Time Machine will not be invented

[JaredJames]

Oh, I don't see why you should be grumpy. I have included these links about time and gravity. If you don't get where I'm coming from, I won't push my point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58548.aspx#ixzz11ulsv9o7

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=24201

The grump is because you said page 8 and there isn't one. Didnt like the joke.

 

[Time Machine]

The grump is because you said page 8 and there isn't one. Didnt like the joke.

No, that's not true. If you go to the top of this page and look directly under the google adds, there is a page 8. Click on it, I'm the last one at the bottom. I was wondering. I would have posted it again for you but didn't want to get accused of repeating myself and violating rules.

 

[JDługosz]

No, that's not true. If you go to the top of this page and look directly under the google adds, there is a page 8. Click on it, I'm the last one at the bottom. I was wondering. I would have posted it again for you but didn't want to get accused of repeating myself and violating rules.

Change "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" in your display options for this site. Pagination, like space warping, is a local phenomenon only.

 

[Time Machine]

Hate to tell you this, but, distortions in time/space are possible, yet this in no way provides for "time travel"
It's a local event ONLY.

You go to space in a normal craft and time is moving fast, so fast that your loved one's are dead when you return.
You go to space in a gravity controlled craft using slow time, you come back and your loved one's are alive.
Now what is not time travelish about that?
Goodness gracious how I wish I could do maths!

P.S. It's like there's the numbers, I can see what needs to be done, (I think) I just don't know how to do the sums.

 

[Brin]

Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.
The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works.

Yes, but huge sweeping changes to the geometry of space isn't what makes a "new way to understand." Very tiny changes to fundamental understanding has dramatic effects on the rest of physical understanding and by the very fact that what we do know is already really accurate, it is the case that even tinier changes are what we should be looking for.

People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.

Your statement reeks of begging the question and besides that is nonsense. It even has a hint of presupposing that people who don't know university physics are somehow better in some way (this really makes no sense).

So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...

No, that really isn't it. It's just that, if your idea looks like poor or commits logical fallacies it will be called on those things. You'll notice that no one ever straight up rejected your notions, but simply explained it as "It doesn't work like that." Know why? Because it doesn't work like that. The thing with these new and radical ideas is that the authors dive in with all the confidence in the world, and a really odd and deep-seated assumption that what they are saying is right. There is no concern for the truth of the statement, no effort wants to be spent in understanding what really is. Ultimately, there is no humility. It's as though these authors unassumingly believe that they're right and the dogmatic experts are wrong.

In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

"Someone in the pseudoscience world seems to be right."
REALLY? Well gosh mate, someone in the REAL science world seems to be right. What now?

These kind of paraphysics include:
Quantum electrodynamics, vorticular physics, quantum numerology, vibratory chemistry, hyperdimensional physics, unified field theories, etc...
Another obstacle is that is very difficult to find information about these fields. The little I know, I have learned reading books in 5 different languages since 1920 to the actuality. And I have found very little amount of books. And you need to know about chemistry, physics, electrical engineering...
Almost an impossible task to achieve.

... you think QED, and Unified Field Theories are paraphysics? You even put QED and UFT next to something called "Quantum numerology." Nope, not even close.

The only way is to read all kind of things with an open mind, get the points in common that the information has and put in practice very simple experiments. The only experiment I've proposed, is to interact with matter using non-electromagnetic waves, aka pure potential waves.
With this experimentation, it could be possible to learn how to affect matter with electrical currents. And, understand than materialization and dematerialization could be possible.
I've also some books in Italian that explains how to access to the memory of solid objects, reading past events.

To those who find the following points in opposition to what they think:
You terribly missed the point as to why I posted that link. To have a serious discussion regarding time travel (or anything) we must all be speaking the same language. Otherwise, too much is lost in semantics and in understanding what is already well accepted. Good arguments and thus new discoveries, be they conventional or not, must ultimately and unfailingly break down into a series of trivially true statements (be they mathematical in nature, or not). If we don't understand mass, and electromagnetism, etc. in the same fashion then it might as well be the case that we're not even speaking english.

So, I posted those links to show you guys what the experts are saying. If we're going to try to understand time travel in any such way, it's best for us to speak the language of the people who have thought about it the most, and have been the most thorough. These people have really followed each concept through to its logical end, especially the basic ones we have been discussing here. It's their life, they do it 40+ hours a week.

One more thing, I really want to stress the following point: Being non-educated in physics does not make you open-minded or better in any way (seriously, why should it? If I don't go to art-school am I better at drawing/painting than an artist? If I don't major in history, am I somehow made more aware of historical fact?). Creativity is a property that belongs to the individual, not to the profession. If you take a creative person and teach them physics - do they all of a sudden lose their creative nature? No, of course not, that'd be absurd.

If you are going to do physics, at least make an effort to understand the arguments that already exist, and why they are explained in the ways they are, this is the beginning of developing a keen understanding of a field that you seem to be interested in. Not knowing, making a mistake, these are all part of the process of learning and they should be accepted and welcomed. Science isn't about speaking the most amount of jargon or discussing the most esoteric of ideas, it's about understanding a spinning top or the steam on my windows, or the green on the plants. It's simple, and it's about observing and understanding.

 

[Time Machine]

... you think QED, and Unified Field Theories are paraphysics? You even put QED and UFT next to something called "Quantum numerology." Nope, not not even close




To Magnethos and Time Machine

Brin, could I please disassociate myself here. You have used my post to quote Magnethos. It is my fault for leaving too much of his original post in mine, I do admit. Let me clear this up. I agree with Magnetos in that he says that everybody has something to offer despite the origins of their knowledge. I do not know about metaphysic's. I was going to look it up, but had to go to work. The only thing that sprang to mind was deja-vu.
My addition to the post concerned "the advent of the wheel". A valid comment when thinking about adjusting one's perspective.
I have huge respect for established physics, a subject I find compelling.

 

[Brin]

I removed both yours and Magnethos's name, and even though we mention them here, the arguments above are irrelevant as to who I am talking to. I think they stand OK in isolation, though I look like a rambling mad man. I also suffer largely by going off topic. I hope the moderators will just see it as a note that I am defending my post with regards to time travel.

 

[quantum1423]

I was discussing this topic with my friend, and reached this conclusion:
Time travel is impossible because of three reasons:

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

 

[Brin]

I was discussing this topic with my friend, and reached this conclusion:
Time travel is impossible because of three reasons:

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

It's like you and your friend didn't read the thread. There different types of time travel theories, some fail some haven't been defeated yet.

You haven't given any definitive reason as to why time travel in general is false.

Note that the parallel universes version of time travel still survives your theories.

I.e. you can't travel backwards on your own timeline, but you can travel sideways to timelines like yours, until you find a timeline like the one that shows your past. In this case, you gruesome acts of violence and conservation theories don't really challenge anything other than the local law.

 

[JaredJames]

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

There are a number of hypothesis which circumvent this issue and make time travel possible. So far as a "cable back to the past" goes, that would require a system which allowed the cable to occupy a set of points from present to past. Whether that is possible, let alone would work I am not sure, but the premise sounds wrong.
I suppose you could record a dvd now and take it back to 2000 and show it to the person in it. But again, there are a number of hypothesis which allow for this so it isn't a certainty that it would prevent time travel.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

Not so, if it goes back to 1990, it does not exist at 2010 anymore (instantaneously). From 1990 to 2010, yes, there would be an additional particle in existence, but once the point at which you send the particle back is reached, the balance is restored. You certainly haven't 'created mass'. This may create some problem with the maths, but it doesn't write off time travel.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

As per point 1.

 

[DaveC426913]

Time Machine: I'd like an answer to this:

Really? Ask your jogger friends how many miles they've jogged - how many miles of jogging they have actually experienced in that two weeks.

Do you think they will say 0? Or do you think they will say 140? You tell me.

Time travel is about what the individual doing the traveling experiences on their journey.






See above.

 

[DaveC426913]

You go to space in a normal craft and time is moving fast, so fast that your loved one's are dead when you return.

False.


That is not time moving fast; that is time moving slow.

You can't willy nilly mix up the frame of reference any way you please.

SR is specific about this. It is you whose FoR is distorted. You are in the craft that is not moving inertially. You are the one whose time is altered. The entire universe does not age just because you decided to make a trip.

 

[JaredJames]

Time Machine: I'd like an answer to this:

In post 130 (my own), I explained the difference between "time machine" thinking and what Time Machine (him/herself) was talking about along with the whole displacement/distance issue.

From there I think Time Machine understood what we were referring to when we discussed a "time machine" (particularly in relation to a person traveling to the past).

 

[DaveC426913]

In post 130 (my own), I explained the difference between "time machine" thinking and what Time Machine (him/herself) was talking about along with the whole displacement/distance issue.

Yes you did. And as is TM's wont, he did not acknowledge it, choosing instead to change the subject to some other wacky misunderstanding he has. Now he's all confused about what it means for time to move 'fast'.

I feel like a man with a roll of duct tape, trying to stop leaks from a garden hose that is spewing water everywhere but the garden. The moment I repair one leak, another springs up elsewhere. Makes me wish someone would just shut the faucet off...

 

[JaredJames]

Yes you did. And as is TM's wont, he did not acknowledge it, choosing instead to change the subject to some other wacky misunderstanding he has. Now he's all confused about what it means for time to move 'fast'.

Agreed. 'Normal time' reference points all over the place.

 

[Time Machine]

Time Machine: I'd like an answer to this:

Oh, Dave. I'm so chuffed because you know what, I already had my jogging kit on.

I will consider your question, maths not being my strong point. I'll answer that later.

But in the mean time...

Just a thought process:
If a jogger jogs on Earth in Earth's time/frame, he will be going at a certain speed.
If a jogger jogs in space at the same speed, because time is happening faster one would think he will now get further, quicker.
But time is going much faster in space time/frame and motion slows time down.
If we take the speed of the jogger on Earth and establish how far he went, in how much time and transfer this "relatively" to space time/frame.
Then jogger in space will have to jog slower to achieve same distance in same time.

 

[Time Machine]

False.


That is not time moving fast; that is time moving slow.

You can't willy nilly mix up the frame of reference any way you please.

SR is specific about this. It is you whose FoR is distorted. You are in the craft that is not moving inertially. You are the one whose time is altered. The entire universe does not age just because you decided to make a trip.

If you do not age faster in space, relative to time on Earth then how can an intensity of gravity slow time down?

 

[Time Machine]

In post 130 (my own), I explained the difference between "time machine" thinking and what Time Machine (him/herself) was talking about along with the whole displacement/distance issue.

From there I think Time Machine understood what we were referring to when we discussed a "time machine" (particularly in relation to a person traveling to the past).

O.K. Granted. But where are you getting with it?
Ash and Dave have not as yet either proved or disproved a fermion's ability to be in two places at the same time. Personally I was routing for Dave. The practical applications of this would be megalithic and very marketable. Dave is a smart man. This fact will not have escaped him and therefore I can only assume that he isn't able to.
Meta-physics has not stayed.
Brin's link was interesting, if a bit depressing, but I have no wish to immerse myself in paradox.
The Time Machine you are contemplating does not exist. It's method of travel is not established. Even if a fermion can be in two places at one time, what then?

What I am suggesting involves technology that exists today (apart from gravity control) and brings cutting edge physics into play, as shown on links earlier.
It might not be putting things in machines and having them come out in the past or the future, but could be interesting for space travel in general and belongs in this thread because it uses time to travel.
The shame of it is that I can't do the maths, because if I could then it would bring this into a sphere that you might understand. Also maths would prove if it "would" be possible to arrive back before you left and Dave and Ash can continue.

 

[Time Machine]

Time Machine: I'd like an answer to this:

None of my friends jog, so if they did they wouldn't get far. Let's say a mile. I expect they'd take a round trip. It would be sensible.

1 mile x 7 x 2 = 14
Sorry Dave, that's all I've got.

Your comment
"Time travel is about what the individual doing the traveling experiences on their journey"
Now that's what I'm talking about. Anyway I'm off to maths now. See if I can rustle me up some help.
I purchased elephant skin off e-bay last week, so be aware, I am impervious and will be back.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, Dave. I'm so chuffed because you know what, I already had my jogging kit on.

I will consider your question, maths not being my strong point. I'll answer that later.

You have already done the math.

None of my friends jog, so if they did they wouldn't get far. Let's say a mile. I expect they'd take a round trip. It would be sensible.

1 mile x 7 x 2 = 14
Sorry Dave, that's all I've got.

It is now obvious that you are just fooling around. Not only do you not understand the subject matter, but you are not even taking the thread seriously.

This is pollution.

 

[pallidin]

Since there is no experiential existence other than NOW, this creates a problem.

 

[quantum1423]

Something terribly wrong is about the parallel universes theory: it exists simply to explain time travel, but you DONT need to explain: time travel doesn't exist at all. Making up a hypothesis (that multiple universes exist) just to support another hypothesis (that time travel is possible) doesn't work. Besides, if the parallel universe theory is correct, can you explain why the other universe's 2010 HAS to be our universe's 1990 JUST BECAUSE I inputted "1990" in my time machine?

 

[dabi]

The CIA is hiding all time machines found so far.
[PLAIN]http://xa.ly/ZFd

 

[Studiot]

The CIA is hiding all time machines found so far.

So that's what that pile of junk is at the bottom of my backyard.

 

[quantum1423]

I have a proposal for a time travel model that does not involve paradoxes:
What if time machines rearrange the matter of the entire universe to look exactly like it was some time ago? i.e. If somebody else used a time machine, you and the whole world will go back in time. That way, nothing in the 2010 even exists if the universe decides to go back to 1990. But a bad consequence: my computer will disappear, and my memory will be set back.

 

[Ash Small]

I've not posted for a few days as I've been contemplating fermions again...

If I assume, for arguments sake, that Dave is correct, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle is modified to 'a fermion cannot occupy point x and point y at the same time unless it has been in a time machine, does that also mean that fermion A and fermion B can both occupy point x at the same time if either A or B has been in a time machine?

(I'm trying to argue this point from accepted laws of physics.)

 

[JaredJames]

I've not posted for a few days as I've been contemplating fermions again...

If I assume, for arguments sake, that Dave is correct, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle is modified to 'a fermion cannot occupy point x and point y at the same time unless it has been in a time machine, does that also mean that fermion A and fermion B can both occupy point x at the same time if either A or B has been in a time machine?

(I'm trying to argue this point from accepted laws of physics.)

No, you are completely missing what dave is saying.

No particles can occupy the same point in space time. Time travel or not. So your statement is erroneous from the offset there I'm afraid.

 

[JDługosz]

No particles can occupy the same point in space time.

Bosons, and unrelated dissimilar particles, and particles in different states. The Ground electron in a hydrogen atom is in the same place as the proton, for example.

 

[Ash Small]

No, you are completely missing what dave is saying.

No particles can occupy the same point in space time. Time travel or not. So your statement is erroneous from the offset there I'm afraid.

Jared, it was Dave who was arguing that PEP does not hold in the case of time travel, not me. I was arguing that PEP does hold, therefore time travel is not possible.

 

[JaredJames]

Bosons, and unrelated dissimilar particles, and particles in different states. The Ground electron in a hydrogen atom is in the same place as the proton, for example.

So particle A can be at exactly the same space-time coordinates as Particle B?

If so, the whole FEP argument from the last few pages is null. Perhaps this is a fact that should have been brought up earlier.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared, it was Dave who was arguing that PEP does not hold in the case of time travel, not me. I was arguing that PEP does hold, therefore time travel is not possible.

Yes, I know this.

However, based on what has been said, it doesn't seem that you are understanding Dave's statement.

I'm not going to continue this discussion as you don't acknowledge what he's said and so far haven't provided a counter-argument for it. You have simply re-stated your point over and over. This doesn't answer Dave's query.

 

[Ash Small]

Bosons, and unrelated dissimilar particles, and particles in different states. The Ground electron in a hydrogen atom is in the same place as the proton, for example.

JD, I understood that the radius of a proton is around 0.8768 femtometers (0.8768 x 10^-15 m) and the radius of a hydrogen atom (proton + electron) is around 5.2917720859(36) × 10^−11 m.

This means an electron occupies around 50,000 times as much space as a proton (assuming my maths is correct).

I always understood the electron surrounds the proton as opposed to being 'in the same place', although it's obviously attracted to it. (I suppose it's C of G is in the same place, but that's not the same as 'being in the same place'.)

 

[caseytrimble]

Steven hawking recently conducted an interesting experiment on this matter. Unknown to anyone else, he left an instruction in his will to provide money for and advertisement for a time traveller conference to be held at a date, time and place that only he knew and was held only for months after editing his will. His instructions were to make the announcement as far reaching as possible and as long lasting as possible (published in historical references, scientific journals, biographies written about him, etc...). Future time travellers could come across this information and use it to attend the conference. Alas, Hawking showed up at the conference, but no one else did. Either:

- The instructions were destroyed and/or never made it to the future time traveller
- The instructions were unreadable to the future time traveller (maybe only aliens have figured it out)
- The future time traveller chose not to attend the conference
- it is not possible to travel back in time to attend the conference

I thought this was a very clever experiment! Draw your own conclusions.

I've thought about this approach and some of the implications of its success, and it creates (in my humble interpretation) a paradox of sorts. Assume that in the future some scientist does indeed discover a method of traveling back in time (the particulars of the method being irrelevant) and decides to visit Hawking. Hawking meets with the traveler and converses for hours on end, learning all the advancements of science that have occurred between the two time periods. Here lies the paradox:
Hawking now possesses all of the results of "n" years of experimentation, derivation, observation, etc. Thus, he could publish all of these findings as discoveries (who the credit goes to is irrelevant). However the time traveler is only able to tell Hawking about these things because he has seen the results of said experimentation. Now that Hawking has published the findings ahead of time, there is no need for the experimentation and the entire reality of the traveler either A: becomes a fallacy or B: becomes a component of an alternate universe.
In my opinion, this paradox provides sufficient evidence for reasons that the time travelers would not present themselves to anyone that was not involved in the actual experimentation. I also have a corroboratory theory that could allow for such a "meeting" while dodging the paradox.
Say someone is working on the idea of time travel, but they've reached their mental limits. If one views the time line as a rigid system dominated by the laws of cause and effect (and this is an assumption that I am making from a limited level of experience, I must admit), then the following would be possible:
As the scientist is working diligently (or eating, sleeping or anything of the like), an older, nearly identical image of himself appears and tells him that he has made a breakthrough. The time traveler version of the scientist shows his past self the necessary means to complete his work (not necessarily the methods of time travel), and leaves. The past scientist eventually figures the process out and goes back to inform himself of his success.
This is the absolute epitome of the "chicken and the egg" question. Can a scientist discover something by going back in time and telling himself? Can time behave in a "circular" manner?

 

[Ash Small]

Yes, I know this.

However, based on what has been said, it doesn't seem that you are understanding Dave's statement.

I'm not going to continue this discussion as you don't acknowledge what he's said and so far haven't provided a counter-argument for it. You have simply re-stated your point over and over. This doesn't answer Dave's query.

Jared, the title of this thread is 'Time Machine will not be invented'. As yet, neither Dave, nor anyone else, has given any reason whatsoever why this will not be the case.

I wish someone would come up with an argument why a time machine WILL be invented.

As yet, no-one (apart from Magnethos, who doesn't even have a circuit diagram for his potential wave transformer) can suggest any reason why time travel could be a possibility in the future.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared, the title of this thread is 'Time Machine will not be invented'. As yet, neither Dave, nor anyone else, has given any reason whatsoever why this will not be the case.

Read back, many people have given reason one could be invented.

Dave was responding to the FEP statement, not the time machine issue. The one in which it was said time travel isn't possible because of FEP.

I wish someone would come up with an argument why a time machine WILL be invented.

As yet, no-one (apart from Magnethos, who doesn't even have a circuit diagram for his potential wave transformer) can suggest any reason why time travel could be a possibility in the future.

Many reasons have been given as to the why it may be possible in the future and also why not. But they are all just hypothesis and speculation. I don't know what more you want.