View Full Version : Why we can't "go back".
I explained the paradox of backward time travel, in the old PFs, and I would like to do so again.
Here is why it is impossible to travel backwards in time (and it doesn't matter how far backwards):
As soon as you travel to a time that is before the exact time when you started traveling, you create paradox. If I start traveling at 5:00 A.M. (I know that using minutes, as a way of measuring exact time, is crude, but it should get the point across), and I travel back to 4:59, I have yet to start traveling. But, if I have yet to start traveling, how did I get to 4:59? The answer: I didn't, it's impossible. Unless someone can prove me wrong, it makes no sense to imply that I can start traveling, after having already arrived at my destination.
Some people have suggested the "Pretzel Time" idea - which basically states that if (in the future) I travel back in time, then my future was already going to be in the past. I disagree with this idea.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of free will (that's for the Philosophy forum, and not really relevant to my argument).
However, there is the question of whether there are an infinite amount of "Mentats" in any given place. Because, if not, then there is no way that I am involved in some form of "loop time traveling", as the "Pretzel Time" idea will imply.
You see, if it is part of my future, to go back into the past, then it must be determined to be so. But I would thus, have to have been there, at that point in time. Then, in a universe where I was already there in 1987, I was about to be born the next year - and the "Mentat" that is born in 1988 will eventually travel back to my (the Mentat in 1987) time. We might, perhaps, meet each other, or maybe not, it's not really important; but both of us know that, soon, another one of us (the one that will be born next year) will pop up (of course, this is not true, the "third" Mentat would appear at exactly the same time as the other two - and so would the infinite "other" Mentats).
If this point needs clarification, just ask. I realize that it is a bit of a strange concept.
People have also drawn up the "Different T dimensions" argument. This argument basically states that there are many (possibly infinite) different time dimensions; and that a person could travel back in time, but would be traveling, not to that point in time in his/her original T dimension, but in another (identical) one.
My side of this is that it is demonstrably true that every point on the T dimension, corresponds to every point on the 3 spacial dimensions that we know of. I would have to assume that this same reasoning applies to the rest of the spacial dimensions (but I can't know for sure). And, if this is true of all of the spacial dimensions, you cannot travel to a dimension that is "outside" of the one T dimension.
Say an electron interacts with some photons and flips around in time at 5:00; to observers like you and me it looks like two different (forward-in-time-travelling) particles, an electron and positron, annihilating in a flash of photons. However, that positron was really only the electron travelling backwards through time (after the flipping around in time). At 4:59 we therefore see the electron at two different stages of its life, one in which it's going forward and one in which it's going backwards. Can there be no positron because at 4:59 it hasn't started travelling backwards through time yet? Of course not, positrons are very real.
The analogy Feynman originally used to describe that whipping around in time for particles and their antiparticles was:
It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road.
Since Feynman's interpretation of antimatter has been out there for over 50 years and apparently works well enough and is consistent, I would think it as least shows that travelling backwards through time isn't blantantly paradoxical.
You see, if it is part of my future, to go back into the past, then it must be determined to be so. But I would thus, have to have been there, at that point in time. Then, in a universe where I was already there in 1987, I was about to be born the next year - and the "Mentat" that is born in 1988 will eventually travel back to my (the Mentat in 1987) time. We might, perhaps, meet each other, or maybe not, it's not really important; but both of us know that, soon, another one of us (the one that will be born next year) will pop up (of course, this is not true, the "third" Mentat would appear at exactly the same time as the other two - and so would the infinite "other" Mentats).
You don't get an infinite number of Mentats looking from a non-Mentat perspective:...
In 1987, a fully grown Mentat appears in the universe.
In 1988, a baby Mentat was born.
In {future date}, the younger Mentat (which is the same age and has the same knowledge as the older Mentat did when he appeared) vanishes from the universe.
This "timeline" is perfectly consistent with you (instantly) travelling back in time, but yields no more than 2 Mentats at any instant.
Hurkyl
Originally posted by Zefram
Say an electron interacts with some photons and flips around in time at 5:00; to observers like you and me it looks like two different (forward-in-time-travelling) particles, an electron and positron, annihilating in a flash of photons. However, that positron was really only the electron travelling backwards through time (after the flipping around in time). At 4:59 we therefore see the electron at two different stages of its life, one in which it's going forward and one in which it's going backwards. Can there be no positron because at 4:59 it hasn't started travelling backwards through time yet? Of course not, positrons are very real.
The analogy Feynman originally used to describe that whipping around in time for particles and their antiparticles was:
Since Feynman's interpretation of antimatter has been out there for over 50 years and apparently works well enough and is consistent, I would think it as least shows that travelling backwards through time isn't blantantly paradoxical.
First off, that means that it's still impossible for me to travel back in time; because, even if I had an anti-Mentat, he would travel back in time, not me.
I will continue this response later, I have to go now...
First off, "he" would be you.
Second, I thought you were arguing that time travel into the past in general is paradoxical and impossible. Hence:
I explained the paradox of backward time travel, in the old PFs, and I would like to do so again.
Here is why it is impossible to travel backwards in time (and it doesn't matter how far backwards): ...
Was I incorrect in that?
Originally posted by Zefram
Say an electron interacts with some photons and flips around in time at 5:00; to observers like you and me it looks like two different (forward-in-time-travelling) particles, an electron and positron, annihilating in a flash of photons. However, that positron was really only the electron travelling backwards through time (after the flipping around in time). At 4:59 we therefore see the electron at two different stages of its life, one in which it's going forward and one in which it's going backwards. Can there be no positron because at 4:59 it hasn't started travelling backwards through time yet? Of course not, positrons are very real.
The analogy Feynman originally used to describe that whipping around in time for particles and their antiparticles was:
Since Feynman's interpretation of antimatter has been out there for over 50 years and apparently works well enough and is consistent, I would think it as least shows that travelling backwards through time isn't blantantly paradoxical.
Alright, to complete my response...
I would like to point out that Relativity states that an object's movement through time is inversely proportional to it's motion through space. Thus, the positron would have to be going much faster than the speed of light, and this isn't possible.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You don't get an infinite number of Mentats looking from a non-Mentat perspective:...
In 1987, a fully grown Mentat appears in the universe.
In 1988, a baby Mentat was born.
In {future date}, the younger Mentat (which is the same age and has the same knowledge as the older Mentat did when he appeared) vanishes from the universe.
This "timeline" is perfectly consistent with you (instantly) travelling back in time, but yields no more than 2 Mentats at any instant.
Hurkyl
Let's imagine that I was born in 1988, and then later traveled back to 1987 (because that was what I was predestined to do - my time was "looped"). Now the universe has two of me - as of 1988, that is - and the one that was born on 1988 (in a universe where there are two of that same person) travels backward...
Now, I'm not sure (anymore) but it seems as though this Mentat (the one that comes from a universe of two Mentats) should meet the other Mentat (that appeared in 1987), and so now the universe has three Mentats, and so on...
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, to complete my response...
I would like to point out that Relativity states that an object's movement through time is inversely proportional to it's motion through space. Thus, the positron would have to be going much faster than the speed of light, and this isn't possible.
Hmmm, I know Feynman gave lecture called "The reason for antiparticles" in the '80s (they have it at Amazon and I'm considering buying it) in which he demonstrates:
"If we insist that particles can only have positive energies, then you cannot avoid propagation outside the light cone. If we look at such propagation from a different frame, the particle is traveling backwards in time: it is an antiparticle. One man’s virtual particle is another man’s virtual antiparticle.”
So, as I said above, apparently his ideas work very well. And time travel looks possible (if only at the quantum level).
Originally posted by Mentat
Let's imagine that I was born in 1988, and then later traveled back to 1987 (because that was what I was predestined to do - my time was "looped"). Now the universe has two of me - as of 1988, that is - and the one that was born on 1988 (in a universe where there are two of that same person) travels backward...
Now, I'm not sure (anymore) but it seems as though this Mentat (the one that comes from a universe of two Mentats) should meet the other Mentat (that appeared in 1987), and so now the universe has three Mentats, and so on...
You admit that both Mentats are the same person but you're not seeing what that means: the Mentat that exists in the past beside his younger self is the time traveler that the younger one will grow into. So you won't meet a third one unless you travel back to 1987 a second time. It seems to me that the number of one way time trips n creates the possibility of only n+1 Mentats existing in one slice of time (though of course it needn't be that many; you could go back to ancient Greece and never run into another version of yourself).
Alright, I guess I withdraw the refutation of the Pretzel time idea. I was wrong.
However, Zefram, are you saying that Feynman ignores Special Relativity? That's a pretty good indication that he's wrong.
climbhi
Mar23-03, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Zefram, are you saying that Feynman ignores Special Relativity? That's a pretty good indication that he's wrong.
Or that special relativity is wrong...
Originally posted by climbhi
Or that special relativity is wrong...
You've got to be kidding.
Originally posted by Mentat
Let's imagine that I was born in 1988, and then later traveled back to 1987 (because that was what I was predestined to do - my time was "looped"). Now the universe has two of me - as of 1988, that is - and the one that was born on 1988 (in a universe where there are two of that same person) travels backward...
Now, I'm not sure (anymore) but it seems as though this Mentat (the one that comes from a universe of two Mentats) should meet the other Mentat (that appeared in 1987), and so now the universe has three Mentats, and so on...
I don't see how there would be a third Mentat and so on. It's possible for the time-travelling Mentat to meet the new-born Mentat in 1988. But that's it. Where does the third Mentat come from? The new-born Mentat will eventually grow-up and travel back in time to 1987. When he travels back in time one Mentat will exit from the loop while another one will be introduced in 1987. So it seems there are only 2 Mentats in the loop.
Originally posted by Mentat
As soon as you travel to a time that is before the exact time when you started traveling, you create paradox. If I start traveling at 5:00 A.M. (I know that using minutes, as a way of measuring exact time, is crude, but it should get the point across), and I travel back to 4:59, I have yet to start traveling. But, if I have yet to start traveling, how did I get to 4:59? The answer: I didn't, it's impossible. Unless someone can prove me wrong, it makes no sense to imply that I can start traveling, after having already arrived at my destination.
Not sure if I understand why it's a paradox. If you travel back to 4:59, wouldn't you meet the other you who is about to embark on a time-travel?
Originally posted by les
Not sure if I understand why it's a paradox. If you travel back to 4:59, wouldn't you meet the other you who is about to embark on a time-travel?
How many of you are there, les? If, by traveling back ward in time, you can create as many of you as possible, what's the point of cloning [;)]?
Seriously, if I go back in time, without chaning my position in space, I could not see the "other me" (even if such a thing could exist), because we would be occupying the same space.
Why do we assume that "the past" is a place that exists?
While I wish I had some math to support my hypothesis, I simply do not see any evidence that "the past" is a place that exists. And it follows, of course, that travel to a place that does not exists is impossible.
I firmly believe that time is an effect of expansion. Time is what appears to happen after one universe is replaced by the next. A single frame of a movie film has no "time". Time is only perceived when you look at successive frames of the film, one right after the other. It is not time that exists. It is the ability for our universe to allow for motion and/or action that is real. Time is an artifact of this process.
DrChinese
Mar24-03, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, I guess I withdraw the refutation of the Pretzel time idea. I was wrong.
However, Zefram, are you saying that Feynman ignores Special Relativity? That's a pretty good indication that he's wrong.
Feynman was a strong proponent of relativity, having been involved in the creation of relativistic quantum mechanics. I think this is what he got the Nobel for.
Anyway, he certainly demonstrated that our notion of time travel needs re-thinking. As I see it, time travel - at the quantum level - is not just possible, it is reality.
Loren Booda
Mar25-03, 01:21 AM
Why restrict the arrow of causality to past-->future? As stated earlier, quantum processes are time symmetric, that is, they can proceed both ways. Some macroscopic entropic phenomena have localized anentropy (Prigogine), suggesting there an effect analogous to time reversal. Hawking claims that a "big crunch" following the big bang would maintain time direction, but if the universe is indeed isolated, given enough time quantum interactions will influence a repetition of its overall temporal history or overtake macroscopic physics as a whole.
The topology of spacetime, however, by its very nature may forbid the paradoxical interchange of past and future. Perhaps the present is a singularity that disallows relativity (except for "fuzzy" quantized spacetime) continuity of travel back in time along the time line.
axeeonn
Mar25-03, 12:21 PM
It seems to me like time can go backwards, it just doesn't because time is more likely to go forwards than backwards.
Flow from order to disorder is identical to flow of time. Can time go backwards? Yes, it just doesn't happen because every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe would have to move back in time at the same exact moment. So the chances of that is about 1 : 10^90.
As for traveling back in time with some contraption, I just don't see that happening.
wuliheron
Mar25-03, 05:24 PM
How do we know this very moment is not just another repetition, another temporal loop? Is it live, or is it memorex? Are we living out the lives we were destined to or are we destined to live free? In the final analysis, which each of us makes for ourselves, does it really matter? I don't think so. What matters is we take it in as it comes and make the most of the situation. For that, all you need is acceptance.
Reverse time travel indeed seems like a paradox to me. Situations such as the grandfather paradox seem to completely rule out any case in which the past is changed. However, even cases that don't change the past seem to completely and utterly violate the conservation of energy, considering that one second nothing is there, and suddenly you are there in the past.
Reverse time travel indeed seems like a paradox to me. Situations such as the grandfather paradox seem to completely rule out any case in which the past is changed.
Well, suppose the past is indeed written out like a history book and nothing can be changed; that would mean that time travelers are already a part of that history and so fulfill it rather than changing it (kind of like in 12 Monkeys if you've seen it). That would seem to suggest a kind of predestination, however. Perhaps that notion could even be extended to the future: you can't change that either, you can only, uh, fulfill, I suppose, it.
If real sci-fi type time travel really is possible, then past and future wouldn't mean much more than right and left. Your past might be in the future, your future might lie in the past. Strange thoughts.
However, even cases that don't change the past seem to completely and utterly violate the conservation of energy, considering that one second nothing is there, and suddenly you are there in the past.
I'm not sure on this one; for you to "pop" into existence in some other time (and so add some small amount of energy to the universe), you (and that bit of energy) would need to "pop" out of it at some point in time. So you wouldn't really be adding energy to the universe from nowhere, more like displacing some.
Or not. Deep questions.
Originally posted by DrChinese
Feynman was a strong proponent of relativity, having been involved in the creation of relativistic quantum mechanics. I think this is what he got the Nobel for.
Anyway, he certainly demonstrated that our notion of time travel needs re-thinking. As I see it, time travel - at the quantum level - is not just possible, it is reality.
Perhaps you could give the reason why you think this is possible?
Also, if Feynman was such a strong supporter of Relativity, why did he suggest something that contradicted one of GR's principles?
Originally posted by CJames
Reverse time travel indeed seems like a paradox to me. Situations such as the grandfather paradox seem to completely rule out any case in which the past is changed. However, even cases that don't change the past seem to completely and utterly violate the conservation of energy, considering that one second nothing is there, and suddenly you are there in the past.
I agree about it's being a defiance of the conservation of energy (since going backward in time would decrease entropy). Good point.
Originally posted by Alias
Why do we assume that "the past" is a place that exists?
While I wish I had some math to support my hypothesis, I simply do not see any evidence that "the past" is a place that exists. And it follows, of course, that travel to a place that does not exists is impossible.
I firmly believe that time is an effect of expansion. Time is what appears to happen after one universe is replaced by the next. A single frame of a movie film has no "time". Time is only perceived when you look at successive frames of the film, one right after the other. It is not time that exists. It is the ability for our universe to allow for motion and/or action that is real. Time is an artifact of this process.
Very good point, alias. The past is not a place that exists (and is thus not a place), because something that "does exist" exists in the present (as "does exist" is a term in the present tense).
ElectrikRipple
Mar26-03, 10:08 PM
Mentat first off i would like to say that i respect you for your thoughts, but i would have to completely disagree. i think that the theory of multiple universes will help me out very much here. Everytime you make a new decision or do something different, a new universe is created for every alternate choice you could have made. I dont kno if this is the true theory, but if it isnt than i have made some modifications. I think that once you have figured out how to stay in the same universe to travel along "your" stretch of time (or the universe in which you believe you exist in right now reading this) then you can easily travel backwards and fowards. I'm not sure this is possible, for i have created a theory for when people ask me the question "But why aren't there time traveling tourists?" Well, perhaps in an alternate universe (one in which time travel is possible) there are. So what they should really be asking is why are there not universe traveling tourists and my answer to that is simply i do not know. I dont quite believe the whole "pretzel time theory" but i believe that time is a straight line that can be manipulated. if time is relative than it can indeed be manipulated and molded. If it is a matter of how to do so, then i believe that going into the future would create a sort of pretzel. Its like if u pull on a fishing line hard enough it come back with twists in it. I believe that if you travel into the future enough times than u will actually create this "pretzel" effect. Once this happens i believe that u will have only a certain amount of time before the time "line" straightens back out and can no longer be traveled on. Once you have the pretzel effect, u should be able to "jump" from one coil of the line to the other side of the coil. This would indeed put stress on the coil and the more peole that are jumping from one particular coil, then the speed at which it straightens will be quickened dramatically. I think ive written a lot, so read this and ask any question u feel like. Late
P.J.
Oh and check out my thread that i started on time traveling.
quantumcarl
Mar27-03, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
The past is not a place that exists (and is thus not a place), because something that "does exist" exists in the present (as "does exist" is a term in the present tense).
By your reasoning, mentat, if the past exists... it exists in the present and we are "traveling" through it as we type. Therefore, "time travel" is happening now.
Lets remember the old axioms:
"Tommorrow never comes."
"Yesterday's tommorrow is tommorrow's yesterday" (or today).
"Today is tommorrow's yesterday" and so on and so forth.
Therefore, logically, we are at the crossroads of change and we exist in the past, present and future simultaniously or in a quantum manner, now.
We could define this as traveling in the past, present and future... but it is more like being in the unique position of being able to change all three, now.
If there is a mathmatical way to say this please feel free to quote me in that language.
Originally posted by ElectrikRipple
Mentat first off i would like to say that i respect you for your thoughts, but i would have to completely disagree. i think that the theory of multiple universes will help me out very much here. Everytime you make a new decision or do something different, a new universe is created for every alternate choice you could have made. I dont kno if this is the true theory, but if it isnt than i have made some modifications. I think that once you have figured out how to stay in the same universe to travel along "your" stretch of time (or the universe in which you believe you exist in right now reading this) then you can easily travel backwards and fowards. I'm not sure this is possible, for i have created a theory for when people ask me the question "But why aren't there time traveling tourists?" Well, perhaps in an alternate universe (one in which time travel is possible) there are. So what they should really be asking is why are there not universe traveling tourists and my answer to that is simply i do not know. I dont quite believe the whole "pretzel time theory" but i believe that time is a straight line that can be manipulated. if time is relative than it can indeed be manipulated and molded. If it is a matter of how to do so, then i believe that going into the future would create a sort of pretzel. Its like if u pull on a fishing line hard enough it come back with twists in it. I believe that if you travel into the future enough times than u will actually create this "pretzel" effect. Once this happens i believe that u will have only a certain amount of time before the time "line" straightens back out and can no longer be traveled on. Once you have the pretzel effect, u should be able to "jump" from one coil of the line to the other side of the coil. This would indeed put stress on the coil and the more peole that are jumping from one particular coil, then the speed at which it straightens will be quickened dramatically. I think ive written a lot, so read this and ask any question u feel like. Late
P.J.
Oh and check out my thread that i started on time traveling.
I thank you for your participation, ElectrikRipple.
Actually, there is one problem with your idea. You see, while there are many alternate universes (according to Multiverse theories), I think that there is only one time dimension for all of them. I believe this because the "splitting apart" - that occurs whenever you make a decision (as you pointed out) - happens at a certain point in time, and it continues forward in time, even though they are entirely different space.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
By your reasoning, mentat, if the past exists... it exists in the present and we are "traveling" through it as we type. Therefore, "time travel" is happening now.
Lets remember the old axioms:
"Tommorrow never comes."
"Yesterday's tommorrow is tommorrow's yesterday" (or today).
"Today is tommorrow's yesterday" and so on and so forth.
Therefore, logically, we are at the crossroads of change and we exist in the past, present and future simultaniously or in a quantum manner, now.
We could define this as traveling in the past, present and future... but it is more like being in the unique position of being able to change all three, now.
If there is a mathmatical way to say this please feel free to quote me in that language.
quantumcarl, no offense (seriously, don't take this the wrong way), but are you trying to confuse the issue with weird posts, or was there a genuine point that you were trying to make and that I failed horribly at noticing?
Re-read my post, I said that the past can't exist (IOW, "exist now") because "now" is the present.
Is there evidence that the past continues to exist somewhere, such that we might go there? I don't think so.
Paradox is not why travel to the past is impossible. It is not that traveling to the past would create insoluble equations. The answer to "why not" is that the past does not exist.
Of course, for the purist, this sucks because you can't use the same argument about the future. While the future does not exist either, it is possible to 'nearly freeze' yourself (by travelling at relativistic speeds)in your present state so that you might travel to a distant future. Unfortunately, there's no going back.[:(]
There may be something important to learn from this unreflexive argument. Somehow being good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
exactly. Logically time travel implys a deterministic universe. Our language and minds cannot coupe with time travel so logically it is impossible but physically if we were made of antimatter or could convert ourseves to antimatter without encountering normal matter we would of course be traveling back in time. Then when we got to where we want to be we would simply convert ourselves back into "normal" matter; but, if we encountered ourselves traveling in normal time we would of cours annialate both of ourselves . Personally I would rather crawl through a worm hole and pull it in after me.
Remember, wherever you go in life, there you are. Candis Bergen
Originally posted by Royce
exactly. Logically time travel implys a deterministic universe. Our language and minds cannot coupe with time travel so logically it is impossible but physically if we were made of antimatter or could convert ourseves to antimatter without encountering normal matter we would of course be traveling back in time. Then when we got to where we want to be we would simply convert ourselves back into "normal" matter; but, if we encountered ourselves traveling in normal time we would of cours annialate both of ourselves . Personally I would rather crawl through a worm hole and pull it in after me.
Remember, wherever you go in life, there you are. Candis Bergen
Hold on a second, Royce. You are saying that anti-matter paticles travel faster than the speed of light through space?
Perhaps this thread belongs in the Philosophy Forum, but it is an off-shoot of another thread (in this Forum) of mine, and so I just posted it here.
People have pointed out the idea that there are anti-particles that move backward in time. I don't think these people realize the consequences of such travel - viewing it as just like traveling backward through a spacial dimension. This is not so because traveling backwards through time = arriving before leaving. IOW, I would have to get to point B (my supposed destination), without ever having left point A (my supposed starting point) - without, in fact, [b]every having been on point A (my supposed starting point). This makes no logical sense - unless someone would care to prove otherwise - and thus the idea of particles that travel backwards in time cannot be true.
I now ask that everyone post their comments (whether for or against my reasoning). Any contructive comment is appreciated.
As this isn't really a new subject and just a continuation of another thread, I'm merging this with the original thread.
chosenone
Mar28-03, 02:26 PM
Tachyons are the particle i think your talking about.If tachyons travelled backwards in time then anywhere in the time line moving forward tachyons would tavel back to the begining of the universe,so all tachyons from all time periods would stop moving backwards when they reach there,but that would also mean that at the big bang all tachyons in the entire existence of the universe would be there before the universe ever go here,thats kind of hard to believe!
chosenone
Mar28-03, 02:37 PM
Since you like trying to debate time travel,and if is possible,try this one on for size.if you killed someone accidentally by something you did,what you could do is send a telepathic signal back in time telling your self what happen by giving your past self a preminition,of the up coming event that will cause the person death.why there seems to be no paradox in this one is because changing time has the problem about when it first happens then you go back to change it,what happens if it was suppose to be like that in the time line,what happened when you come up to the event the first time before it happened,when you changed it.this one has the ability to get around that,when you come up the the event the first time you had a precognitive experience where you saw your self accidentally killing someone,and you would just think its a warning to stop it before it happened and would believe that was meant to be not changing time,so when you send the signal back to do it,in the time line how would you know what happened first,if the first time you had a preminition,and thats that!
In the other thread I said that our language hense our logic is not built to handle time travel in either direction. We can go on forever trying to decide if we came back in time then our coming back in time is already in our past, present and future thus proving a deterministic universe without freewill. Going ahead in time implys the same thing for when the future does arrive we would already be there having in our past traveled to our future thus the future determins the past and the past determins our future. There is also the possibility that there is only one time, NOW and that the sequentail flow of time is an illusion caused by the limitation of our minds.
John Gribbins said that and electron traveling back in time was indistingquishable from a positron traveling forward in time, again Feynman diagrams. He also mentioned tachyons as going backwards in time and that time in Einstein's equations showed yup with a negative sign. Does that mean that we are actually traveling in negative time?
I was jokinly refering to those concepts. I just can't take any discussion of time travel seriously but it makes great SF which I've loved most of my life.
No, they travel backwards in time on a Feynman Diagram according to John Gribbin. A positron is indistinguishable from an electron moving backward in time. That is vertually a quote from the last book of his that I read on QM. In the same book, the name of which I can't remember right now, he mentioned the possibilty of tachyons and said that they would have to move backward it time since any object approaching the speed of light has its time slowed down and a photon moving at the speed of light has 0 time or is outside of time anything such as a tachyon traveling faster that C must move backward in time or have negative time.
As you may have noticed I am brand new to this forum having just found it yesterday and I am enjoying it thoroughly. Thank you all.
People have pointed out the idea that there are anti-particles that move backward in time. I don't think these people realize the consequences of such travel - viewing it as just like traveling backward through a spacial dimension. This is not so because traveling backwards through time = arriving before leaving.
Precisely. Just like the retarded light/advanced light deal.
IOW, I would have to get to point B (my supposed destination), without ever having left point A (my supposed starting point) - without, in fact, [b]every having been on point A (my supposed starting point). This makes no logical sense - unless someone would care to prove otherwise - and thus the idea of particles that travel backwards in time cannot be true.
Which part are you having trouble with? A to B forward in time is equivalent to B to A backward in time (at least on a very simple quantum level; I've never considered a macroscopic scenario). Neither scenario involves never having been at point A. They simply swap departure point for destination and flip the time direction around.
chosenone
Mar29-03, 12:44 PM
well tachyons are hypothesised to be hitting the planets surface as cosmic radiation,there travelling faster than light because,light is being slowed down as it is passing though the thick atmosphere,and the tachyons are'nt.but if they are traveling backwards intime,they would be hitting the surfaces before they entered the atmosphere.
From a few relativistic arguments I've heard, tachyons could not be charged. So antimatter (if it was travelling back in time) would not be tachyonic (assuming that's a word).
DrChinese
Mar29-03, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
1. Perhaps you could give the reason why you think this is possible?
2. Also, if Feynman was such a strong supporter of Relativity, why did he suggest something that contradicted one of GR's principles?
1. Feynman Diagrams work in either time direction. There is nothing - at the quantum level - which inhibits photons from going from the future to the past. Indeed, I believe this is a part of the calculations for Feynman's path integrals - i.e. considering the effects of virtual anti-photons. Anyone?
2. Relativistic QM respects Special Relativity, not General Relativity.
As to GR itself: Probably everyone has speculated as to whether gravity flows from GR, or whether there is a quantum description which has GR as its approximation. And if that were the case, all kinds of strange things might be the case. So I'm not sure what you are getting at about Feynman.
quantumcarl
Mar29-03, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
was there a genuine point that you were trying to make and that I failed horribly at noticing?
Yes.
If you don't understand what I said... you may want to go back and re-read all those books in the elementary school library you've bragged about reading in grade 4.
My point is simple and well known throughout the western world.
Let me repeat. Just for you.
Today is tommorrow's yesterday and yesterday's tommorrow.
In this axiom we can see that the past, present and the future exist now.
Therefore we are in a unique, quantum position to travel through, experience and change all three conditions, simultaniously... past, present and future, now.
ElectrikRipple
Mar30-03, 02:39 AM
so u think that all of the universes in which are created from decisions made are still traveling on the same time line and tehrefore there can only be one time line or whatever and that the same amout of time passes, no matter what universe/dimension/whatever u are in? this makes since if thats what ur saying if not then let me know before i reply to the theory itself
P.J. <<<<tired [zz)]
ElectrikRipple
Mar30-03, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Alias
Is there evidence that the past continues to exist somewhere, such that we might go there? I don't think so.
i like this idea
P.J. <<<<tired [zz)]
ElectrikRipple
Mar30-03, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Yes.
If you don't understand what I said... you may want to go back and re-read all those books in the elementary school library you've bragged about reading in grade 4.
My point is simple and well known throughout the western world.
Let me repeat. Just for you.
Today is tommorrow's yesterday and yesterday's tommorrow.
In this axiom we can see that the past, present and the future exist now.
Therefore we are in a unique, quantum position to travel through, experience and change all three conditions, simultaniously... past, present and future, now.
carl...i dont care if u take offense to this bro but dude i dont know whats wrong with u and ur thinking process or u know what wow...
P.J. <<<<tired [zz)]
kristofer
Mar30-03, 06:44 PM
Hi, guys.
I'm Kristofer's brother. He has an interest in learning about physics and science. When he told me this, I suggested this forum as a place to begin. He's lots of ideas about solving world problems, particularly in the area of alternative fuels and the like but he's only eleven and needs to learn the rudiments. Please be patient with him, as you have time. Many of you can answer his questions much better than I can.
I've encouraged Kris to post here. He is only just learning but he'd like to learn a lot, and this is about the best place for learning what he really wants.
Thanks, everyone. Have a great Sunday!
mouseman
Mar30-03, 08:25 PM
Ar matey, welcome aboard! We hopes ye'll find our humble ship to yer likin's. Batten down, bucco's! We sail fer the Sea of Knowledge!
Man, I'm such a dufus.
ElectrikRipple
Mar30-03, 09:07 PM
mouseman lol wut was that?
P.J.
Originally posted by Mentat
Hold on a second, Royce. You are saying that anti-matter paticles travel faster than the speed of light through space?
Mentat,
I posted a reply earlier then thought later about it. After reading other posts I guess that moving backward in time does mean moving faster that the speed of light also. I hadn't realized this implication before.
Then I read another post about tachyons moving backward and coming together at the Big Bang. Sure that would be a logical conclusion but where did they come from, The Big Crunch or Rip? Had to be, logically.
Then I had another thought. If space is curved and a closed curve at that wouldn't that mean also that time too is curved and a closed curve also implying that the Big Band is the same as the Big Crunch?
The Beginning is the same event as the End in an endless loop of time.
Of course everything would be wiped clean at the Crunch/Bang, no information could be passed on to the next cycle so it wouldn't really be a loop, would it?
I then remembered that one of the problems with the BIG BANG is that anti-matter should have been created at the same time and rated as "normal" matter. They would collide and annihilate each other nearly as fast as they were created but obviously this didn't happen because we are here in a "normal" matter universe. Could it be that matter travels slower than light in one direction in time and that anti-matter travels faster than light in the opposite direction in time thus they never meet except in the end/beginning. Are they seperated by the light barrier and time direction? This would also imply the sum total of enery/matter = 0. It could be that all of this is nothing but a logal fluctuation of the vacuum.
What do you think? Is it possible or am I really as crazy as I and others think?
Everyone, this is a very important point that nearly everyone has missed: For something to get from point A to point B (or point B to point A, it doesn't matter) implies eventuality, eventuality, in turn, necessitates that a certain amount of time expire. For a certain amount of time to expire (or pass) you have to get from the present to the future (or at least what used to be considered the future), not from the present to the past..
I think that this is the big hurdle that people just aren't getting past. People speak of anti-particles that travel backward in time. This is utter foolishness, because to travel from point A to point B implies eventuality. When I said that you cannot arrive before leaving, this (the statement in red) is what I was trying to express.
I will now show why I don't think that the "Pretzel time" works:
1) One dimension
Time is a dimension. It is not a set of dimensions. Because of this, it cannot curl backward. To curl necesitates an extra dimenion (a curled one).
2) Not the past, but the future:
Even if time were pretzeled, one would not be going to the past, but the future. You see, the point in time which corresponds to 5:30 pm, July 4th 1776 (for example) does not exist anymore (as Alias has been stressing) - it didn't exist at 5:31 of that date, and will in fact never exist again. So, when I travel "back" to this point, I am actually traveling to a new point - one in which I was there - and since it is new, it must have come into existence after the time I started traveling; and if it came into existence after I started traveling, then I am in the future, not the past.
For a certain amount of time to expire (or pass) you have to get from the present to the future (or at least what used to be considered the future), not from the present to the past..
This is the point being challenged (at least by myself); the idea I'm arguing is that time has no intristic "flow" and that the distinction between "past" and "future" is a matter of perspective as in spatial coordinates (and that there need not be a preferred direction along the time axis that everything must move in--things can travel along the time axis in either direction). If you happen to be travelling in the direction that human perception seems to prefer and see an electron travelling the other way along the time axis, it will appear to you to be a positron.
If, continuing on with that example, you move between two spatially and temporally (is that the word I want?) separated points, A and B, you must, of course, be at one before (from your point of view) the other. So starting from A and moving to B (along what we'll call the + time axis (in addition, obviously, to the spatial axis or two or three you'll need to traverse)), you move from present to future (your words). An electron starting from B and travelling to A along the - time axis would appear to you as a positron travelling along the + time axis from A to B; in other words, it would appear (to you) to start and end at the same points that you do and also to be taking the same route as you along the time axis between the two points (yet some of its familiar properties would be reversed).
This backwards travelling electron (positron), would (pretending it sees and interprets time like human beings like you and I do) say that it was at B before it reached A. Since you and the positron are travelling in opposite directions (along this time axis), you might both record the time the other is taking as negative--from your own point of view then the electron took a negative time to travel from B to A (however, since that sounds funny, you'd just say that it travelled from A to B as you did in a positive time).
You can see (if you followed that) that I'm treating this time axis very similarly to a spatial axis; looking at a simple spacetime diagram with a worldline on it you get the impression that time moves like the needle of a seismograph (or rather the paper sliding by underneath that). I don't see it like that but rather as a two-way street with some quirk of the human mind providing either the "preferred" direction of travel or the illusion of some kind of movement (which one, I don't know). That does imply some kind of determinism and I haven't thought long enough on it to see the other deep consequences of it, but that view serves me well when thinking about time travel.
Do you see now where I'm coming from?
Originally posted by Zefram
This is the point being challenged (at least by myself); the idea I'm arguing is that time has no intristic "flow" and that the distinction between "past" and "future" is a matter of perspective...
STOP!!! You are exactly correct up to that point. This idea that we all seem to have that says that 'time flows' in a particular direction, is an artifact of our perception. I beleive that time does not flow, but that the universe renews. The universe does not 'endure' in time. Time is what you get with the repitition of renewing universes. Again the analogy is the frames of a movie film. You get no movie unless you look at the frames consecutively. No motion is apparent, no action occurs, unless you view the film dynamically. The same may be true with our universe. This hypothesis, if true, would also indicate quantized space and thus, non-continuous motion. These 'would be facts' conveniently explain the limiting speed of light and the fact that no mass can travel faster than this. I think that from this point of view, the Lorentz transformations can tell us much about the qualities of space.
ElectrikRipple
Mar31-03, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I will now show why I don't think that the "Pretzel time" works:
1) One dimension
Time is a dimension. It is not a set of dimensions. Because of this, it cannot curl backward. To curl necesitates an extra dimenion (a curled one).
There's your problem. Why do u have to have two dimensions before u time can be "pretzeled"? A slinky isnt made up of multiple strips. Am i missing something?
P.J.
ElectrikRipple
Mar31-03, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Zefram
This is the point being challenged (at least by myself); the idea I'm arguing is that time has no intristic "flow"
People often view time as a river flowing towards the future. Which i guess make since. Time travels into the future. The present becomes future and the future becomes present. But can u not swim against the current of the river of time?
P.J.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zefram
[B]This is the point being challenged (at least by myself); the idea I'm arguing is that time has no intristic "flow" and that the distinction between "past" and "future" is a matter of perspective as in spatial coordinates (and that there need not be a preferred direction along the time axis that everything must move in--things can travel along the time axis in either direction).
Zefram,
I agree. Everything that I have read about relativity and QM including Hawking and Feynman says that time is just another dimension with no preferred direction. From what I ave read all of Newton's, Lorentz's, Maxwell's and Einstein's formula work equally well no matter whether time is + or -. In fact Einstein's formulas ended up with time as - which I mentioned before. Everyone seems to ignore that fact as insignificant, but is it. Nor is time constant nor linear and may well be quantumized (is that a word?) as well as space. Some seem to think that space may be at the Plank level as someone else mentioned in this forum. To me, in my humble opinion EVERTHING IS RELATIVE and QUANTUM.
Consider the photon. It moves only at the speed of light. It cannot stop or slow down or speed up. If it does then it is no longer a photon. It is it's own anti-particle. And at the speed of light it is outside of time. In its perspective it travels instantaneously from one point to another. Which means that it is everywhere along its path at the same time even though that path may be thousands of light years long.
Originally posted by Zefram
This is the point being challenged (at least by myself); the idea I'm arguing is that time has no intristic "flow" and that the distinction between "past" and "future" is a matter of perspective as in spatial coordinates (and that there need not be a preferred direction along the time axis that everything must move in--things can travel along the time axis in either direction). If you happen to be travelling in the direction that human perception seems to prefer and see an electron travelling the other way along the time axis, it will appear to you to be a positron.
If, continuing on with that example, you move between two spatially and temporally (is that the word I want?) separated points, A and B, you must, of course, be at one before (from your point of view) the other. So starting from A and moving to B (along what we'll call the + time axis (in addition, obviously, to the spatial axis or two or three you'll need to traverse)), you move from present to future (your words). An electron starting from B and travelling to A along the - time axis would appear to you as a positron travelling along the + time axis from A to B; in other words, it would appear (to you) to start and end at the same points that you do and also to be taking the same route as you along the time axis between the two points (yet some of its familiar properties would be reversed).
This backwards travelling electron (positron), would (pretending it sees and interprets time like human beings like you and I do) say that it was at B before it reached A. Since you and the positron are travelling in opposite directions (along this time axis), you might both record the time the other is taking as negative--from your own point of view then the electron took a negative time to travel from B to A (however, since that sounds funny, you'd just say that it travelled from A to B as you did in a positive time).
You can see (if you followed that) that I'm treating this time axis very similarly to a spatial axis; looking at a simple spacetime diagram with a worldline on it you get the impression that time moves like the needle of a seismograph (or rather the paper sliding by underneath that). I don't see it like that but rather as a two-way street with some quirk of the human mind providing either the "preferred" direction of travel or the illusion of some kind of movement (which one, I don't know). That does imply some kind of determinism and I haven't thought long enough on it to see the other deep consequences of it, but that view serves me well when thinking about time travel.
Do you see now where I'm coming from?
Your idea'd be fine, if it weren't for General Relativity. Relativity states that we are always moving at the speed of light. However, our motion is apportioned between spacial and temporal motion. Thus, if you accelerate to the speed of light in space, you stop moving in time. However, to move "backward" in time, you have to go faster than c, and that is impossible.
Also, if something were traveling in the other [temporal] direction, I would never see it (as you say I would), because it would appear for an instant, and thus instantly be gone (well, I guess that argument will get philosophical, if I pursue it, so I'll just leave that alone).
Originally posted by ElectrikRipple
There's your problem. Why do u have to have two dimensions before u time can be "pretzeled"? A slinky isnt made up of multiple strips. Am i missing something?
P.J.
You ask why you need to dimensions, in order to pretzel time? Let's think spacially, for the moment. If all of space was one-dimensional (as straight line, with no depth or width), then it would not be able to curve back on itself, would it? If you say it would, I'd like you to consider the fact that curling requires movement on the y axis. I posit that it should be the same with time (as time is also a dimension).
However, our motion is apportioned between spacial and temporal motion. Thus, if you accelerate to the speed of light in space, you stop moving in time. However, to move "backward" in time, you have to go faster than c, and that is impossible.
The metric is symmetric with respect to reflections in all axes; travelling forward and backward in time yields the same speeds, just like travelling east vs west.
The problem is that to smoothly go from forward in time to backward in time that your trajectory has to go from timelike to spacelike (spacelike = FTL in the classical sense)... but non-smooth motion can transition from one to the other, and the same is true if you've always been going backwards in time and never forwards.
The same, incidentally, is true of energy. Antiparticles were theoretically discovered because there was nothing in the metric to force the energy of a particle to be positive. To have negative energy, p = m v forces either mass to be negative or the particle to travel backwards in time (which simply means you parametrize its trajectory in the direction opposite coordinate time flow).
Let's think spacially
You're presupposing a space in which to think spatially. Euclidean thinking doesn't always help understand non-Euclidean geometries.
Hurkyl
ElectrikRipple
Apr2-03, 12:07 AM
wish i knew what that stuff meant
P.J.
something silly.
I have a fantastic (as in fantasy) theory that matter is actually a wave phenomenon and that space is an illusion created by the interaction of the 'waves'. There is more detail but I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that the idea implies that past events are retained in the present as residual vibrations. That's how we can remember things as there is still a residual of the original wave. Time in this model is a change in the waves and only moves in a direction that we see as being from present to future. It doesn't matter how the waves move, change is change and can only be percieved as moving in this direction. Just like the collapsing universe idea that time would seem to be moving in the same direction. The residual wave bit implies though that there is, in the present, a 'memory' of the past that resides in the present. The retarded and advance waves idea of Feynman in regards to explaining the phenomenon of radiation resistance (I wish I understood it fully) implies that particles can travel backward in time but, it would seem that this is restricted to very small spaces and timespans (am I wrong). Perhaps there is a 'Plank timespan' and matter bounces back and forth between the two extremes or perhaps time, as I said before, is just change.
Not very helpful to the discussion I know but....[:D]
Raavin [t)]
quantumcarl
Apr2-03, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by ElectrikRipple
carl...i dont care if u take offense to this bro but dude i dont know whats wrong with u and ur thinking process or u know what wow...
Look who's talking.
Loren Booda
Apr3-03, 12:57 AM
If time progresses according to the outward expansion of our universe, then regression in time corresponds to inward observations of compactified dimensions within the Planck length, the stasis of spacetime.
Originally posted by Loren Booda
If time progresses according to the outward expansion of our universe, then regression in time corresponds to inward observations of compactified dimensions within the Planck length, the stasis of spacetime.
Could you elaborate a bit more Loren? I lost you half way through.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The metric is symmetric with respect to reflections in all axes; travelling forward and backward in time yields the same speeds, just like travelling east vs west.
The problem is that to smoothly go from forward in time to backward in time that your trajectory has to go from timelike to spacelike (spacelike = FTL in the classical sense)... but non-smooth motion can transition from one to the other, and the same is true if you've always been going backwards in time and never forwards.
The same, incidentally, is true of energy. Antiparticles were theoretically discovered because there was nothing in the metric to force the energy of a particle to be positive. To have negative energy, p = m v forces either mass to be negative or the particle to travel backwards in time (which simply means you parametrize its trajectory in the direction opposite coordinate time flow).
You're presupposing a space in which to think spatially. Euclidean thinking doesn't always help understand non-Euclidean geometries.
Hurkyl
Now this is a point I hadn't considered. I don't know why, but I haven't heard it put quite like this before. You make a very good point, Hurkyl. There is one thing that bugs me - and maybe you could clear it up for me -, and that is when people talk about the particle and the anti-particle "meeting" at a certain point in time. It seems like this would have to, literally, be instantaneous.
Originally posted by Loren Booda
If time progresses according to the outward expansion of our universe, then regression in time corresponds to inward observations of compactified dimensions within the Planck length, the stasis of spacetime.
Please expound on this, Loren Booda, I'm afraid I didn't quite understand what you were trying to say.
ElectrikRipple
Apr3-03, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Look who's talking.
?
Now this is a point I hadn't considered. I don't know why, but I haven't heard it put quite like this before.
I've been trying to get that point across for over a week.
Thank you, Hurkyl. [;)]
There is one thing that bugs me - and maybe you could clear it up for me -, and that is when people talk about the particle and the anti-particle "meeting" at a certain point in time. It seems like this would have to, literally, be instantaneous.
Really, it's just as astonishing that the particles (whether they're going the same way through time or not) manage to meet at the same point in space.
But I think you meant that in the sense that "only the present exists". There are a couple of ways that could be explanationed.
The first and most obvious is simply that all particles really do exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously; reality is trajectories, not particles. Causality needs to be slightly modified from the linear sense; the state of a particle can only influence events in its future or past lightcones and nothing outside (i.e. it can only influence events with a timelike seperation not spacelike).
Another possibility is more in the spirit of the reverse parametrization idea I mentioned; a lot of physical equations have the lorentz factor &gamma which is dt/d&tau (&tau is proper time)... &gamma involves a square root, though, so if one desired they could take the negative square root to get &gamma, which would correspond to a negative dt/d&tau (i.e. proper time is running backwards with respect to coordinate time). This allows one to continue with the "only the now exists" philosophy, and the modification from ordinary SR is that clocks are permitted to run backwards, not just slow down. In this sense, the equations really do permit you to smoothly go from "forward in time" travel to "backwards in time" travel (but it still doesn't let you get to your "past", nor does it provide a way around the infinite energy requirements).
Hurkyl
DrChinese
Apr3-03, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The first and most obvious is simply that all particles really do exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously; reality is trajectories, not particles. Causality needs to be slightly modified from the linear sense; the state of a particle can only influence events in its future or past lightcones and nothing outside (i.e. it can only influence events with a timelike seperation not spacelike).
That is how I picture things too. Especially as relates to causality. There is both a future lightcone (the traditional one) and a past lightcone. These 2 together reflect causal limits. This is fully in keeping with both relativiry and QM in all respects. However, it is possible there may be issues with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Well, for completeness's sake, I don't particularly like the "reality is trajectories" interpretation.
Of course, ANY causal "only now exists" physical theory can be rewritten as an "all of time exists" theory, so you lose nothing by permiting the latter. It's just that aside from its utility for computation, I just don't like it. [;)]
It would be an interesting exercise to prove or disprove whether bidirectional causality and unidirectional causality are logically equivalent; I have a strong hunch that they are, but I'm not sure.
Hurkyl
*Slaps self on head* now I remember why I disagreed with Zefram, when he made (sort of) the same point as Hurkyl is making. It's all in the way we think of time. You see, you can think of time as being like the spacial dimensions, in the sense that if I put something in a certain place (in space), it will still be there when I look away. But this is not how I view time. As I see it, when you continue down the T dimension, everything that you "have done" (past tense) "disappears" (or ceases existing). I say this because, if it were "still happening", then it would be happening in the present, not the past. The past is compose of things that "have happened", it does not contain things that "will happen" or "are happening". This doesn't seem to fit your view of time, does it?
no....
the pass was happened....
if that pass space no you...
i think impossible u travel back to that space
but we maybe can see the pass....with no change anything
just like watch a movie...
Time is neither a field nor a fabric. It is nothing more nor less than a measurement - a differentiation of the relative rate of change within an element or among multiple elements.
To effectively go back in time on a Universal scale, it would be necessary to find a means to first halt all change in the Universe, and then apply sufficient (infinite) force to exactly reverse all processes in progress.
Even such an extraordinary procedure would not reverse the course of time. Whatever process was engaged to controvert time would have to CEASE at the same temporal point it began to act - or time would not truly be reversed.
Originally posted by Messiah
Time is neither a field nor a fabric. It is nothing more nor less than a measurement - a differentiation of the relative rate of change within an element or among multiple elements.
To effectively go back in time on a Universal scale, it would be necessary to find a means to first halt all change in the Universe, and then apply sufficient (infinite) force to exactly reverse all processes in progress.
Even such an extraordinary procedure would not reverse the course of time. Whatever process was engaged to controvert time would have to CEASE at the same temporal point it began to act - or time would not truly be reversed.
Time is a dimension (according to Relativity), and it warps and changes along with the "fabric" of space. Your reasoning is based on time's being just the progression of events, when in fact the progression of events is just the result of movement along the Time dimension.
Again, time is an artifact of other processes.
Time is what you get when one universe replaces the previous universe. In the new universe, the minimum of action can be noted occuring from the previous universe. For example, light only travels one unit of length (planck length?) during this period of one universe replacing another.
How about a computer analogy?
It's like the refresh rate of your computer monitor. The monitor redraws the entire screen at a certain rate, say 80Hz. Every refresh allows for a new image, possibly a slightly different image in the case of a video with motion.
Time is only percieved because action is allowed. Objects do not move continuously through space passing through infinite numbers of points in between. Objects jump from one position to the next as the universe refreshes. As the universe refreshes, light (in a vacuum) travels one minimum length at a time.
So the refresh rate of the universe, and the 'resolution' or minimum possible length are what determines the speed of light.
What happens to all of the old universes that have been replaced? Maybe God keeps them in a jar. Or maybe they are all connected by a string and he wears it around his neck.
In any case, your only hope at traveling into the past is to die first and make it to heaven. Even then your going to need permission because you will surely cause a paradox. God might not be to happy about that. Good luck.
Originally posted by Mentat
Time is a dimension (according to Relativity), and it warps and changes along with the "fabric" of space. Your reasoning is based on time's being just the progression of events, when in fact the progression of events is just the result of movement along the Time dimension.
Every polar coordinate is a dimension. X, Y and Z are axes. There are an INFINITE number of dimensions in the XYZ range. In calculus, time can be 'treated' as a dimension. The progression along the X axis versus the progression along the Y axis is differentiated and used as a 'standard'. To correlate with the Z progression, rather than use dz/(dx/dy) you can group the procedure of x against y and call the differentiation t(time) - dx/dy=dt and dz/(dx/dy)=dz/dt. It makes for a great mathematical shorthand notation, but this convenience does not create a dimension - only a functional illusion of one.
Time is a man made measurement. We measure time by events. The spin of the earth, its rotation about the sun, the pulses of a cesium atom (a standard), etc. For every cycle of 'x' there are a corresponding number of cycles of 'Y'(how else would you measure time??). Time is simply the relative measurement of change - whether it be in position or condition. If nothing changed, there would be no time. If we did not note change, we would be unaware of it.
Do you see some logical component to the definition of time which I fail to note? if so, please explain what YOU think time is.
Originally posted by Alias
Again, time is an artifact of other processes.
Time is what you get when one universe replaces the previous universe. In the new universe, the minimum of action can be noted occuring from the previous universe. For example, light only travels one unit of length (planck length?) during this period of one universe replacing another.
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! One UNIVERSE replaces the previous UNIVERSE???
Something either does or does not exist. If something exists, it is included in the set labeled 'UNIVERSE'. That which is not within the set does NOT exist.
There is only one Universe, and unless qualifiers are added to designate a sub-set, the only correct definition of the term is - "all which exists".
Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)
Is it such a stretch to postulate that there may be something outside of this 'place' that I have so loosely(apparently) termed our 'universe'.
How about this. If our universe is finite, then might we say that there may be something outside of our universe?
For someone with a user name that leads me to believe you may not be a religious person (not a Christian anyway) you sure do treat the word 'universe' like it's some sort of all encompassing god.
Originally posted by Messiah
Do you see some logical component to the definition of time which I fail to note? if so, please explain what YOU think time is. [/B]
You defined how time is measured very well. Whoop-dee-doo.
Tell us what 'time' is. What is the mechanism?
What is this property of the universe that allows for motion and action?
Originally posted by Alias
Is it such a stretch to postulate that there may be something outside of this 'place' that I have so loosely(apparently) termed our 'universe'.
How about this. If our universe is finite, then might we say that there may be something outside of our universe?
For someone with a user name that leads me to believe you may not be a religious person (not a Christian anyway) you sure do treat the word 'universe' like it's some sort of all encompassing god.
If you qualify the term Universe to be the known or observable universe, then, of course, there is a whole WORLD outside of that infinitesmal boundary.
The term finite means - by its very definition - defined. If the Universe were finite, there would be a defined and observable boundary to it...i.e. if you sail too far out in space, you WILL fall off the edge. Such used to be conventional wisdom among navigators.
As for religion, the Universe is the entire spectrum of existence - every variety which reciprocal symmetry can produce. The Universe would not be complete if it did not contain them all. In that respect, the Universe can be considered an entity unto itself, and every point, every element within it contributes to its completeness. You may have noticed my capitalization of the word Universe. I believe this is appropriate, for the Universe - nature itself - is, indeed, omnipotent and I am but an infinitesimal portion of that power.
While nature demands respect, she has no use for praise or worship. Nature does not desire your obedience, she already has it. The Laws of Nature cannot be broken. She cares not what your beliefs may be - the truth will still be true even if it is never acknowledged. Nature rewards those who understand her. She is not so kind to those who do not.
Notwithstanding the above, I cannot claim any semblance of belief in the conventional deities touted by organized religion - the god icons to represent good and the satan icons to represent evil. Nature is both. And if you put your human bias aside, good and evil depend upon your point of view. Just ask a bacterium if taking antibiotics is a just and righteous act.
Originally posted by Alias
You defined how time is measured very well. Whoop-dee-doo.
Tell us what 'time' is. What is the mechanism?
What is this property of the universe that allows for motion and action?
There is an infinite number of mechanisms - everything which exists. Relative rate of change can be measured within an element or derived from any number you wish to include in the set under consideration.
Every element in the Universe is different from every other. It is that difference which drives change - elements morphing to accommodate the differential in their properties to achieve stability. At the boundry where one element touches another, there is 'NOTHING' between them. In my hairbrained thaory, at the point of contact, the sum of the values of the entities must = Ø in order or a law of nature is broken. They must change in condition in order to achieve a Ø balance.
Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity?? (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)
DrChinese
Apr8-03, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Messiah
There is an infinite number of mechanisms - everything which exists. Relative rate of change can be measured within an element or derived from any number you wish to include in the set under consideration.
Every element in the Universe is different from every other. It is that difference which drives change - elements morphing to accommodate the differential in their properties to achieve stability. At the boundry where one element touches another, there is 'NOTHING' between them. In my hairbrained thaory, at the point of contact, the sum of the values of the entities must = Ø in order or a law of nature is broken. They must change in condition in order to achieve a Ø balance.
Have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity?? (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)
You said that every element of the universe is different than the other. According to QM, every like particle is interchangable with all like particles. I.e. they are indistinguishable.
By the way, very cool looking graphics at the link supplied.
Originally posted by DrChinese
You said that every element of the universe is different than the other. According to QM, every like particle is interchangable with all like particles. I.e. they are indistinguishable.
By the way, very cool looking graphics at the link supplied.
Thanks, Doc.
Yeah...the old (revised)billiard ball theory. It is one of the reasons I changed major in college 30 years ago from phys to math. It just doesn't wash. The entire field of physics was looking for something which isn't there.
Originally posted by Messiah
If you qualify the term Universe to be the known or observable universe, then, of course, there is a whole WORLD outside of that infinitesmal boundary.
A "whole world" outside an infinitely small boundry. No offense, but these statements seem nonsensical.
The term finite means - by its very definition - defined.
fi·nite
Pronunciation: 'fI-"nIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire
Date: 15th century
1 a : having definite or definable limits
If the Universe were finite, there would be a defined and observable boundary to it...i.e. if you sail too far out in space, you WILL fall off the edge.
This statement is potentially false. It is possible with proper curvature that the universe is finite yet unbounded. Ask the 2-D creatures that live in the 2-D skin of a balloon universe. They'll tell you all about the limited size of their universe and the fact that there are no walls around it.
As for religion, the Universe is the entire spectrum of existence -...
That is both your definition and your opinion.
I believe this is appropriate, for the Universe - nature itself - is, indeed, omnipotent and I am but an infinitesimal portion of that power.
You, by definition, are not infinitesimally small.
While nature demands respect, she has no use for praise or worship. Nature does not desire your obedience, she already has it. The Laws of Nature cannot be broken. She cares not what your beliefs may be - the truth will still be true even if it is never acknowledged. Nature rewards those who understand her. She is not so kind to those who do not.
"Nature" may be defined as the laws of the universe. But this in no way disproves the existence of things outside of this universe.
My original statement was as follows...
You defined how time is measured very well. Whoop-dee-doo.
Tell us what 'time' is. What is the mechanism?
What is this property of the universe that allows for motion and action?
Your response was...
Originally posted by Messiah
There is an infinite number of mechanisms - everything which exists. Relative rate of change can be measured within an element or derived from any number you wish to include in the set under consideration.
Every element in the Universe is different from every other. It is that difference which drives change - elements morphing to accommodate the differential in their properties to achieve stability. At the boundry where one element touches another, there is 'NOTHING' between them. In my hairbrained thaory, at the point of contact, the sum of the values of the entities must = Ø in order or a law of nature is broken. They must change in condition in order to achieve a Ø balance.
This is not an answer. For example if I asked you to define the mechanism of gravity, you might say that gravity is what you get when you observe the force between two massive objects. While this may be helpful in measuring gravity, it does not define gravity. A better response to the question of what is the mechanism of gravity would be something like, "Gravity is caused by the warpage of space-time surrounding a massive object." That statement more effectivly describes the "mechanism" of gravity.
So, I'll try again.
What is the mechanism of time? Describe this property of the universe that allows for motion and action.
Originally posted by Messiah
Time is a man made measurement. We measure time by events.
Make up your mind, Messiah. Is time the measurement, or is it what is measured?
Carl (re-named quantumcarl) had a big problem with this too. There are two points that you (Messiah) are missing.
First point:
Either time is a dimension that warps and changes, just like space, or Relativity is flawed. There are no two ways about it, Relativity requires that time be a dimension.
Second point:
If you refer to "dimensions" as just "measurements", then you have to contend with the concept of space's being just a "measurement". Think about that, seriously. Saying that we measure space is all well and good (because it's true), but saying that space itself is just a measurment contradicts both QM and GR.
Messiah
Apr10-03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Either time is a dimension that warps and changes, just like space, or Relativity is flawed. There are no two ways about it, Relativity requires that time be a dimension.
There are two basics under consideration -
1) Existence(s)
2) Change in condition or location of existence(s)
In order to change or be changed, something must first exist. Hence, change is - by definition - a function of existence.
Change is a process. Existence is not.
Time is the measurement of change. Change can be in condition as well as along/within the XYZ axes we call dimensions, so it is not completely dependent on the 3 polar axes. In this way, it may be considered a 'dimension' - but that is semantical hyperbole.
Originally posted by Mentat
If you refer to "dimensions" as just "measurements", then you have to contend with the concept of space's being just a "measurement". Think about that, seriously. Saying that we measure space is all well and good (because it's true), but saying that space itself is just a measurment contradicts both QM and GR. [/B]
Indeed, space is NOT just a measurement. Space occupies volume, it has physical presence, it EXISTS every bit as much as matter exists. It is relatively inert. It seems to offer little resistance to motion. Many people consider space to be a "non-existence".
The fact that its properties are not readily visible to us is not remarkable. Ancient man used to consider air 'nothing'. We are not that far ahead of the Neanderthal.
I have a pet theory that gravity is caused by the shrinkage of space which it is in contact with or in proximity to matter.
Theory of Reciprocity (http://theory-of-reciprocity.com)
Originally posted by Messiah
Time is the measurement of change.
No, change occurs of over a certain period of time.
The fact that its properties are not readily visible to us is not remarkable. Ancient man used to consider air 'nothing'. We are not that far ahead of the Neanderthal.
Which would explain why you fail to graps the physical nature of the time dimension (no offense, I'm not calling you a Neanderthal, I'm just making a point).
Messiah
Apr11-03, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, change occurs of over a certain period of time.
a) You have an element
b) That element changes (positionally or in condition)
c) That change (c) occurs over a certain period of time (t)
Time is the rate of change dc/dt - it is a measurement. Hey this is basic definition
Originally posted by Mentat
Which would explain why you fail to graps the physical nature of the time dimension (no offense, I'm not calling you a Neanderthal, I'm just making a point).
My Apple Commodore brain of the 20th century is NOWHERE near as powerful as the Cray grey matter of the 30th century. Temporally, we are just a little bit more developed than the Cro's. I don't apologize for my current equipment. I plan to upgrade in the next 30 years or so.
So explain to me the 'time' dimension...and yes, I've read relativitity and string theory. Did you know Einstein was an advocate of the Steady State theory??
Originally posted by Messiah
[B]a) You have an element
b) That element changes (positionally or in condition)
c) That change (c) occurs over a certain period of time (t)
Time is the rate of change dc/dt - it is a measurement. Hey this is basic definition
By your definition (which contradicts Relativity (just wanted to make sure that you remembered that)), I should be able to say that...
a) You have an element.
b) That element moves.
c) That movement occurs over a certain portion of space.
Space is the rate of movement - it is a measurement.
This is not what a dimension is - spacial or temporal. Change occurs over a period of time, that's true. But that means that change can be used to measure the element's travel along the time dimension - not that the time itself is just a measurement of change, as you say. In fact, if "change" equals "that which occurs over a period of time, then "time" cannot equal "the measurement of change" because that is a self-inclusive definition (and thus paradoxical).
My Apple Commodore brain of the 20th century is NOWHERE near as powerful as the Cray grey matter of the 30th century. Temporally, we are just a little bit more developed than the Cro's. I don't apologize for my current equipment. I plan to upgrade in the next 30 years or so.
So explain to me the 'time' dimension...and yes, I've read relativitity and string theory. Did you know Einstein was an advocate of the Steady State theory??
So? He was the one who invented GR, and GR postulates that time (which he (Einstein) refered to as the fourth dimension) warps and changes, as does space.
Messiah
Apr12-03, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
By your definition (which contradicts Relativity (just wanted to make sure that you remembered that)), I should be able to say that...
a) You have an element.
b) That element moves.
c) That movement occurs over a certain portion of space.
Space is the rate of movement - it is a measurement.
That portion of space ('certain' is a definition - unstated, but we can call it 'X') is a measurement. It is a defined change in position from point a to point b.
Time is a bit more complex. It compares one change against another...i.e. for every measurement of change (object) travels along the x axis, it travels (insert number here) measures of distance along the y axis. It is a comparative measurement.
Originally posted by Messiah
That portion of space ('certain' is a definition - unstated, but we can call it 'X') is a measurement.
No, it's a portion of space, that can be measured..
Time is a bit more complex. It compares one change against another...i.e. for every measurement of change (object) travels along the x axis, it travels (insert number here) measures of distance along the y axis. It is a comparative measurement.
Ah, now you start refering to "change" as actual movement along an axis. This is all I was getting at. The axes are dimensions. The two terms are synonymous. Time is a dimension/axis, that things move along (and that warps, due to the presence of matter). Do we now agree?
Messiah
Apr12-03, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
No, it's a portion of space, that can be measured..
Ah, now you start refering to "change" as actual movement along an axis. This is all I was getting at. The axes are dimensions. The two terms are synonymous. Time is a dimension/axis, that things move along (and that warps, due to the presence of matter). Do we now agree?
Change can take place without motion. A change in condition can be realized without travel in any dimension.
Originally posted by Messiah
Change can take place without motion. A change in condition can be realized without travel in any dimension.
Not so, it takes an amount of time for any change to occur, and for time to pass, one has to move along the time dimension.
Messiah
Apr13-03, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Not so, it takes an amount of time for any change to occur, and for time to pass, one has to move along the time dimension.
Answer me this - if there were no change in the Universe, would there still be time?
All perception would cease, as perception is a process and no processes would occur.
Originally posted by Messiah
Answer me this - if there were no change in the Universe, would there still be time?
All perception would cease, as perception is a process and no processes would occur.
Your question is backward. Answer me this - if there were no time, could there be any change?
You see, the time dimension can exist without change, there simply would be anything else in existence (except perhaps space). However, change cannot occur without having occured within a certain period of time.
Messiah
Apr13-03, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Your question is backward. Answer me this - if there were no time, could there be any change?
You see, the time dimension can exist without change, there simply would be anything else in existence (except perhaps space). However, change cannot occur without having occured within a certain period of time.
If you cannot have time without change, then time is a function of change. Change causes time. You are trying to have the chicken and the egg at the same time - CHANGE.
Originally posted by Messiah
If you cannot have time without change, then time is a function of change. Change causes time. You are trying to have the chicken and the egg at the same time - CHANGE.
You're the one who said that you couldn't have time without change. Re-read my previous post, please - wherein I clearly stated that the inverse of that statement is true.
chosenone
Apr14-03, 01:20 PM
well for animal to evolve from one celled organisms,some how the dna is altered though each generation.so what came first was a animal that the chicken evolved from.so in the animal before chickens the egg and the sperm mutated into the chicken.so the egg came first!just like us to neanderthal's evolved into us,so in the woman the egg and the sperm somehow mutated into a different species,and was born form them,sorta like clan of the cave bears.so the egg came first!
Originally posted by chosenone
well for animal to evolve from one celled organisms,some how the dna is altered though each generation.so what came first was a animal that the chicken evolved from.so in the animal before chickens the egg and the sperm mutated into the chicken.so the egg came first!just like us to neanderthal's evolved into us,so in the woman the egg and the sperm somehow mutated into a different species,and was born form them,sorta like clan of the cave bears.so the egg came first!
Sound reasoning, chosenone.
I'd like to add that it takes a certain amount of time for this change to occur. [;)]
Messiah
Apr14-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
You're the one who said that you couldn't have time without change. Re-read my previous post, please - wherein I clearly stated that the inverse of that statement is true.
Mea Culpa - I DID misread your quote.
But saying change cannot exist without time is like saying distance cannot exist without inches.
What does time do if it does not measure change?
We can't "go back" because the past does not exist within this universe.
What is the mechanism of time? Don't tell us what time is, tell us how time works.
Oh man what is going on in this thread? Stop trying to define time. It doesn't really have much of a definition, other then that which is measured by clocks. Hell, that's the definition Einstein used. Any other definition just end up using the word time in it or makes some mention of the past present and future or other literary contortions.
Instead, can we go to the past is more the subject we supposedly have here.
Do the past present and future exist, or just the present? That isn't provable, really, since all you can ever experience is the present. But it too, isn't really the point.
The point is, paradoxes pop up all over the place when you are allowed to travel to the past, many of which seem to violate other laws of physics. It may be possible, but my opinion is that it is a pipe dream. You can't visit the past.
pelastration
Apr15-03, 09:26 AM
Time is what 'our' clocks measure.
Clocks are a convention between humans to have a reference system with which they can communicate about "the duration of certain temporal (mass and energy) structures and their decay".
Time is relative to the observers structure/level, thus time is determinated by his resonance frame.
Time is the observed progress and shift between matter and energy.
For a bird, a cell in my liver or Michio Kaku's carp their is another resonance field in which the progress/shift between matter and energy happens than in your human world.
So on every level there is a type of internal clock indicating in what velocity phase of matter/energy shift his/its local structure is (Jezus, I am sleepy, Whoow ... i need to phone mum, where is Kaku ... I want some food, ...). In all universal structures there are different types of time embedded, but only the resonant are observed (conscious related).
Travel in time would suppose that ALL billions of such shifts on all their levels would be reversed identically or preset correctly in advance.
Travel in the past would also implicate that each of such shifts of the past is stored somewhere and can be recupurated.
Good luck ;-) Hope to see you when I started his post.
Messiah
Apr15-03, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by pelastration
Time is what 'our' clocks measure.
Clocks are a convention between humans to have a reference system with which they can communicate about "the duration of certain temporal (mass and energy) structures and their decay".
Time is relative to the observers structure/level, thus time is determinated by his resonance frame.
Time is the observed progress and shift between matter and energy.
For a bird, a cell in my liver or Michio Kaku's carp their is another resonance field in which the progress/shift between matter and energy happens than in your human world.
So on every level there is a type of internal clock indicating in what velocity phase of matter/energy shift his/its local structure is (Jezus, I am sleepy, Whoow ... i need to phone mum, where is Kaku ... I want some food, ...). In all universal structures there are different types of time embedded, but only the resonant are observed (conscious related).
Travel in time would suppose that ALL billions of such shifts on all their levels would be reversed identically or preset correctly in advance.
Travel in the past would also implicate that each of such shifts of the past is stored somewhere and can be recupurated.
Good luck ;-) Hope to see you when I started his post.
I think you are confusing time with metabolism. If your metabolism slows down, time SEEMS to speed up (a cesium atom SEEMS to pulse more quickly), if your metabolism speeds up, the reverse is true.
YOU are changing more quickly or slowly compared with the environment against you are measuring it.
pelastration
Apr15-03, 10:39 AM
Thank you Lord ;-)
Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.
1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower
But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.
It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.
I don't see the confusion.
I think we said the same. ;-)
Messiah
Apr15-03, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by pelastration
Thank you Lord ;-)
Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.
1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower
But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.
It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.
I don't see the confusion.
I think we said the same. ;-)
Actually, I think where we differ is that time does not need to be observed - it is a measurement of rate of change within an element or between elements - whether one of the elements is conscious of it or not....I guess I tend to define it in a more remote context.
(Te absolvo)
Originally posted by Messiah
Mea Culpa - I DID misread your quote.
But saying change cannot exist without time is like saying distance cannot exist without inches.
What does time do if it does not measure change?
This is written perfectly backward, and your spacial analogy proves it. [color=red]Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spacial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spacial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".
Originally posted by CJames
Oh man what is going on in this thread? Stop trying to define time. It doesn't really have much of a definition, other then that which is measured by clocks. Hell, that's the definition Einstein used. Any other definition just end up using the word time in it or makes some mention of the past present and future or other literary contortions.
Instead, can we go to the past is more the subject we supposedly have here.
Do the past present and future exist, or just the present? That isn't provable, really, since all you can ever experience is the present. But it too, isn't really the point.
The point is, paradoxes pop up all over the place when you are allowed to travel to the past, many of which seem to violate other laws of physics. It may be possible, but my opinion is that it is a pipe dream. You can't visit the past.
You are correct that time is what our clocks measure (btw, Einstein also said that space is "what we measure with measuring rods", that doesn't change the fact that he used it as a dimension), and not the other way around - namely, that time is just the measure of rates of orbit, or of movement of hands on a clock.
Dave_3of5
Apr18-03, 05:41 PM
Hey my first post here.
Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.
Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.
I know this sounds a bit wierd saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What im saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.
To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.
What we measure as time isnt really time its another component of space -Relativity-.
Its better if I do this visually:
A ---------------------------------> B
To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.
So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.
Its hard to explain but mentats im agreeing with you, you cant travel back in time, basically cause you cant travel back in space.
Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?
Messiah
Apr19-03, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
This is written perfectly backward, and your spacial analogy proves it. [color=red]Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spacial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spacial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".
False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.
Originally posted by Messiah
False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.
Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change. Now, do you see why I've been debating against you? If time is a dimension, then it cannot also be a measurement - as you already know to be true of space.
Originally posted by Dave_3of5
Hey my first post here.
Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.
Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.
I know this sounds a bit wierd saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What im saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.
To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.
What we measure as time isnt really time its another component of space -Relativity-.
Its better if I do this visually:
A ---------------------------------> B
To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.
So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.
Its hard to explain but mentats im agreeing with you, you cant travel back in time, basically cause you cant travel back in space.
Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?
A hearty WELCOME!!!, Dave_3of5. [:)]
Yes, your point has great merit. Alias has been trying to make a similar point, and I entirely agree with the idea that there is no past or future. My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.
Michael F. Dmitriyev
Apr20-03, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
...
My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.
Mentat
You are right here.
The Universe exists in realities in current of the quantum of time which it is possible to consider as " present time". This is advantageously with an energy standpoint. The unceasing processes, what they seem us, has require the unmeasuredly greater energy. The Nature can not be such profligate.
Michael F. Dmitriyev
Apr21-03, 08:28 AM
Hereinafter content of a proposition. The People have long ago understood that a pulsed Action more effectively than unceasing one. The advantages of digital technology before analog were realized recently. If the Nature does saves Energy that why must be squander on other essences which is realized by people? I keep in mind Space and Time. Probably the Nature can not allow billions of light years to Space and just the same (!) number of the years of Time of existence. Such a System just has not controllability. The Nature has found such decision:
" And God had created a light. And God has seen a light that he is good.." This papers had been writed the thousands of years ago, but nobody has not understood their sense hitherto, regrettably.
Hereinafter, in accordance with text of the papers, God had created all objects of universe. What kind of the material was used it is possible to guess.
Exactly the Light solves all problems.
Our life in Universe this is a Light Show, has realized on the most high digital technology. It obeys to a single law. This is a Law of the conservation of Time. He causes a set of a powers and phenomenas for compensation and counteraction in an effort of any deviation. Including not known to people yet. By the way, a digital technologies this is the Information technologies. With all characteristics and possibilities of Information . I think we know far from all.
Considering said above, I'll not become to do a hard conclusions about possibilityes of information technology. While, may be.
Messiah
Apr21-03, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change.
The analogy is valid.
Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.
Originally posted by Messiah
The analogy is valid.
Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.
If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?
Messiah
Apr21-03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?
I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.
Originally posted by Messiah
I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.
I didn't coin the word, "spacetime". It was coined by the physicists who realized that time was also a dimension.
Locutus
Apr22-03, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Messiah
The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship.
The word dimension describes a state of existence. Dimensions are not merely spacial measurements, because those are relative. Dimensions are almost entirely unrelated to all other ways of describing an object. For example, when describing the pen on my desk, I could say that it is about 7" in length. I could be mistaken, however, due to the effects of the doppler effect and relativity as the earth is moving constantly. For example, a man driving past my house at 50% the speed of light would see the pen as much longer because his vision of it would be skewed. Dimensions are not the same way. I can conclude with absolute certainty that my pen has three dimensions (although they may be immeasurable, it does have a length, width, and height). Any observer in the same dimension as I would agree.
Thus, dimensions cannot be compared to other measurements, for other spatial measurements are a consequence of dimensional properties.
Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimentional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?
Originally posted by Royce
Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimentional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?
My new good buddy! [:D]
It seems obvious to us, Royce, but others don't see it that way, for some reason.
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.
To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.
When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.
Locutus
Apr25-03, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by wimms
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.
To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.
When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.
...... you still haven't told us why time is "not just a dimension". And some of your arguments aren't 100% true. For example, your second paragraphs forgets the uncertainty principle. Photons travel at the speed of light, therefore do not expend time while moving. Because of the uncertainty principle, photons can be detected in two places at once! But that does not mean that there is no space between them.
All in all, time is just a dimension. The only thing special about it is that it is only linear (1-dimensional), whereas space is (3-dimensional). This fact alone is the best explanation for a lot of your arguments.
dr-dock
Apr25-03, 04:58 PM
say one system is regulated with F=PS
F=force
P=presure
S=surface
the three (F,P,S) is legal event if it respects the law
say you start from (F1,P1,S1) and endup in (F2,P2,S2)
the vector (dF,dP,dS)
in (F1,P1,S1) is (P1*dS+S1*dP,dP,dS)
and
in (F2,P2,S2) is (-P2*dS-S2*dP,-dP,-dS)
if you want the shortest distance from event1 to event2 it has to be
F=a(P1*dS+S1*dP)-b(P2*dS+S2*dP)=ab*dP*dS and
P=(a-b)dP and
S=(a-b)dS or
a(dF,dP,dS)(1)-b(dF,dP,dS)(2)=(F,P,S)
now find b(a);
b1=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)-0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
b2=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)+0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
now you get:
b=f(a)
F=f1(a,P1,P2,S1,S2)
P=f2(a,P1,P2)
S=f3(a,S1,S2)
where a is pure number and it is the quantum of time.
assign seconds to a and you get dimension time.
NOW da>0 MEANS FORWARD IN TIME WHILE da<0 MEANS BACKWARD IN TIME.
da=0 means time is frozen/no changes.
you see my concept of time is slightly different from the common one.
Messiah
Apr25-03, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Locutus
The word dimension describes a state of existence. Dimensions are not merely spacial measurements, because those are relative. Dimensions are almost entirely unrelated to all other ways of describing an object. For example, when describing the pen on my desk, I could say that it is about 7" in length. I could be mistaken, however, due to the effects of the doppler effect and relativity as the earth is moving constantly. For example, a man driving past my house at 50% the speed of light would see the pen as much longer because his vision of it would be skewed. Dimensions are not the same way. I can conclude with absolute certainty that my pen has three dimensions (although they may be immeasurable, it does have a length, width, and height). Any observer in the same dimension as I would agree.
Thus, dimensions cannot be compared to other measurements, for other spatial measurements are a consequence of dimensional properties.
The measurement of a spacial relationship is independent of observation. Just because you 'observe' something which is altered between the object or process and the senses with which you view it does not change the 'reality' of the phenomenon...it just changes how you perceive it.
Locutus
Apr26-03, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Messiah
The measurement of a spacial relationship is independent of observation. Just because you 'observe' something which is altered between the object or process and the senses with which you view it does not change the 'reality' of the phenomenon...it just changes how you perceive it.
You're right, but this is what I was trying to say in my original post: that observers may percieve the physical existence of an object differently, yet they do agree on the number of dimensions. They must agree because dimensions cannot be distorted in such a way (relativity, etc) in free-moving space.
Originally posted by Locutus
...... you still haven't told us why time is "not just a dimension". And some of your arguments aren't 100% true. For example, your second paragraphs forgets the uncertainty principle. Photons travel at the speed of light, therefore do not expend time while moving. Because of the uncertainty principle, photons can be detected in two places at once! But that does not mean that there is no space between them.
What photons "feel" is completely outside our world. It takes billions of years to reach us from stars, would you agree? If it took nanosecond, would we call it lightyears? Time for photons might flow differently, for them, ther might be no space. Uncertainty principle doesn't say that conservation laws doesn't hold, only that you can't measure any more precisely.
One same unit of energy can't be in two places at once, its either two photons, or detection error.
Please try to define concept "exist", then concept "move", then concept "distance" and "interact" in terms that never ever needs time.
After you try you might understand why 3-dimensional space does not make any sense without time. Mathmatical 3-space does not "exist", it is imaginary. We are in real world, we exist and interact.
Locutus
Apr26-03, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by wimms
One same unit of energy can't be in two places at once, its either two photons, or detection error.
Detection, however, is everything. Reality is a wave function fluctuating with all possible outcomes until it is observed, at which time the act of observation disrupts the wave function and yields a definite outcome (Schrodinger's cat...).
What photons "feel" is completely outside our world. It takes billions of years to reach us from stars, would you agree? If it took nanosecond, would we call it lightyears? Time for photons might flow differently, for them, ther might be no space. Uncertainty principle doesn't say that conservation laws doesn't hold, only that you can't measure any more precisely.
Please try to define concept "exist", then concept "move", then concept "distance" and "interact" in terms that never ever needs time.
After you try you might understand why 3-dimensional space does not make any sense without time. Mathmatical 3-space does not "exist", it is imaginary. We are in real world, we exist and interact.
You bring up an interesting point - the way a photon "percieves" the universe. First of all, a photon travels at the speed of light. Time dilation predicts that something traveling the speed of light cannot measure time. Therefore, time MAY flow for photons, as you said, but it would be irrelevent because there would be no means of detection. By the same token, if one were to measure the position of a photon, the same problem occurs. Since the photon is constantly travelling, its position is in quantum flux analagous to the aforementioned wave function. When an observational attempt is made, the photon is shown to be in two places at once.
Is this logically erronous? Yes, but it is the reality of our universe.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr26-03, 09:59 PM
Can't traveling to the past be solved with the multiple history theory?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr26-03, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by wimms
[B]No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.
Neurologically speaking, time is the function of the interval between each electrical charge between every straitial neuron that passes through the stratium.
Time always existed. Take, for an example, the big bang. No living thing was in existence when it happened. Yet, it took time to expand. We were not there to record its time. Therefore, time exists and it its existence is not based on our existence.
To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.
Here you contradict your above statement.
Originally posted by Locutus
Detection, however, is everything. Reality is a wave function fluctuating with all possible outcomes until it is observed, Detection is interaction. It preassumes time. Read your words: reality "is", "wave", "function", "fluctuating", "until", "observed". None of these terms obviously depends upon concept of time. Instead, when that wavefunction collapses, we detect concept of time, right? See, however much you try, you can't get rid of Time. Its fundamental. Not just a measure. You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.
You bring up an interesting point - the way a photon "percieves" the universe. First of all, a photon travels at the speed of light. Time dilation predicts that something traveling the speed of light cannot measure time. Therefore, time MAY flow for photons, as you said, but it would be irrelevent because there would be no means of detection. By the same token, if one were to measure the position of a photon, the same problem occurs. Since the photon is constantly travelling, its position is in quantum flux analagous to the aforementioned wave function. When an observational attempt is made, the photon is shown to be in two places at once.]First of all, photon does NOT travel at speed of light. Its speed depends on medium. Second, time dilation equations are undefined for case of speed of light, that is they do not work at that range. They stop being equations. They produce crap. And afterall, GR predicts that nothing can travel at speed of light in first place.
Assumption that photon has no timeflow defined in relation to our timeframe, is not warranted. And thats why imo:
We know that photons can be years inflight, being lost with reference to both source and target. Therefore photons can not be outside our space/time. Being in photons shoes might have other local time flow, but in no way is it 0. For photon to travel infinite distance in our terms in 0 time in its terms means that photon will not interact ever with anything in our world. If it was true, we would have to perceive photons differently, they'd either not exist, or exist as lines of infinite length and propagate at infinite velocity. This is not what we observe.
Anything that is outside time/space must be for us either nonexistent, or allpervasive always. There is no other possibility.
There might be a phenomena with such properties we don't know yet, but its not the photons themselves. They are from this world, they are finite. That doesn't mean that what they perceive is not completely different than that of us.
You just shouldn't forget that time stopping to zero is enormously strong statement.
Is this logically erronous? Yes, but it is the reality of our universe.[/B]No, its reality of our physics models. We don't even know if photon exists in the first place.
MajinVegeta, I don't see contradiction. Please show it more clearly.
As to multiple history ideas, I'd think this analogy. Game of chess has enormous possible gameplays. Do they all *exist*? No, there are that many possibilities, but only that few will ever realise. Its not that there is some chessboard that permanently plays all possible chess games (fluctuates), and we occasionally take a look (collapse). One must make distinction between imaginary possibilities, and reality that exists now and here.
Originally posted by wimms
Detection is interaction. It preassumes time. Read your words: reality "is", "wave", "function", "fluctuating", "until", "observed". None of these terms obviously depends upon concept of time. Instead, when that wavefunction collapses, we detect concept of time, right? See, however much you try, you can't get rid of Time. Its fundamental. Not just a measure. You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.
First of all, photon does NOT travel at speed of light. Its speed depends on medium. Second, time dilation equations are undefined for case of speed of light, that is they do not work at that range. They stop being equations. They produce crap. And afterall, GR predicts that nothing can travel at speed of light in first place.
Assumption that photon has no timeflow defined in relation to our timeframe, is not warranted. And thats why imo:
We know that photons can be years inflight, being lost with reference to both source and target. Therefore photons can not be outside our space/time. Being in photons shoes might have other local time flow, but in no way is it 0. For photon to travel infinite distance in our terms in 0 time in its terms means that photon will not interact ever with anything in our world. If it was true, we would have to perceive photons differently, they'd either not exist, or exist as lines of infinite length and propagate at infinite velocity. This is not what we observe.
Anything that is outside time/space must be for us either nonexistent, or allpervasive always. There is no other possibility.
There might be a phenomena with such properties we don't know yet, but its not the photons themselves. They are from this world, they are finite. That doesn't mean that what they perceive is not completely different than that of us.
You just shouldn't forget that time stopping to zero is enormously strong statement.
No, its reality of our physics models. We don't even know if photon exists in the first place.
MajinVegeta, I don't see contradiction. Please show it more clearly.
As to multiple history ideas, I'd think this analogy. Game of chess has enormous possible gameplays. Do they all *exist*? No, there are that many possibilities, but only that few will ever realise. Its not that there is some chessboard that permanently plays all possible chess games (fluctuates), and we occasionally take a look (collapse). One must make distinction between imaginary possibilities, and reality that exists now and here.
Possibilities exist, here and now, otherwise how could I be conceiving of them, here and now?
Locutus
Apr27-03, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by wimms
You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.
Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions.
Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions.
Very good point.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr27-03, 09:43 PM
In order for us to travel to the past, would the future already need to exist?
Locutus
Apr27-03, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
In order for us to travel to the past, would the future already need to exist?
In a manner of speaking. Let's say a man decided to bring a cell phone back with him to 1900. For the people in 1900, their future has been predicted. The same holds true for the man in 2003 who encounters a time traveler from 2100.
The bottom line is travelling to the past in the same universe is impossible. Time progresses in a linear fashion. It may progress at different speeds and intervals, but still in the same direction.
Many Worlds theory, on the other hand, allows time travel into the past of an alternate universe, identical to your own at the instant you time travel. Then, you are free to kill your parents, as it does not contradict your existence because you are from another universe. This is all just theory, of course, but it seems to be the most practical way of time travel to the past (or possibly wormholes but those would cause paradoxes as well).
RuroumiKenshin
Apr27-03, 11:22 PM
But there is still a paradox. If the man goes back to 1900, before he was born, that contradicts the very first law of thermodynamics. Even with the multiple hisotry theory.
The man going back to 1900 would cause a closed time loop to occur. That is, the same thing will continue to happen again and again, infinitely. in 2003, the man decides to go to 1900, and when 1900 proceeds into the future, (say the guy was born in 1980) the man is born again, and then he decides to go back to 1900 hundered......
so, the question remains, are closed time loops paradoxical?
Locutus
Apr27-03, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But there is still a paradox. If the man goes back to 1900, before he was born, that contradicts the very first law of thermodynamics. Even with the multiple hisotry theory.
The man going back to 1900 would cause a closed time loop to occur. That is, the same thing will continue to happen again and again, infinitely. in 2003, the man decides to go to 1900, and when 1900 proceeds into the future, (say the guy was born in 1980) the man is born again, and then he decides to go back to 1900 hundered......
so, the question remains, are closed time loops paradoxical?
Are saying this is all happening in the same universe?? I don't understand, because in my post I was saying the same thing--that time travel in the same universe creates paradoxes.
When a man travels to a different universe, however, he escapes the paradox of a closed time loop because he involves himself with the timeline of another universe.
Can you please clarify your last post because I think we are agreeing on the same thing here, just saying it differently.
Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions. No existence in our familiar form. That does not warrant idea that no existence is possible. Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.
Besides spatial dimensions, you can imagine arbitrary number of any other dimensions, like imagine computer program - its in its own "space", in this case space is freedom of states, possibilities. And computing steps are interactions that can be assigned notion of particles or forces, and they exist in that computer time. Dimensionality of such computer can be made arbitrariliy large, and it has not even close resemblence to our spatial dimensions. When you stop that computer time, these particle cease to exist, and only single state remains. You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And thats possible only when computer clock is restarted. And for particle inside computer program, there is no way to detect whether time runs or is stopped. The only thing what particle can detect is interaction _when_ time runs. For it, to exist is to have computer time running. Same for us, to exist _requires_ concept of time and interaction. For computer program, to jump in time means skipping series of cause/effect interactions and start interacting with something that doesn't exist yet or anymore. Not only does this scrap causality, it simply doesn't make sense.
Multiple time dimensions is as meaningless as multiple lengths. You can introduce as many as you like, it does not change essence of the concept, it remains unique.
Originally posted by Mentat
Possibilities exist, here and now, otherwise how could I be conceiving of them, here and now? Possiblity: I imagine that I'm god and destroy that universe. Do you feel anything? Is that possibility "real"? Why is it not possible? Because we live in _real_ world? What makes it real? Constraints to possibilities? Okay, is there such a law of nature that forbids wimms to destroy universe? No, but there are laws of nature that states that to do that, you'd need to spend energy - interact. And they state that wimms has not even pion's chance in myuon's *** to kick the universe. Therefore we safely conclude, that this imagination is not real. But I conceive it, perfectly vividly. Its here, it exists! So what? It has no capacity to interact with real world. Therefore, it does not exist. There exist my braincells, that fired this way for duration of this post, they are real, but not the imagination. When I'm finished, horrible image of wimms destroying universe ceases to exist even in my imagination. And definitely its not something that could exist separately from my delusion.
See? To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form. You might imply that now that I've written that delusion down, it exists on this forum in electronic shape. But its not what I imagined. What you perceive is delusion crap of somebody who'd better be drunk. And thats what it is - useless crap not end of world. But if you'd truely perceive sky crushing down on you, it would be real. Thing is what it appears to other thing to be.
There is a difference between imaginary delusions and real world out there. Imaginary delusions are limited by your own constraints only, real world limits you with requirement to interact in frame of laws we are trying to find out. As long as this universe is causal and logical, there is no room for "all possible universes", there is only one, here and now, constrained by only one possible direction of time - from past to future by means of cause/effect interactions.
To add here, consider abstract ideas, like geometric point, or line. Are they real? Do they exist? In our delusions, yes, but in universe out there - no, they don't exist. We can model world around us by using our imaginary shapes, but that doesn't make our imagination real, its merely description of something out there.
Time as coordinate dimension is of that kind - its is convenient to use it as spatial dimension, because this allows us to compute formulas, but it doesn't mean you can move on it the same way as you move in space.
As to multiple histories, they can't exist concurrently. To exist means to interact, if they don't interact they don't exist. You can shape the world around you, if you have free will, and this way decide which way your history develops, but there is no way you could swap your reality, much the same way as wimms cannot destroy universe, or how single value of variable in computer program cannot arbitrarily and acausally change whole state or even structure and program of the supercomputer. The only way how you could escape into other universe is via imagination. This is apparently perfectly possible, as we can learn from institutions with soft walls.
We can't prove that time has always existed. At the instant of The Big Bang nothing existed but energy at infinite temperature and density. No matter or mass existed and there was no dimention to the singularity, just a mathematical point. Did spacetime exist? I don't think so. I don't think that spacetime existed until after inflation and matter or mass started to form out of the expanding and thus cooling singularity. I believe that only then did space, time, dimension, location and direction come into existance.
Also remember that we are 3 dimentional beings and cannot preceive nor conceive of four or more dimentional spacetime. Things pop into and out of our 3 dimentional universe without our being able to "see" where they came from or where they went and though a photon may be seen by us to take a billion years to reach us from a distant galaxy, to the photon it took no time at all. The trip was instantaneous and it existed everywhere along it's path at the same time. Not only can it be two places at once but it can and is everywhere at once. It doesn't make sense to us 3D beings, but it is. I like to think of it as "Instantaneous travels at 300,000 k/sec or c to us. That is our limit and constant not the cosmos's.
mentat
"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
royce[;)]
Locutus
Apr28-03, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by wimms
Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.
Okay, but as soon as you remove time, 1 time dimension no longer remains. The best example is to imagine a universe with one time and one space dimension. If you remove either dimension, existence as we know it disappears. What makes time unique is that we can't remove any time dimensions because (according to you) there must be one that always remains. We can remove some spatial dimensions (as there are three of them), but not all of them. It seems like you are trying to say that time dimensions are somehow more fundamental to existence than space dimensions, where as I am saying this only seems this way because we have 1 time dimension and 3 space...
You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And thats possible only when computer clock is restarted.
However, running that program on two different computers may yield two different results, meaning that multiple outcomes are possible. If you hadn't observed the results of the program, all outcomes would exist simultaneously as they would be in a state of quantum flux, until of course they are observed, the wave function breaks down, and a definite outcome emerges (Schrodinger's cat again).
To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form.
Now we're speaking the same language! You said in a previous post that detection is interaction, and I was saying that something must be detected to definitely exist. So we finally agree. [a)]
Originally posted by Royce
We can't prove that time has always existed. At the instant of The Big Bang nothing existed but energy at infinite temperature and density. No matter or mass existed and there was no dimention to the singularity, just a mathematical point. Did spacetime exist? I don't think so. I don't think that spacetime existed until after inflation and matter or mass started to form out of the expanding and thus cooling singularity. I believe that only then did space, time, dimension, location and direction come into existance.Sigh. I know its hard to talk about time. Especially talking about not time. Lets see how well did you manage to get away without time.
At BB instant - temporal, ok zeropoint. Existed nothing but energy - so, energy already existed? temporal concept. Energy - concept requires interaction to have meaning. Temperature - concept requires motion. Density - spatial concept. No "spacetime existed until after inflation" - until after is temporal concept. existed is temporal concept. Not exist until - contradiction. Inflation - verb, requires time. "matter started to form", expansion, cooling - all verbs requiring concept of time. And only then did time come into existence? hmm...
Imho, best you can, is start like this: First, nothing existed. (It sucked.) So, Time began. (..and it was good) Then singularity appeared. Then dimensions appeared. Then bang, it diversified into holy universe. Concept of energy and temperature appeared. Local density, cooling, inflation. (damn, almost like bible.)
Note that density of universe is still infinity, its still perhaps singularity, temperature is still infinite, etc. Its just we happen to exist in some arbitrary range of all of this, and perceive some local fluctuations as our reality, maybe falling down some entropy gradient perceiving phase shifts ala cooling and lumping of matter.
So here we are. If there ever was beginning, then it had to begin with time. Then there was 1 thing - singularity that existed (omm). Then it split into parts. Problem with this: its a creation. Hastalavista energy conservation laws.
Also remember that we are 3 dimentional beings and cannot preceive nor conceive of four or more dimentional spacetime. Things pop into and out of our 3 dimentional universe without our being able to "see" where they came from or where they went and though a photon may be seen by us to take a billion years to reach us from a distant galaxy, to the photon it took no time at all. The trip was instantaneous and it existed everywhere along it's path at the same time. Not only can it be two places at once but it can and is everywhere at once. It doesn't make sense to us 3D beings, but it is. I like to think of it as "Instantaneous travels at 300,000 k/sec or c to us. That is our limit and constant not the cosmos's. [/B]Why you think we can't conceive 4th dimension? Have you ever played 3D games on your computer? Had a sensation of depth? You played it on 2D monitor. Technique called projection. In 3D world, you can happily watch 4D movie and it'll actually make sense. What would you think, why any string theory of the week has all those upper dimensions curled into planck size? They are not here.
Well, I can perfectly understand and even agree, that photon with 0 time feels like it travels at infinite speed. Problem with that photon being everywhere at once is that its enough to have single one for the whole universe. God maybe, the overseer? [8)]
Originally posted by Locutus
It seems like you are trying to say that time dimensions are somehow more fundamental to existence than space dimensions
However, running that program on two different computers may yield two different results, meaning that multiple outcomes are possible. If you hadn't observed the results of the program, all outcomes would exist simultaneously as they would be in a state of quantum flux, until of course they are observed, the wave function breaks down, and a definite outcome emerges (Schrodinger's cat again).
Now we're speaking the same language! You said in a previous post that detection is interaction, and I was saying that something must be detected to definitely exist. So we finally agree. [a)] But of course detection is interaction. How else can you detect anything? I don't even see now where the disagreement was..
Yes I'm trying to say that time is more fundamental. It actually creates all other spatial dimensions (And 3 are sufficient, but thats opinion). If you think of 1D line as of mathmatical concept, then its possible abstraction, but it cannot exist as reality. There is no way to detect any distinguishable points on it without concept of time. As soon as concept of time emerges, its minimal "planck" time creates distinguishable points, and arbitrary "lightspeed" to detect them.
I don't understand why are you fascinated by that poor cat. Computer program is not quantum flux, its perfectly and completely deterministic system whose outcome can be reproduced indefinitely with completely predictable results. What I was talking about is program, algoritm, and its execution steps as concept of time. objects inside the program are those that "exist". Think of your favourite 3D game.
Originally posted by wimms
No existence in our familiar form. That does not warrant idea that no existence is possible. Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.
Besides spatial dimensions, you can imagine arbitrary number of any other dimensions, like imagine computer program - its in its own "space", in this case space is freedom of states, possibilities. And computing steps are interactions that can be assigned notion of particles or forces, and they exist in that computer time. Dimensionality of such computer can be made arbitrariliy large, and it has not even close resemblence to our spatial dimensions. When you stop that computer time, these particle cease to exist, and only single state remains. You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And thats possible only when computer clock is restarted. And for particle inside computer program, there is no way to detect whether time runs or is stopped. The only thing what particle can detect is interaction _when_ time runs. For it, to exist is to have computer time running. Same for us, to exist _requires_ concept of time and interaction. For computer program, to jump in time means skipping series of cause/effect interactions and start interacting with something that doesn't exist yet or anymore. Not only does this scrap causality, it simply doesn't make sense.
Multiple time dimensions is as meaningless as multiple lengths. You can introduce as many as you like, it does not change essence of the concept, it remains unique.
Possiblity: I imagine that I'm god and destroy that universe. Do you feel anything? Is that possibility "real"? Why is it not possible? Because we live in _real_ world? What makes it real? Constraints to possibilities? Okay, is there such a law of nature that forbids wimms to destroy universe? No, but there are laws of nature that states that to do that, you'd need to spend energy - interact. And they state that wimms has not even pion's chance in myuon's *** to kick the universe. Therefore we safely conclude, that this imagination is not real. But I conceive it, perfectly vividly. Its here, it exists! So what? It has no capacity to interact with real world. Therefore, it does not exist. There exist my braincells, that fired this way for duration of this post, they are real, but not the imagination. When I'm finished, horrible image of wimms destroying universe ceases to exist even in my imagination. And definitely its not something that could exist separately from my delusion.
See? To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form. You might imply that now that I've written that delusion down, it exists on this forum in electronic shape. But its not what I imagined. What you perceive is delusion crap of somebody who'd better be drunk. And thats what it is - useless crap not end of world. But if you'd truely perceive sky crushing down on you, it would be real. Thing is what it appears to other thing to be.
There is a difference between imaginary delusions and real world out there. Imaginary delusions are limited by your own constraints only, real world limits you with requirement to interact in frame of laws we are trying to find out. As long as this universe is causal and logical, there is no room for "all possible universes", there is only one, here and now, constrained by only one possible direction of time - from past to future by means of cause/effect interactions.
To add here, consider abstract ideas, like geometric point, or line. Are they real? Do they exist? In our delusions, yes, but in universe out there - no, they don't exist. We can model world around us by using our imaginary shapes, but that doesn't make our imagination real, its merely description of something out there.
Time as coordinate dimension is of that kind - its is convenient to use it as spatial dimension, because this allows us to compute formulas, but it doesn't mean you can move on it the same way as you move in space.
As to multiple histories, they can't exist concurrently. To exist means to interact, if they don't interact they don't exist. You can shape the world around you, if you have free will, and this way decide which way your history develops, but there is no way you could swap your reality, much the same way as wimms cannot destroy universe, or how single value of variable in computer program cannot arbitrarily and acausally change whole state or even structure and program of the supercomputer. The only way how you could escape into other universe is via imagination. This is apparently perfectly possible, as we can learn from institutions with soft walls.
You are wrong here. Concepts that exist within my mind, right now, do exist. They are not physical, but they do require physical interaction (of neurons) to be produced. They don't exist in the past or future, because nothing "exists" in the past or future. For something to be said "to exist", it has to exist in the present.
Originally posted by Royce
mentat
"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
royce[;)]
LOL
Not always. Sometimes the true test of another man's intelligence is how well he can argue with you.
Locutus
Apr28-03, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by wimms
Yes I'm trying to say that time is more fundamental.
Time and space are each definite properties of the universe. To say one is "more fundamental" than the other is just irrelevant. They are both fundamental and crucial to existence.
If you think of 1D line as of mathmatical concept, then its possible abstraction, but it cannot exist as reality. There is no way to detect any distinguishable points on it without concept of time.
You are not looking at the flip side of things. If there was no space, there would be no points to detect in the first place! The bottom line is: BOTH TIME AND SPACE ARE EQUALLY FUNDAMENTAL TO EXISTENCE!
As far as the computer program analogy goes, if you meant to describe a program in which the same outcome is arrived at each time, this is not an accurate analogy because the universe cannot be predicted in the same way that a computer program can. Maybe I just don't see your message behind the example of the computer program in the first place.
Originally posted by Locutus
Time and space are each definite properties of the universe. To say one is "more fundamental" than the other is just irrelevant. They are both fundamental and crucial to existence.
You are not looking at the flip side of things. If there was no space, there would be no points to detect in the first place! The bottom line is: BOTH TIME AND SPACE ARE EQUALLY FUNDAMENTAL TO EXISTENCE! Of course I am looking for both sides. Its not irrelevant, because you can have concept of time without geometric spatial dimensions, but spatial dimensions cannot exist without time. Spatial dimensions can only be _imagined_ without time, and even that is illusion, because "to continue to be" (definition of "exist") you need time.
There is another aspect. 1D line has no distinguishable points. Its continuum, and it has infinite number of points between any two you pick, or nothing, ie same point. You need distinguishing criteria, you need detection means. Zero time make no sense, infinite time makes no sense, this leaves finite timestep as the only meaningful concept, and this finite timestep is what quantifies space into distinguishable points. Only after that can you speak of space as of usable reality. Whats more important, if you try to quantify 1D line into points with uniform spacing, you can't do that without uniform time. But even if time is not uniform you have no means to detect that, for you space is uniform, as the only criteria for you is time.
This leads to suspicion that space is perception, not real. But oh well.
I do agree that both are fundamental for existence, but I tend to put time in higher rank of importance.
As far as the computer program analogy goes, if you meant to describe a program in which the same outcome is arrived at each time, this is not an accurate analogy because the universe cannot be predicted in the same way that a computer program can. Maybe I just don't see your message behind the example of the computer program in the first place. Not predictability is important. Concept of time and existence is what I tried to explain. Think of this computer as of universe, and yourself as of creature inside the program. There is no outside. Creature inside cannot know anything about predictability, even uncertainty principle applies to it, because any interaction it makes with other creatures change states of both. But yeah, if it didn't help, then it wasn't a good example. Still, there is notion of space in that program, there is notion of time. But space isn't geometric as in 3D. How it is perceived by creatures inside, is matter of interactions, they might even perceive it as our 3d space.
Originally posted by Mentat
You are wrong here. Concepts that exist within my mind, right now, do exist. They are not physical, but they do require physical interaction (of neurons) to be produced. They don't exist in the past or future, because nothing "exists" in the past or future. For something to be said "to exist", it has to exist in the present. Well, I think you have confusion about concept of exist. What exists, is your neurons, and their state, that both requires energy and generates energy. Concepts you are imagining, have no capacity to generate energy, consume energy, interact with anything, or even sustain their existence on their own.
Its something like arguing about concept of water. Does water exist? sure. So where is fundamental particle of water? ah, its not water that exist, its our abstraction of molecules.
When we talk about existence in universe, we are not talking about all possible abstractions we can arrange from quantums of existence, like when 3 photons for planckscale moment of time happen to be in triangular arrangement, we don't say that triangle exists. Even less can we say that this triangle can interact with square in the future. When you look deeper, you see that the only way to exist is to interact.
And although I agree with your second part about "exist", I suggest to make further distinction between abstract concepts and reality.
ps. no need to quote long posts in full.
Wimms,
You argue semantics and our inability and the limits of our language to speak or write about events that we think happened outside of our normal spacetime. While your logic may be impeccable, it is simply not relevant. Logic, Mathematics, Relativity and probably Quantum Mechanics blow up and become meaningless and incomprehensible inside the event horizon of a black hole much less the singularity itself. Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space. While matter may not be able to exist outside of spacetime energy and gravity apparently can and do.
There are a number of very good books on blackholes, singularities and The Big Bang. I just finished one by John Gribbin "In The Beginning" written for laymen like me who are facinated by science but don't have the math or background to understand highly technical and mathematical writing.
Originally posted by wimms
Well, I think you have confusion about concept of exist. What exists, is your neurons, and their state, that both requires energy and generates energy. Concepts you are imagining, have no capacity to generate energy, consume energy, interact with anything, or even sustain their existence on their own.
This may be the materialist's viewpoint, but it is not necessarily true. Think of this, why does our brain create new synapses, and "fire" neurons, if not to produce "thought"? Thought is not a physical entity, but it is the metaphysical product of the physical action of the brain.
Its something like arguing about concept of water. Does water exist? sure. So where is fundamental particle of water? ah, its not water that exist, its our abstraction of molecules.
But water does exist, and that's the point. As far as matter goes, there are no real molecules either, there are just quark and gluons (or just strings, in my prefered viewpoint). However, the fact that they interact, in a certain matter, produces "water".
When we talk about existence in universe, we are not talking about all possible abstractions we can arrange from quantums of existence, like when 3 photons for planckscale moment of time happen to be in triangular arrangement, we don't say that triangle exists. Even less can we say that this triangle can interact with square in the future. When you look deeper, you see that the only way to exist is to interact.
Yes, and unless concepts interact with physics, such as occurs in the brain, they don't exist either. But the fact that there is an interaction (within the brain) proves that there is [at least conceptual] existence.
And although I agree with your second part about "exist", I suggest to make further distinction between abstract concepts and reality.
I do believe in a distinction between abstract concepts and physical reality. However, I also believe that I'm "really" thinking right now.
ps. no need to quote long posts in full.
I know, I was just in a hurry.
Originally posted by Mentat
This may be the materialist's viewpoint, but it is not necessarily true. Think of this, why does our brain create new synapses, and "fire" neurons, if not to produce "thought"? Thought is not a physical entity, but it is the metaphysical product of the physical action of the brain. Chemistry. Try smoke some good stuff [g)] and you'll see. Metaphysics is quite an area of its own. While discussing fundamental physics, its hard to mix them comfortably. It will lead to pure beliefs and philosophical running circles with strong force. Thought is state or process, and brain is machine that works by its own rules to compare those states. But that'll go too far off topic.
That thought is not physical entity is exactly my point. In same way any abstract concept, like 1D line, can not be physical entity.
But water does exist, and that's the point. As far as matter goes, there are no real molecules either, there are just quark and gluons (or just strings, in my prefered viewpoint). However, the fact that they interact, in a certain matter, produces "water". Exactly, produces abstraction we call water. But its not fundamental. Whole universe we can talk about consists of abstractions we put into hierarchy. While digging into fundamentals, we are trying to dismantle abstractions into anteriority/posteriority relations so we can see what is made of what. While we do so, we continuously find that there is no such "thing" as what we call by our abstraction. But we always, always see that something interacts, and at times forms stable systems we can assign abstract ideas to.
Human thought is extremely unstable "thing", process rather than a product, and needs constant "refreshing" by additional energy shaped to interact in specific manner, constraint by design of our brain.
Yes, and unless concepts interact with physics, such as occurs in the brain, they don't exist either. But the fact that there is an interaction (within the brain) proves that there is [at least conceptual] existence
I do believe in a distinction between abstract concepts and physical reality. However, I also believe that I'm "really" thinking right now.Absolutely. You are thinking. But not concepts you use. They don't think. They don't exist. Its stuff that makes up the concepts that exists. Take for eg. concept of infinite line. It can't exist even in your mind, as your finite number of neurons simply can't represent it. You imagine line by few samples and few properties it would have if it existed. Even here you imagine actually not the concept itself but ingredients of it.
But ok, at least we both agree that to exist something needs to interact.
Originally posted by Royce
Wimms, You argue semantics and our inability and the limits of our language to speak or write about events that we think happened outside of our normal spacetime. While your logic may be impeccable, it is simply not relevant. Logic, Mathematics, Relativity and probably Quantum Mechanics blow up and become meaningless and incomprehensible inside the event horizon of a black hole much less the singularity itself. Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space. While matter may not be able to exist outside of spacetime energy and gravity apparently can and do. Royce, your attitude hurts the spirit. Its essentially giving up before even trying. I really didn't mean to play games with language, although its educating to notice that not even single sentence can be meaningful if it doesn't include concept of time, explicit or implicit.
Theories don't produce understanding, not even explanation. They produce models, internally consistent models, refutable and testable by experiment. Interpretation is done by using philosophy of age, paradigm. Models are round, circular, pretty much indifferent to what is anterior vs posterior. They simply interrelate bunch of simplicities into consistent complexity. Take this simplest formula: v=l/t. There is not even hope to decide which is fundamental of the 3, velocity, distance or time. For this model it is irrelevant. Possibly for any model. But when you move deeper into the hierarchy of abstractions, closer to fundamentals, importance of such ordering becomes relevant. Not too long ago timeflow was considered constant. SR was revolution, and not even now does it go down easily. Back then, it didn't go down at all. After it was proved unrefutable, it started process of paradigm shift, philosophy changed. And its still not done yet - time has lost its respect and is reduced to 4th dimension, even though its still always assumed that timeflow is uniform and even within a reference frame.
Most complex theories produce sideeffects, results that have no sense. There is whole set of rules how to decide when to discard such results as "physically meaningless". When stripped off from all the complex hitech talk, its essentially what is called "common sense". Basically stuff that doesn't fit into framework gets discarded as meaningless. Criteria for decision is existing paradigm. The more beautiful is model of prevailing theory, the harder it is to get paradigm shifted. It takes mad scientist or mad philosopher to do that, and in our times only scientist can possibly do that. But scientist can't do that if he hasn't philosophy ground to think different. So, philosophical and scientific evolution need to progress together.
Models use equations. Equations by their very nature equalize concepts, even if they are in hierarchical relationship. One example of this happening is concept of time that has been equated to dimension. Within framework of model, its irrelevant, and it is useful to think so for sake of computations within layer of abstraction. But meaning to such irrelevance gives human, and here we are, thinking of time as of dimension for travel.
"Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space." You know, this is pretty much definition of time. You can't get rid of it. Its fundamental.
There is something wrong with our current models. Its a fact. These same models predict such incomprehensible things. I'd say we should accept such predictions with caution. Accept, but don't trust. New paradigm shift is around the corner.
Wimms,
The whole point of modern Physics is the common sense doesn't apply anymore nor does it make sense. Relativity whether general or special and Quantum Mechanics are beyoun and outside of everday experience and therefore do not make common sense. The more crazy an idea is the more its is probably right. If it is crazy enough.
Time is not constant nor even flowing but relative and local to the given reference set. That was one of the major features of GR. Time is relative to the observer. Time does not flow smooth at the quantum level just as spacetime is not smooth at the quantum level but is quantumized.( I still don't know if that's a word or not.)
I beleive that spacetime is a function or characteristic of mass/matter based somewhat on what little I know and understand of string theory. Until matter begins to form out of the expanding and thus cooling energy inside a, the, singularity there is no spacetime within the singularity. As mass/matter forms it also forms dimensions. What is the number now, 11+? Of these dimenions are the four that we experience directly and know as spacetime. If a void contains no matter then it is my beleif that it contains no space, no time, no spacetime and is total infinity without constraints or limits and as they pointed out in "MenIn Black" "Size doesn't matter." It is totally irrelevent.
Once again Common Sense does not and cannot apply because such conditions are forever totally outside human experience and human experience is what Common Sense is bases on.
I cannot write or talk without words that have time/duration connotation; but, that connotation does not apply in this context.
Mentat,
To get back to the your original point, "Why we can't go back." If we were really 4-D beings and could see time just as we see east or west or up or down and you, traveling forward in time, watched me traveling backward in time; you would see me NOW at point A, then I would also appear at point B somewhere in your past, being both places, A, NOW and B,PAST at the same time. I would then disappear
from point A, NOW and continue on from B, PAST. Impossible and incomprehensible to you, of course. However to me, traveling backward it time in reference to your time and place, it would be perfectly normal and natural, an orderly and timely progression from A, my NOW to B, my FUTURE.
Time, like space is relative to the observer. I'm not saying that it is physically possible, I don't know but I believe it would involve have an intrinsic velocity greated the C. Fortunatly or perhaps unfortunately, again depending on your point of view or mind set, we are not truly 4-D being but only 3-D beings and while we live in TIME and know we live in TIME we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane.
PS I'm not even sure I understand what I just said/wrote. Your thoughts and comments, please!
Originally posted by Royce
[B]Mentat,
To get back to the your original point, "Why we can't go back." If we were really 4-D beings and could see time just as we see east or west or up or down and you, traveling forward in time, watched me traveling backward in time; you would see me NOW at point A, then I would also appear at point B somewhere in your past, being both places, A, NOW and B,PAST at the same time. I would then disappear
from point A, NOW and continue on from B, PAST. Impossible and incomprehensible to you, of course. However to me, traveling backward it time in reference to your time and place, it would be perfectly normal and natural, an orderly and timely progression from A, my NOW to B, my FUTURE.
Exactly. "Your future". This means that you are not traveling to the past, but to the future.
Time, like space is relative to the observer. I'm not saying that it is physically possible, I don't know but I believe it would involve have an intrinsic velocity greated the C. Fortunatly or perhaps unfortunately, again depending on your point of view or mind set, we are not truly 4-D being but only 3-D beings and while we live in TIME and know we live in TIME we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane.
PS I'm not even sure I understand what I just said/wrote. Your thoughts and comments, please!
I don't really know the point you are trying to get at either. First you seem to deny that time is a dimension. Then you say that "we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane". I'm just confused. We call it "spacetime" because we are including time (obviously). Thus is must be four-dimensional, unless you think there are only two dimensions of space.
Originally posted by wimms
Chemistry. Try smoke some good stuff [g)] and you'll see. Metaphysics is quite an area of its own. While discussing fundamental physics, its hard to mix them comfortably. It will lead to pure beliefs and philosophical running circles with strong force. Thought is state or process, and brain is machine that works by its own rules to compare those states. But that'll go too far off topic.
That thought is not physical entity is exactly my point. In same way any abstract concept, like 1D line, can not be physical entity.
Says who? A 1-d line can be a physical entity, and must be for string theory to be correct.
You say that Chemistry is the reason that synapses connect, and neurons "fire". However, you still have yet to explain why, when I think of something, a change occurs in my brain. Unless the change is an interaction between my thought and the physical brain, then I don't see any explanation.
Exactly, produces abstraction we call water. But its not fundamental. Whole universe we can talk about consists of abstractions we put into hierarchy. While digging into fundamentals, we are trying to dismantle abstractions into anteriority/posteriority relations so we can see what is made of what. While we do so, we continuously find that there is no such "thing" as what we call by our abstraction. But we always, always see that something interacts, and at times forms stable systems we can assign abstract ideas to.
OK, so you are a fundamentalist, right? I can respect that. However, that doesn't mean that "thought" doesn't exist, any more than it means that "water" doesn't exist. Yes, I am the same (at the subatomic level) as a piece of would, except that the interaction is different. That is also the difference between a subconscious process of the brain, and a conscious "thought". The interaction is different. That's what seperates one "thing" from another.
Absolutely. You are thinking. But not concepts you use. They don't think. They don't exist.
Then water doesn't exist either? Think about it. You are the one who said that water must be an abstract concept, if your reasoning is taken as true.
But ok, at least we both agree that to exist something needs to interact.
Yes, and thoughts interact.
chosenone
Apr30-03, 01:33 PM
If you were able to build a time machine to go back in time.what would happen even if you could turn back time,would be that the time machine will function as it travels back in time,until it was turned on or even build.then it would stop going back,every time you turn it on,it would turn off.no matter what thats all that would happen.
killacali
Apr30-03, 01:34 PM
i went back in time the other day mutha****a
killacali
Apr30-03, 01:37 PM
**** you nerds, get the computer and get some pussy
killacali
Apr30-03, 01:39 PM
i mean subtracting myself from this time
chosenone
Apr30-03, 01:43 PM
well if were going to go there.then lets define what we mean by going back in time.do we mean tuning everything back at once,or do we mean pulling your self,or subtracting your self from this time line,and dropping in on another.if your turning back time in reference to everything at once.every time you turn the time machine on,it would go back until it was turned on.so it would turn off every time you turned it on.but if you want to subtract yourself from this time line and drop in on another.then thats where paradoxes come in.you and the time machine did'nt exist in that time,and would change the whole universe by putting matter into play,colliding with events that would send the universe in a new direction.you would'nt even have to change a event to do it.you would breath air.those atoms were meant to go somewhere else.the energy you used from food would be burning,giving off heat,tranferring it to the air,thus changing the momentum.would the universe allow such a thing,and if it did why would you do it?there would be nothing left of the world you came from,even if you did'nt change something that brought your life into being.
Welcome to the PFs, killacali. Perhaps you haven't yet read the rules for posting. I suggest that you read them soon. They are here: http://www.physicsforums.com/misc/guidelines.html
Originally posted by Mentat
Says who? A 1-d line can be a physical entity, and must be for string theory to be correct. . I express my opinion. 1D line is infinite continuum of size=zero points with specific geometric shape - straight. Anything to be found in real world will be necessarily consisting from finite stuff.
You say that Chemistry is the reason that synapses connect, and neurons "fire". However, you still have yet to explain why, when I think of something, a change occurs in my brain. Unless the change is an interaction between my thought and the physical brain, then I don't see any explanation. This is metaphysics. If you like, we can start new thread on that. But have it ever crossed your mind that change might occur first in your brain, and only then do you feel that excitationg as "thought"? That you might be just complex machine?
OK, so you are a fundamentalist, right? I can respect that. However, that doesn't mean that "thought" doesn't exist, any more than it means that "water" doesn't exist. Yes, I am the same (at the subatomic level) as a piece of would, except that the interaction is different. That is also the difference between a subconscious process of the brain, and a conscious "thought". The interaction is different. That's what seperates one "thing" from another. Not sure what you mean by fundamentalist. I like to think I'm openminded person. Like to ponder about fundamental questions.
One must make distinction between process of thought, and subject of thought.
Yes, now you approach it. Stuff is all same, interactions work out different. Your brain is all same, but excitations are different, and so your thoughts. Stable conglomerates of interactions that can be destroyed and built by means of interaction, is what we call objects. We perceive them through interaction, assign them properties and call them names, notice repeating number of such objects, and generalise them into abstract ideas. We say they exist, to talk about them, to have mental pictures of them. What infact exists, is stuff in permanent interaction supporting ongoing existence of that conglomerate we call names. Then, we go on and imagine mental picture of whatever weird stuff mathmaticians can ever come up with, that picture being mostly flawed, and work backwards, saying that if we have such abstraction, then it must exist. When we find something that produces even remotely comparable perception and can be called with same name as our imagination, we say bingo. Sometimes, we continue to search for impossible images, sometimes, after bingo, what we imagine and what is out there have nothing in common except similar perception.
Then water doesn't exist either? Think about it. You are the one who said that water must be an abstract concept, if your reasoning is taken as true. But of course water as concept alone does not exist. There is a fluid, h20 that consists of molecules and hell knows what, that we call for short - water. What we call water, might be perceived more like air to some (fish), snow, ice, vapour, plasma, empty space, field, sound, whatelse. But not that is important how we call it or how we perceive it. Important is that we observe it by interacting. Which water? seawater, peewater, lakewater, rainwater? What is concept of water? Any water? how can you interact with any water? You need the thing, you look, sniff, taste, touch it to make sure you are not going to drink gasoline. You interact with the real thing that exists, and then say yeah, huh, its just water. There is a direct correspondance between what we both think of water and what we can go an touch. When you tell me that you've got 1D infinite line and thus infinite amount of 0D points, then geez, can I taste some?
Why need that splitting hair? To have criteria for decision what is possible in nature and what is not. To exist means to physically interact somehow. And perhaps be dismantable to finite ingredients. At least when we talk about sub-object levels.
Mentat,
First of all let me say that I agree completely with you that we can't go back time time, nor forward for that matter faster than our normal procession but for different reasons. We can't go back not because doing so would create paradoxes or is illogical but because it is physically impossible so far as I know and understand. It is not allowed. It's against the rules or would violate the laws of physics as we know them.
Second, Though I may not have been clear in what I wrote; I do think that time is the forth dimension and is a dimenion in spacetime the same as the other three spatial dimentions. The point that I was trying to make is that while we all have three degees of freedom in the spatial dimensions we do not have any degee of freedom in the temporal dimension.
We can all move and see and effect anything and everything in the "normal" 3 dimensions of space. Standing still in one spot I have only to turn my head to see anywhere in all the other dimensions and I can move in any direction as far and as fast as it want within the physical limits of my ability and the limit of C. Within this 3-D space I can and do effect or influence and change other objects. This is what I mean by three degrees of freedom.
However, in the 4th dimension we do not have any freedom of movement, sight or effect what so ever. We are constrained to move in only on direction smoothly at a constant velocity along the time dimension. We cannot see into the past or future. We cannot move into the past or future nor can we have any effect on anything in the past or future. This is what I me when I say we are 3-D beings living existing in a 4-D universe. Persumably or theoretically a truly 4-d object or being would be able to see and move in all four dimensions as freely as we move in three.
To make it easier to understand, for the sake of discussion, let's condense our 3 dimensions into 2 so that we are 2-D beings existing in a 2-d plane, a sheet of paper, if you will. We can move, see, effect anything on the plane but can never move, see or effect anything not on that plane. The 4th dimension, time, is of course perpendicular to the plane and every point on the plane. The plane and we and everything else on the plane are moving smoothly in one direction at constant velocity along the time dimension, setting aside relativity for the moment. The only place that we can see of effect anything of that dimension is at the point that it intersects and coinsides with the plane that we are on, the plane of our existance. Anything and everything else along the time axis is off of the plane therefore beyound our sight, experience and effect.
Now back to the real 4-D world. Anything and everything all the time axis is off, outside, beyound our 3-D plane of existance except where the time axis intersects and coinsides with our 3-D plane of existance. That intersection is what we call NOW and is the only place that we can exist, see, touch or effect. This is what I mean by saying the we are 3-D beings living in a 4-D universe.
I hope that this makes the point that I'm trying to make clearer. We cannot move in time in ether direction faster or slower than we are without moving out of or off of our only plane of existance. It isn't allowed. It's against the rules and would violated the Laws of Physics and existance.
I apologize for this being so long but I could think of no other way of saying it to make it hopefully clearer.
chosenone
May1-03, 10:06 AM
if you were to try to turn back time.when you get atoms to move backwards,you need to get the electromagnetic fields to be re absorbed by the atoms,even if you can do that,you have to make the universe that is expanding,shrink back down to what it was,at the time you wants to stop at was.since we can't know whats making the universe boundries expand.you can't be sure you could get it to.just so you could travel back!gravity is'nt even doing it!
Originally posted by wimms
I express my opinion. 1D line is infinite continuum of size=zero points with specific geometric shape - straight. Anything to be found in real world will be necessarily consisting from finite stuff.
An infinite line is composed of "finite stuff". It's composed of infinite spaces (each of which are finite). Besides, there is no empircal or logical reason to assume that all physical things must be finite.
This is metaphysics. If you like, we can start new thread on that. But have it ever crossed your mind that change might occur first in your brain, and only then do you feel that excitationg as "thought"? That you might be just complex machine?
I am just a complex machine (I don't approve of the word "just" in there, but I agree otherwise). That doesn't mean that the physical interaction within my brain doesn't produce thought (any less than Oxygen and Hydrogen interactions can produce water).
Not sure what you mean by fundamentalist. I like to think I'm openminded person. Like to ponder about fundamental questions.
One must make distinction between process of thought, and subject of thought.
When I said "fundamentalist" I meant someone who believes that all theories should describe things at the smallest level. The actual word is "reductionist", and that's the kind of theory that QM (for example) is. However, there are other kinds of theory, such as Relativity (which - I think - is considered a holositic theory).
Yes, now you approach it. Stuff is all same, interactions work out different. Your brain is all same, but excitations are different, and so your thoughts.
Then why in the world do you disagree that "thoughts" exist?
Stable conglomerates of interactions that can be destroyed and built by means of interaction, is what we call objects. We perceive them through interaction, assign them properties and call them names, notice repeating number of such objects, and generalise them into abstract ideas. We say they exist, to talk about them, to have mental pictures of them. What infact exists, is stuff in permanent interaction supporting ongoing existence of that conglomerate we call names. Then, we go on and imagine mental picture of whatever weird stuff mathmaticians can ever come up with, that picture being mostly flawed, and work backwards, saying that if we have such abstraction, then it must exist. When we find something that produces even remotely comparable perception and can be called with same name as our imagination, we say bingo. Sometimes, we continue to search for impossible images, sometimes, after bingo, what we imagine and what is out there have nothing in common except similar perception.
Now remember, I'm not saying that all of the things that we imagine can exist physically. I'm saying that they already exist, as concepts. I'm saying that a concept exists in exactly the same way as any other compound, caused by the interaction of subatomic particles.
When you tell me that you've got 1D infinite line and thus infinite amount of 0D points, then geez, can I taste some?
I didn't say it consisted of 0d points.
Why need that splitting hair? To have criteria for decision what is possible in nature and what is not. To exist means to physically interact somehow. And perhaps be dismantable to finite ingredients. At least when we talk about sub-object levels.
Exactly. And "thoughts" fit all of the criteria quoted above.
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat,
First of all let me say that I agree completely with you that we can't go back time time, nor forward for that matter faster than our normal procession but for different reasons. We can't go back not because doing so would create paradoxes or is illogical but because it is physically impossible so far as I know and understand. It is not allowed. It's against the rules or would violate the laws of physics as we know them.
I agree. I don't see the point in speculating about the paradoxes that it causes, when it's not physically possible anyway. However, there are those that believe that it is physically possible, so I'm making a case for why it is illogical.
Second, Though I may not have been clear in what I wrote; I do think that time is the forth dimension and is a dimenion in spacetime the same as the other three spatial dimentions. The point that I was trying to make is that while we all have three degees of freedom in the spatial dimensions we do not have any degee of freedom in the temporal dimension.
We can all move and see and effect anything and everything in the "normal" 3 dimensions of space. Standing still in one spot I have only to turn my head to see anywhere in all the other dimensions and I can move in any direction as far and as fast as it want within the physical limits of my ability and the limit of C. Within this 3-D space I can and do effect or influence and change other objects. This is what I mean by three degrees of freedom.
However, in the 4th dimension we do not have any freedom of movement, sight or effect what so ever. We are constrained to move in only on direction smoothly at a constant velocity along the time dimension. We cannot see into the past or future. We cannot move into the past or future nor can we have any effect on anything in the past or future. This is what I me when I say we are 3-D beings living existing in a 4-D universe. Persumably or theoretically a truly 4-d object or being would be able to see and move in all four dimensions as freely as we move in three.
Not necessarily. Provided the dimension serves the purpose of defining our position, it is one of "our" dimensions.
To make it easier to understand, for the sake of discussion, let's condense our 3 dimensions into 2 so that we are 2-D beings existing in a 2-d plane, a sheet of paper, if you will. We can move, see, effect anything on the plane but can never move, see or effect anything not on that plane. The 4th dimension, time, is of course perpendicular to the plane and every point on the plane. The plane and we and everything else on the plane are moving smoothly in one direction at constant velocity along the time dimension, setting aside relativity for the moment. The only place that we can see of effect anything of that dimension is at the point that it intersects and coinsides with the plane that we are on, the plane of our existance. Anything and everything else along the time axis is off of the plane therefore beyound our sight, experience and effect.
Now back to the real 4-D world. Anything and everything all the time axis is off, outside, beyound our 3-D plane of existance except where the time axis intersects and coinsides with our 3-D plane of existance. That intersection is what we call NOW and is the only place that we can exist, see, touch or effect. This is what I mean by saying the we are 3-D beings living in a 4-D universe.
But think of this. We don't exist in the spacial dimensions, except for the part that currently intersects our position, do we?
I hope that this makes the point that I'm trying to make clearer. We cannot move in time in ether direction faster or slower than we are without moving out of or off of our only plane of existance. It isn't allowed. It's against the rules and would violated the Laws of Physics and existance.
I thought General Relativity said that our movement in time changes, inversely proportional to our movement in space.
And a very good one in my opinion. I just want to be sure that you realize that I'm not arguing with you. We can't argue; we agree!
Yes, it defines our poosition but we have no freedom of movement in or on it nor can we see anywhere along it except at that defined position, that instant in time.
Yes again. At any given moment, T axis intersection, we can only be one place, Z, Y, and Z axis intersection; but, that is living within the dimensions. The dimensions are real at least as I think of them not just sets of ordinates that define our position.
I had set aside relativity for this discussion and at any normal velocity the effects are not noticeable and insignificant. However and speeds any significant appoaching C time does change and is relative. Again, if I were in a space ship traveling somewhere near the speed of light I would not notice the difference but you and observer back on eart would see my clocks and me too slowdown. I would not realize any thing differant until I returned to earth and found out it was much later and you were much older than I could accound for, the famous twin paradox.
Originally posted by Mentat
An infinite line is composed of "finite stuff". It's composed of infinite spaces (each of which are finite). Besides, there is no empircal or logical reason to assume that all physical things must be finite. I think there is reason. Why do you need finite "spaces" to construct a line? Is point at position Pi finite?
When I said "fundamentalist" I meant someone who believes that all theories should describe things at the smallest level. The actual word is "reductionist", and that's the kind of theory that QM (for example) is. However, there are other kinds of theory, such as Relativity (which - I think - is considered a holositic theory). No, then I'm not "(dogmatic) reductionist". I believe in newton, I believe in GR, they all model, approximate reality to a reasonable degree of accuracy, within the limits/range of applicability in the hierarchy of abstractions. Theory that would describe all things at smallest levels would be needless for casual application. But it would be closest to understanding what is really out there. All else is just behavioural models that do not touch meanings of their components. Such meaning is given them by man. And it may change every time we find new level of abstraction deeper.
For eg. concept of energy, concept of movement, inertia, mass, vacuum, all may disappear eventually. But there are some concepts that cannot disappear at any level of abstraction. They are known, and they are fundamental.
Then why in the world do you disagree that "thoughts" exist? Because I define "exist" as requirement to interact, physically.
Now remember, I'm not saying that all of the things that we imagine can exist physically. I'm saying that they already exist, as concepts. I'm saying that a concept exists in exactly the same way as any other compound, caused by the interaction of subatomic particles. Ok, maybe we can settle, if we define this:
- To exist physically means to interact with physical entity.
- To exist imaginarily means to interact with imaginary entity.
- Physical entity and imaginary entity cannot interact. They are incompatible.
- Imaginary entities at different levels of abstraction cannot interact.
Would this clarify my position? I'm interested in physical existence. It necessarily underlies any imaginary concept. Imaginary concept without underlying physical existence is not real. If you like, we may talk about "inner space", but keep it separate from universe.
Concept of triangle cannot interact with concept of water.
Concept of size cannot interact with concept of taste.
Concept of point cannot interact with concept of quantum.
Concept of thought cannot interact with neuron. They are at different levels of abstraction and thus incompatible.
I think that even imaginary thoughts at same level can't really interact, because there are only that many ways to communicate your thoughts. Intellects without common perception of world cannot communicate.
Concept of quantum may BEHAVE like concept of point at certain degree of approximation (formal model), but that does not mean that quantum IS point. Assertion that imaginary 1D line is interacting with physical quantums is thus flawed to even start with, for eg. To interact, physical entity must have more properties than definition of 1D line can possibly offer. Fluently such line gets properties like tension, intensity, vibration, volume, etc..
Afaik real theoretics have long ago dropped idea of equating their concepts with reality, instead, they just say that this set of equations best approximates what can be tested by experiment. Assigning physical meaning to these equations is just meant to tease our imagination (which is needed to generate new ideas).
At times, its extremely difficult to see whether concepts are compatible. Thats the art and area where breakthoughs happen - to see ingredients and order them in right hierarchy from most fundamental to most abstract. Most of the time, we are chasing our tail.
Some say that we already long ago had all required ingredients to form TOE, its just that we can't put them together. It will most probably require bend of our beliefs, and thats the most difficult one. "Its not the spoon that you should try to bend, Neo, its you"
As laymen we can't speak formally, shooting equations at each other, thus we are limited to talk at conceptual levels, and its too easy to get into crazy logical flaws. Its even more difficult to avoid than for Phds who can check their reasoning with math (Phds might say: impossible), so we can't really avoid keeping track of what is more fundamental than other. Phds can avoid that, because for them its just equation.
I didn't say it consisted of 0d points.I assumed that. What is definition of line then? Would you construct 3D objects with such lines? How about 3D "line" with finite quants of finite 3D size? how about forgetting that line abstraction and talk about quants?
Originally posted by Royce
And a very good one in my opinion. I just want to be sure that you realize that I'm not arguing with you. We can't argue; we agree!
That's right. I wouldn't argue with my good buddy, would I? [:D]
Yes, it defines our poosition but we have no freedom of movement in or on it nor can we see anywhere along it except at that defined position, that instant in time.
Very true.
Yes again. At any given moment, T axis intersection, we can only be one place, Z, Y, and Z axis intersection; but, that is living within the dimensions. The dimensions are real at least as I think of them not just sets of ordinates that define our position.
Also correct.
I had set aside relativity for this discussion
Then I will do so also. Sorry for bringing it up.
Originally posted by wimms
Because I define "exist" as requirement to interact, physically.
So do I (for the time being).
Ok, maybe we can settle, if we define this:
- To exist physically means to interact with physical entity.
Sure, I can agree with that.
- To exist imaginarily means to interact with imaginary entity.
... and the physical entity of the brain, right?
- Physical entity and imaginary entity cannot interact. They are incompatible.
Why?! You cannot have an imaginary entity, without there first having been a physical interation in the brain.
- Imaginary entities at different levels of abstraction cannot interact.
Why not? I also really don't get what "different levels of abstraction" means.
Would this clarify my position? I'm interested in physical existence. It necessarily underlies any imaginary concept. Imaginary concept without underlying physical existence is not real. If you like, we may talk about "inner space", but keep it separate from universe.
But why? Without the physical (brain) interacting with the conceptual (mind), science could not exist, because we would be unable to ponder anything.
Concept of triangle cannot interact with concept of water.
It can in my (conceptual) mind. Besides, water isn't a concept - it is a physical entity. Subatomic physical things interact a certain way, to produce more advanced physical entities.
Another thing I wonder about: Why is it that you include theoretical particles, such as photons, in your list of "real physical things"?
Concept of size cannot interact with concept of taste.
Concept of point cannot interact with concept of quantum.
Concept of thought cannot interact with neuron. They are at different levels of abstraction and thus incompatible.
Again, why? You haven't given any reason to believe this, and I think I have presented a case toward my opinion (above).
Also, why do you call a neuron a concept?
I think that even imaginary thoughts at same level can't really interact, because there are only that many ways to communicate your thoughts. Intellects without common perception of world cannot communicate.
Yes they can, they just wont know what the other is talking about [;)].
BTW, we could discuss equations if you wanted to, but I don't see how it clears much up, except for the fact that 1D entities can be physical. Actually, the math behind string theory is quite a bit beyond me, so I am rather confined to conceptual speech. But, I'm learnin' [:)].
-- Physical entity and imaginary entity cannot interact. They are incompatible.
Why?! You cannot have an imaginary entity, without there first having been a physical interation in the brain. Maybe its not clear what interaction is? Its what we observe as mutual exchange of energy, within all of the conservation laws.
When you try to imagine nuclear explosion in your head, I'm sure you can get the image. But when you get that image, I'm sure you hometown will not get blown away.. Your imagination does not have influence to not a single atom in your body, its a shadow. Its not even clear what we perceive as thought. But one thing is clear, our thought image can be larger than our brain, it exists in our mind for short time, and is recycled into other thought that engages same amount of neurons, but is magnitudes smaller in any conceptual respect (yet may have more influence on our body, like reverting from concept of infinities to a concept of tits).
-- Imaginary entities at different levels of abstraction cannot interact.
Why not? I also really don't get what "different levels of abstraction" means. something forms what we know as quants. Quants form what we know as atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form chemistry, materials, that form solid and other bodies, bodies form celestrial bodies, they form star systems, galaxies, etc. These examples of abstractions. But they have corresponding physical systems. To say that 1 hydrogen atom interacts with what you call car is nonsense. Or that your car interacts with galaxy. Atom can interact at atom level only, and car at mechanical level.
But why? Without the physical (brain) interacting with the conceptual (mind), science could not exist, because we would be unable to ponder anything. Yes, but not the opposite. Our brain can perfectly exist without our marvellous conceptual mind. Concepts you imagine do not exchange energy with your neurons. Its only neurons that exhange energy.
Shadow of an object does not exchange energy with that object, they don't interact. Shadow is not physical entity, its something else, illusion perhaps. Our mind is able to create those shadows and observe them. That does not make shadows physical.
It can in my (conceptual) mind. Besides, water isn't a concept - it is a physical entity. Subatomic physical things interact a certain way, to produce more advanced physical entities. Water is concept, that has corresponding physical entity. Triangle is concept, that does NOT have corresponding physical entity. Bermuda triangle does have physical entity. How would you make abstract idea to exchange energy with physical entity??
Another thing I wonder about: Why is it that you include theoretical particles, such as photons, in your list of "real physical things"? Did I mention photons? I include all that can exchange energy within laws of conservation. I try to see them in anterior-posterior hierarchy, and judge what are compatible concepts for interaction. Trying to forcibly mate incompatible concepts can lead to weird results, and getting stuck with progress.
There is something wrong at quantum level with our theories. If not anything else, then they are way too complex for levels more fundamental than molecules. Maybe its result of mating incompatible concepts, and missing some intermediate abstractions.
BTW, we could discuss equations if you wanted to, but I don't see how it clears much up, except for the fact that 1D entities can be physical. No, I don't want equations unless they seem important. But I'd like to understand how 1D lines can be physical. I can understand ropes, but 1D lines?
The_Lance
May3-03, 11:18 PM
[g)] You people wrote alot on this topic, it was difficult reading all of it. Though, it was the correct thing to do because a good portion of my view points have already been cleared up by wimms.
Except, wimms, you claim that physical entities can not interact with imaginary entities. If so, then I was wondering why it is that when some people on a perfecly warm day think of the artic, they shiver? Is this not an example of the thought of the artic weather interacting with their physical body?
If you can clarify this maybe I can fully see your perspective of the subject.
I must admit that this forum has made me think of time in new ways, but what I think of as time is something that mimics the properties of a dimension without actully being one. I think that we are being carried though time by means of something like inertia. Once we were set in motion and now we are holding to that tendency to keep going forward. And inertia can't be manipulated (yet[:D] ).
Originally posted by wimms
Maybe its not clear what interaction is? Its what we observe as mutual exchange of energy, within all of the conservation laws.
When you try to imagine nuclear explosion in your head, I'm sure you can get the image. But when you get that image, I'm sure you hometown will not get blown away.. Your imagination does not have influence to not a single atom in your body, its a shadow. Its not even clear what we perceive as thought. But one thing is clear, our thought image can be larger than our brain, it exists in our mind for short time, and is recycled into other thought that engages same amount of neurons, but is magnitudes smaller in any conceptual respect (yet may have more influence on our body, like reverting from concept of infinities to a concept of tits).
Alrighty then. I'll disregard that last sentence.
You are still not seeing my point. A concept interacts with the physical brain, and vice versa. This is evident in the fact that a concept causes an energy/matter reaction to occur in the brain (and possibly other reactions, due to neural stimulus, such as the feeling of anxiety. Think about it.).
something forms what we know as quants. Quants form what we know as atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form chemistry, materials, that form solid and other bodies, bodies form celestrial bodies, they form star systems, galaxies, etc. These examples of abstractions. But they have corresponding physical systems. To say that 1 hydrogen atom interacts with what you call car is nonsense. Or that your car interacts with galaxy. Atom can interact at atom level only, and car at mechanical level.
Why is it that you accept that atoms form these other "concepts" - such as a car - but wont accept that the atoms in the brain form concepts as well?
Yes, but not the opposite. Our brain can perfectly exist without our marvellous conceptual mind. Concepts you imagine do not exchange energy with your neurons. Its only neurons that exhange energy.
Shadow of an object does not exchange energy with that object, they don't interact. Shadow is not physical entity, its something else, illusion perhaps. Our mind is able to create those shadows and observe them. That does not make shadows physical.
Shadows are not physical entities. In fact, they are the absence of the physical entity, light. However, I don't see the relevance of this to your argument.
Water is concept, that has corresponding physical entity. Triangle is concept, that does NOT have corresponding physical entity. Bermuda triangle does have physical entity. How would you make abstract idea to exchange energy with physical entity??
I could make the physical entities in my head (called neurons) exchange energy, merely by thinking about such "concepts". How does that allow for these thoughts to be any less "real" then acual water?
Did I mention photons? I include all that can exchange energy within laws of conservation. I try to see them in anterior-posterior hierarchy, and judge what are compatible concepts for interaction. Trying to forcibly mate incompatible concepts can lead to weird results, and getting stuck with progress.
But photons are energy, and thus they are part of the exchange of energy as well. And yet, they are theoretical, and will remain such forever.
No, I don't want equations unless they seem important. But I'd like to understand how 1D lines can be physical. I can understand ropes, but 1D lines?
Yes, I don't see how that's any harder to believe in than 0d points.
LaplaceOperator
May22-05, 07:34 PM
Let's get this discussion back to physics:
[*Slaps self on head* now I remember why I disagreed with Zefram, when he made (sort of) the same point as Hurkyl is making. It's all in the way we think of time. You see, you can think of time as being like the spacial dimensions, in the sense that if I put something in a certain place (in space), it will still be there when I look away. But this is not how I view time. As I see it, when you continue down the T dimension, everything that you "have done" (past tense) "disappears" (or ceases existing). I say this because, if it were "still happening", then it would be happening in the present, not the past. The past is compose of things that "have happened", it does not contain things that "will happen" or "are happening".
But according to relativity, the thing you call "the T dimension" depends on your frame of reference.
Take the following example from special relativity:
Consider the following two events-
EVENT A - My phone rings at my house, at 9:30 AM.
EVENT B - A meteorite hits Jupiter, at 9:40 AM.
According to an observer on earth, EVENT A occured 10 minutes before EVENT B. But what about an observer travelling at 0.9c from Earth to Jupiter?
You can use the Lorentz Transformation to show that for such an observer, EVENT B would occur over 20 minutes before EVENT A! The order of events is reversed!
How is this possible? Because even in special relativity, two different observers measure time along a different "T dimension". Just like two people who are facing different directions would mean different things when they say "left" and "right".
Of-course, in the narrow framework of special relativity, you can't violate causality. The speed-of-light speed limit prevents you from doing so. But in GENERAL relativity, there are no such limits. By altering the metric of spacetime in just the correct way, you can - in theory - create a reference frame by which some effects preceed their causes. You can - in theory - create a reference frame by which 2005 (on earth) occured before 1980 (on earth).
michael_selway
May24-05, 09:49 AM
I explained the paradox of backward time travel, in the old PFs, and I would like to do so again.
Here is why it is impossible to travel backwards in time (and it doesn't matter how far backwards):
As soon as you travel to a time that is before the exact time when you started traveling, you create paradox. If I start traveling at 5:00 A.M. (I know that using minutes, as a way of measuring exact time, is crude, but it should get the point across), and I travel back to 4:59, I have yet to start traveling. But, if I have yet to start traveling, how did I get to 4:59? The answer: I didn't, it's impossible. Unless someone can prove me wrong, it makes no sense to imply that I can start traveling, after having already arrived at my destination.
Have u guy watched Bak to the future?
when u go back in time there is another u, a younger one
------------------------------------
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=StarWarsEpisode3Clip
btw heres a clip from the movie that i found!
great movie!
Nomy-the wanderer
Jun15-05, 07:19 AM
To apply the special relativity, u need to be close to the speed of light...IF u r fast enough u can travel through some years of future, i'll state the same example again, i u r on a space ship traveling thrpough space in a high speed close to the speed of light for a certain amount fo time, u'll be back on earth after uhumm 5 years for ex. (that's according to u) while probably more than 30 years have passed on earth(i didn't calculate it, depends on the speed of course)
There's a 25 years difference between u and the other people who remained on earth, this means that if it was the eyar 2005 when u did so, then u've traveled to the year 2035 while mit was supposed to be the year 2010 for u..
But u can't go back, u've no way of slowing down, or gettin back in time, because the clock only ticks more seconds and there's no way to make it tick backwards..
hershal
Jun22-05, 05:35 AM
I have not gone thru all the posts in the thread, except the first one and the last one. Accidently I came across a bit of information on BBC, just have a look about wht kind of backwards time travel can be possible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm
PRyckman
Jun23-05, 03:32 PM
No matter where you are in the universe due to relativity compared to energy you are always in the middle. That being said, If you could teleport halfway to the edge of the galaxy, since you'd still be in the middle the universe would only be half as old. The reason this does not create a paradox is because the amount of time you travel back is equal to the time it would take light to travel that distance. Therefor if you teleported one light year away from here you would be one year in the past. It doesn't create any paradoxes because there is no possible way to interact with your past self since you cannot travel faster than light.
Note that teleporting to Earth again from your new point in history would put you even farther back in time and you still couldn't get there any sooner because space would be more condense, and it's speed of expansion greater, it would balance the equation so that you could not get there any faster. I'd love to hear back from some of you on this, I think I found proof of it in E=mc2, a shortword on that
E=mc2 could also be an equation for pi, with c2 being radius
I've thought a lot about what we're missing in that equation, and I think that it is the Grand Unified theory that we all look for. And that there may only be 2 dimensions. Time and direction. Atleast at a sub atomic level. The only reason we perceive 3 dimensions is because of the uncertainty principle. As more and more forms of energy circle around eachother there is increased certainty in they're position and decreased in their momentum, a balance of these two un/certainties allows us to see them as a point and not a direction.
Please feel free to email me, I might not remember to check this site and thread again. Patrick_ryckman@hotmail.com
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.