[Science] Time travel? Changing events?

[Noxstant]

Originally Posted by necrosect

.
No. Any device that truly works might work like that, I guess, maybe. It is not required to work like that at all.

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

Originally Posted by necrosect

.
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?

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by necrosect

.
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

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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.

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

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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.

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.

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.

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.

[Noxstant]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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.

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?

[Mr. Pedantic]

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

[Noxstant]

You call the work of every theoretical physicist not science?

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

[Mr. Pedantic]

You call the work of every theoretical physicist not science?

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?

[Noxstant]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

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?

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.

[Mr. Pedantic]

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.

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.

It is mere speculation based on the works of Einstein and physicists after him.

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?

[Showd0wN]

Originally Posted by Noxstant

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

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%.

At the moment primitive parts of quantum computers are being constructed, as processors have been built for a while.

how a "Heisenberg compensator" would be constructed

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.

Well either the History Channel lied to me, or there's nothing on the internet about it.

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

Definitely "Physics of the Impossible" is theoretical

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.

Then you haven't ever seen any theoretical physics.

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

Go watch the Universe on the history channel

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).

You call the work of every theoretical physicist not science?

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.

High energy levels.... Which would once again be antimatter.

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.