

Not true. QM is the basic science behind the computer upon which you typed those words.

There have been many, many experiments demonstrating the validity of QM. Look up the "Two slit experiment".

[Eos of the Eons]

Ah, you'll have to explain that computer/QM thing in layman's terms. Physics is obviously not my strong suit. So pretty please explain, I'm at least curious :)

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Ah, you'll have to explain that computer/QM thing in layman's terms. Physics is obviously not my strong suit. So pretty please explain, I'm at least curious :)


E of the Es
Well I'm a layman too but here goes-

The silicon chips inside your computer consist of thousands of transistors and they do their work because of the way in which electrons move through them.
At this scale electrons do not behave in the same way as they do when flowing through, say, a power cable - you have to understand quantum mechanics to make transistors.

I've found a site which seems to be what you're looking for.


Here (http://www.pbs.org/transistor/index.html)

[Eos of the Eons]

Hah! Even einstein had a quibble with it!

This comes with other side effects: namely that a number of qualities for particles aren't well-defined. For example, there is a theory by Werner Heisenberg called the Uncertainty Principle. It states that if a researcher wants to measure the speed and position of a particle, he can't do both very accurately. If he measures the speed carefully, then he can't measure the position nearly as well. This doesn't just mean he doesn't have good enough measurement tools -- it's more fundamental than that. If the speed is well-established then there simply does not exist a well-established position (the electron is smeared out like a wave) and vice versa.

Albert Einstein disliked this idea. When confronted with the notion that the laws of physics left room for such vagueness he announced: "God does not play dice with the universe." Nevertheless, most physicists today accept the laws of quantum mechanics as an accurate description of the subatomic world. And certainly it was a thorough understanding of these new laws which helped Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley invent the transistor.



Electrons are made up of what? If they act as a wave then it's not a nice orderly particle. That's understandable.

That has nothing to do with time travel and worm holes and multiple universes though. There is such a thing as time displacement.

Unless of course you can tell me why it does.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Hah! Even einstein had a quibble with it!



Electrons are made up of what? If they act as a wave then it's not a nice orderly particle. That's understandable.

That has nothing to do with time travel and worm holes and multiple universes though. There is such a thing as time displacement.

Unless of course you can tell me why it does.

Well, as I understand it, the time travel stuff arises out of attempts to reconcile QM with General Relativity. You said above that Bah, Quantum mechanics is all theory and no proof. - so I was pointing out that QM is well-established and definitely not "all theory".

Edited to add: I think Einstein did eventually accept QM - perhaps someone can confirm this.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I'm not really serious when I say bah. Some of it is making more sense now-waves vs particles. It's just the big leaps like time travel and multiple universes where I see no proof whatsoever.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Hey, I'm not really serious when I say bah. Some of it is making more sense now-waves vs particles. It's just the big leaps like time travel and multiple universes where I see no proof whatsoever.

Go to the link I gave above. There is evidence for the multiverse. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Eos of the Eons]

I did. I think that's where I got the quote from?