Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

From our current understanding, the universe is flat. There is much we don't know.

How do we know that WW2 never originally happened, but then some tit (from the future) created a time machine, went back, told Germany to invade Europe, which then led to WW2?

Run this by me again would you.....

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

By god!! Hitler is a time-traveling Nazi Muslim just like Obama!! How does Colbert get all this information so much earlier than everyone else??

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Either way, it still happened.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

[QUOTE=Aerilon;4946012]From our current understanding, the universe is flat. There is much we don't know.

How do we know that WW2 never originally happened, but then some tit (from the future) created a time machine, went back, told Germany to invade Europe, which then led to WW2?


Because time moves in one direction, farward, with the big bang.
Do you understand this ?

When the big bang happened ,and time and space as we understand it ,were created, meaning we can measure them, time, and space, we have found that time is linked to speed ,c , the speed of light, through dilation, and theory says that we MIGHT, be able to travel to the future, but never the past, and only through time dilation can we maybe do that, and its a big big maybe !

Short of that , for us to be able to travel into the past, would mean theres multiple universes all occupying the same space ,but time does not end,it goes on, farward, so for there to be multi-verses time must loop, end, it doesnt it moves farward always, meaning for every millisecond a new universe must be created, its not possible.
To go back in time means all the multi-verses are there right now, just at a different time or point in time relitive to our time, it means time must have an ending, it cannot end, time cannot stop , it is a constant we have used scientificly for ever.
Not to meantion where the energy is comming from to create new ones every millisecond !
Also every universe would have to evolve precisly the same as ours, LOL @ that, if that were even remotely possible l recon we would have detected life in our own gallaxy by now ! hahaha
With or without time travel !

Next you'll be saying that us humans , LOL, in the future, went back to the past, LOL, to the beggining of the Earths creation and seeded life, LOL, and thats why were really here ! LOOL !
Or maybe you will be wiping yo butt on the brasco one day, and some twat from the future, lol, probly one of ya cousins hahaha, will stuff up the time machine and we all end up stuck in a 3 second loop in time forever hahaha, forever being 3 seconds, then your born again ! hahaha to wipe ya butt over and over and over and over and over dont ya recon the laws of physic's would breakdown at some point ? hahaha
pretty funny stuff, yall nutz !


Looped quantum theory is interesting but probably wrong ! And its probably the best hypothesis out there for multi-universes.....

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

I love Dr. Who myself, and if we did have the ability to time travel, I'd go back and stop Obama's election.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Your close einstein proved trime travel was impossible but time viewing was in theory possible.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Hmmm...think of it this way. You could not listen to or send radio signals until you built a radio. The signals are there to listen to but you cant make make use of that til the technology was invented to do so. Same with a transmitter.

Just for the argument lets say time can go forwards or backwards and movement betwen stars was instant. Ir doesnt but pretend for the moment it does.

If you could send a radio signal back in time no one could receive it until the radio was built.

Ergo, at such and such a date you build a time machine. Lets say fifty years from now someone from the future wants to go back in time, like the radio signal analogy, you could only go back as far as a time machine existed. If it didnt exist how would you receive the signal?

Further, what if some Alien race built a time machine based on similar technology to ours a billion years ago. They could travel forward in time and step out of our machine or a time machine built in the future.

Similarly we could travel back to when the Aliens built their first time machine but no further back than that because a machine would not exist to travel back to.

Degrasse Tyson seems to be assuming that we would never be able to build a machine that would move the machine and humans from point A to point B in space and time but that we could build a point to point system similar to a transporter or teleporter that could send a signal back in time but that we would still need a machine to receive said signal.

Im guessing because you can accelerate energy to the speed of light but so far our understanding of physics at current says we cant accelerate matter that fast.

I saw all this on a interview and I find the man fascinating to listen to.

I have a large amount of respect for Neil Grasse Tyson and Michio Kaku.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

What signal does the time machine have to receive?

Pardon my thinking so, but I reckon that seems pretty daft. That means that you couldn't travel back to before you were born because you would not exist to travel back to. Same goes for your clothes, the air you breathed, the lunch you ate, the glasses you wear, the stuff you carry, etc ad infinitum.

How fast you accelerate anything depends only on the amount of power you put into it. And you can't accelerate energy. At least, not as energy, anyway.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

This I understand.

If you had a Time Machine, wouldn't that time machine travel with you, to the past destination of your choosing? If not, then why not?

Based of an assumption.

If we were to go with this assumption, then it would explain the above comment, if however, this assumption is wrong, then my above point still stands.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Huh?? Time viewing??

The radio signal would be there regardless of if there was a receiver. Perhaps the same could be true for time-travel.

Interesting thought to consider.

If there was such a species I think it would be either 100% or almost 0% chance that the different time-machines would be compatible. Can't say for sure which until we know more about time-travel.

What if the signal works like a radio signal, in that it can be received by multiple machines?? The signal could also degrade as it got farther from the source.

The signal from the first time-machine, containing instructions on how to reintegrate the transported matter.

You don't understand. It has nothing to do with the matter transported through time. Just the time-machine in itself. The way I see this theory is that one machine disintegrates a person, but records their molecular make up. It then sends a signal through time to another machine that reconstructs you based on the 'model' (for lack of a more appropriate word) contained in the signal.

It could. But that's not how this particular theory works.

People seem to think theories expressed here actually represent something that we actually know. All theories on time-travel are just opinion until a time-machine is actually built. We aren't trying to prove our theories as we have nothing concrete to base them on at this point. We are merely suggesting possibilities. So either Neil Degrasse Tyson's theory & Dr. Who's theory remain valid until proven wrong.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

There's a thingy called the time paradox I think. Say, you go back in time stop the JFK assasination. So you succeed and JFK never gets killed. But if JFK never gets killed why would you need to go back in the first place? Therefore he would get shot and the cycle starts over again.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

JFK gets shot so you go back in time and shoot the guy that was going to shoot JFK. While you're there you leave a message to your future self telling you to go back in time and shoot the guy.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Why does it need these instructions? And why would it receive if from the first ever time machine? What if that time machine was destroyed before another one was made? Would there be an arbitrary period of time between the destruction of the first and the construction of the second where you couldn't actually go back to in time?

Why would it do that? If it were able to transport matter in the first place why would it not be able to transport entire molecules and objects? Why would it be restricted to elementary particles?

So...you are arguing for someone's opinion? This has nothing to do with fact and observable evidence?

Good grief. This is even worse than arguing for God. At least for God you have the Bible. :rolleyes:

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Time travel could just mean your sitting there, people could just walk by and/or right through you.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Or it would be a snazzy name of a travel agency.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

First off, this paradox could not occur. There would be two possible outcomes if a device of high enough energy was constructed to manipulate the time dimensions as desired. (that is assuming it is possible, which according to Einstein it is) First, we know that the 3 dimensions of space are intertwined with the dimension of time. We can't be sure if manipulating the time dimension and making it go back to a certain date would make all the matter and energy go back into its positions at that time. If it didn't, time would go back, but through the perspective of the user of the machine, nothing would happen because the past was not altered. The user would then not experience the affects of the time pushback in a linear manner. And if there was a sort of "memory" in the time dimension that allowed for the positions and multiple arrangements of matter & energy at that time, you wouldn't be able to do anything. This is because the matter you are composed of would return to its original destination(s).

I suppose if the technology was advanced enough, you could alter a type of "quantum clone" of yourself and have it stop the JFK assassination, but that would be time alteration. And that is completely different from time travel my friends. And if your "quantum clone" was successful, history would change and chances are you would be changed as well. Upon your perspective, as soon as you activate the device, you may never remember doing it at all. But yet it did happen.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

If it is possible it would be a very bad idea. You DON'T mess with the past or future.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Indeed. One on hand you have groundbreaking scientific discovery. On the other you have the high risk that some nutjob is going to get ahold of it and figure out how to use it. That could spell disaster for all of us.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

I do find it interesting a topic on time travel made it into the pub.

It strikes me odd as having a discussion on a topic very much scientific about which we know nothing. There are plenty of ideas out there, but nothing close to concrete. You cannot speak in absolutes as in "we cannot go back in time because", or "time works like this..." as no one has any idea. You can believe what you want about how time works, but there's no evidence for any particular system.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

True, but some theories are a lot more plausible than others.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

I'm sorry. I wasn't as clear as I could've been. As far as I know words don't exist to properly convey my meaning. But I suppose I can try again.

How else will it know how to assemble the particles??

It wouldn't. Any time machine could supposebly send the signal to any other time machine, but no time-machine could send the signal to a time when which a time machine doesn't exist & have it reintegrate.

Yes.

Well I invision a type of signal that's sent encoded in a type of particles that we don't yet know of. These particles by nature will trvael in a different way than any known particles. It's a matter of manipulating these particles to create the signal.

Exactly. This would be a blank thread if we were arguing known facts. If you have anything besides theories to offer please say so & we'll start building that time machine.

Arguing this has no use other than fueling the imagination, but I wouldn't agree that time travel is anyless believable than God. The Bible has been proven to be as false as Terminator, Back to the Future, Star Trek, etc.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Why do objects need to be assembled? Why do they have to be disassembled?

Why? Is there some sort of law backed up by experimental data which supports your opinion?

Do you know how stupid that idea really sounds on the receiving end?

Why can't your vision be simple and say that objects don't need to be broken down into elementary particles? If you're going to make this all up, at least make it so everyone can understand.

No matter how flawed it is still some solid evidence.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Isn't that rather obvious? Any device that truly works would have to put all the matter back in the position and configuration of the date you are traveling to for the time travel to actually occur. You would have to find a way to shield yourself from that, so that would be really tricky. The best bet would be to either alter the position of the matter you are composed of and inject it into that date. And to do that you would need the full information of every single particle you are composed of, then a machine would have to transmit that information to another machine (which may cause problems for the whole traveling in the past idea) when you can be reconfigured.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Noxstant,
Not to bash a physicist, but you seem to be speaking in absolutes about how time travel "works" and what you'd "have to do".

The method(s) you suggest are both excluded by modern physics. At least in the way you have described them thus far.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

The methods I'm considering haven't been touched on hardly at all. MIT has done a bit of work on it, as well as Michio Kaku in "Physics of the Impossible" Give me some hard evidence that my methods have been refuted. And what specifically has been refuted.

Also, there is a theory in theoretical physics that is based off of Einstein's views of the concept of time. It is called granular theory, I believe. This states things very similar to what I have been saying. Of course there is a great chance I am wrong. I'm just defending what my best theory is.... If any conclusive evidence is found, I'd be 100% open with it.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

No, it's not obvious at all. I can walk down the street without disassembling and reassembling myself multiple times, why can't time travel be the same?

And I would also like to say that before we broke the sound barrier people said some pretty strange things about what could be done which way, what limits existed, and what would happen to people who went through the barrier, some in very definite terms. I'd advise you to be a lot more cautious in what are very little more than predictions, at this stage.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

You aren't getting this. It's not my opinion. I was explaining the theory of another. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any time-travel theory. Don't take what's posted here seriously.

It's the proper answer, based on the theory, to what I found to be a stupid question. Why do you find it stupid?? You think if a time-machine is built & then destroyed it should still be useable?? If a time machine (or any machine for that matter) is destroyed & still useable it wasn't destroyed well enough.

I'm sorry this theory seems to be to complicated for you, but if it were as simple as you wish it were we would've had time machines long ago. I feel this theory is simple & the radio metaphor used earlier on explained it quite adequatly.

Have you ever wondered why enviromental science & medical science aren't simple. If they were as simple as we willed them to be we would have weather control machines & we would've completely exterminated all diseases.

And as far as I'm aware no time-travel theory doesn't involve breaking things down into elemental particles.

Depends on your definition of solid evidence, but I guess I require more prove than most. I guess that's why there're still Religious people.

However, this is off topic & I will not address it any further.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Comparing breaking the sound barrier with time travel is useless. Breaking the sound barrier was just simply breaking the sound barrier. It's sound. Not time itself. Chuck Yeager knew that. And of course you will always have crazies who are superstitious about an upcoming event that will be marked in history.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Although a famous string theorist of great repute, I'm not sure quoting one of his "popular science" books is really counted as "work in the area" as far as real physics goes.
No. Any device that truly works might work like that, I guess, maybe. It is not required to work like that at all.

Also to pose a simple question in terms of refuting these ideas: I'll assume that "position and configuration" means that you have absolute knowledge of the position, momenta, etc. etc. of every sinlge particle ever (at that point in time) i.e. you have restrictive knowledge on all Degrees of Freedom. How would you say something like this fits in with basic quantum mechanical restrictions?:)

As far as I know the only theories that Einstein may have been concerned with (that I can recall) that were called "granular theories" were those of granular gas diffusion. Could you maybe link an arxiv article? Or something more solid than speculative popular science :)

edit: to avoid confusion, clan.necrosect and I are one and the same (long story).

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Why? They are pretty similar. Time travel is just voluntary, controlled movement through a dimension through which we normally have limitations moving. Same with breaking the sound barrier.

And you still haven't explained exactly why (and how) such a machine would be able to do all the stuff you claim, if you are so certain about the theory.

The problem with popular science books, like 'popular' books in any field, is that they have too many oversimplifications and people generally tend to get the wrong idea, since they are usually thinking on different wavelengths than the experts writing such books.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

eh. I suppose no one could be 100% sure until we start experimenting with the space-time continuum.

That is a very key hinderance in building a machine, regardless of how it would work. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle will destroy your chances in an instant. Nanotechnology must progress to find a solution this problem. At the moment primitive parts of quantum computers are being constructed, as processors have been built for a while. No one currently has any idea how a "Heisenberg compensator" would be constructed. But if it is possible, I'd like to change that someday.


I've already said I don't know how the machine itself would operate, just I was discussing the physics and a bit of the time logic.
hmmm. Well either the History Channel lied to me, or there's nothing on the internet about it. But the physicists that were discussing it seemed pretty excited about it. Maybe they don't know how to use a computer. But what they proposed must have been just a concept. But they described it as an actual theory. I'm just going to have to find and rewatch that episode and get back to you guys on that one. That pisses me off that I can't find anything when the episode clearly dedicated almost the entire hour to it.




I disagree. There's really nothing more either of us can say here.

Precisely. Typically most of those books are "introductory" and are quite dumbed down. Definitely "Physics of the Impossible" is theoretical, as you would be a complete idiot to think otherwise. I mean just look at the title! Most of the "common people" reading those books do so to get a quick fix to support whatever argument they want to throw out there.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Oh really? Is that what it is? Because it doesn't sound like any physics I've seen, and it sure as hell isn't logical.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Then you haven't ever seen any theoretical physics. It's not Newtonian physics, come on man. Go watch the Universe on the history channel or better yet study up on theoretical physics. You should be able to find a good book about it somewhere. And 90% of that content is complex equations.

If you are so confident my logic is flawed, would you mind pointing what is flawed exactly?

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Well, the fact that you actually have no evidence, experimental, or even theoretical, for any of your 'theories'. Which immediately excludes it as science.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

You call the work of every theoretical physicist not science?

That may be the most arrogant and idiotic statement I've ever heard.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Do you have any equations backing up the idea that to travel back in time objects need to be disassembled into component parts and reassembled? What about for the idea that you need another machine to transmit the 'signal' for a time machine to go somewhere?

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Well first of all, if you are asking me personally if I have developed those into mathematical theories, the answer is no. It is mere speculation based on the works of Einstein and physicists after him. Second, it's not like I haven't tried to develop any equations. Perhaps when I get my degree, we'll see what we can do. The more we can manipulate space-time, the more we can find out about this topic. And how do we do that? High energy levels.... Which would once again be antimatter.

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Oh, good. Once you get your degree. Well, I think maybe you should wait till then before talking through your nose about stuff. Maybe you'll even have equations to back all this up. And it'll be no good showing them to me, I'm not doing a PhD in theoretical physics.

So why use words like 'must' and 'need' and 'will'? Surely if you were a scientist you would be a lot more cautious in your language?

Re: Time travel? Changing events?
 

Well actually, since we have no real intuitive way to approach time as a physical property anything we (you) are saying about its mechanics is speculation, so we can't really assign a % confidence to anything - let alone be close to 100%.

Evading the repurcussions of the HUP isn't really related to quantum computing work. Quantum Information Theory (the field concerned with the study of computation in the quantum world) mainly concerns itself with exploiting the known behaviors associated with quantum mechanics, rather than attempting to circumvent them. So these two fields aren't really related at all.

I would guess the History channel lied, or was at least inaccurate. Since the development of Arxiv, there really isn't a paper that goes unpublished and undiscoverable - even back dated for quite a significant period. Hence why I assumed you were mistaken about either (or both)

• The name "granular theory"
• Einsteins Association with the theory itself

As a physicist it would do you well to distinguish between hypothetical (or even speculative) and theoretical. They really are quite different, and you seem to have confused them here.

Blanket statements like that seem more insulting than anyone. It may have been helpful to maybe link a paper? or a Book?

PLEASE don't, fine if you're doing it for entertainment etc. but this is now way to educate yourself for a debate about physics (timetravel etc.). But yes there are many great popular science shows on. I can particularly recommend "Joao Magueijo's Big Bang" from the Science channel (found on youtube easily).

Don't straw man people in scientific debates. You know that's not what he said at all, to claim that's what he was suggesting is ludicrous. And then to follow it up with an insult is a little immature.

No it wouldn't. High energy doesn't immediately mean what you're dealing with has to be anti-matter.

Well this post has been fun.