communicating with the past..

Sneil

This is an article about some scientist who claimes he is/will be able to see and hear into the past. He claims in 20 years we'll have the technology to "talk" to ourselves in the past, say at our desk 30 min earlier and pass on instruction "verbally" through whatever means he claims to possess.

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php...ticle&sid=7467

I know this article is obviously bs as the method he describes to accomplish his theory requires him to virtually rewind matter and extract past physical iteractions from an object. meaning look at the current energetic states of all the atoms in an object and derrive how the atoms current state originated. Sorry to post this but there are people on a non-physics forum i frequent that believe what is being said is possible. I apologize for posting this but my current grasp with physics is not enough to elegantly explain why his proposal is completely impossable. Could someone give a thurough explanation expalining why physically it is not possible?
If it is a complete waste of your time for me to posting this then i apaolgize.
thanks

Ivan Seeking

Okay, so a guy without a name who is unfunded and works alone in his basement says so. Well, I'm convinced.

However, there is no absolute answer as to what is possible here. From what I read of the big names in physics, most people point to various paradoxes that would seem to render travel to the past impossible. However, there are solutions to the equations of General Relativity that suggest time travel to the past might be possible, and people have been playing with this for quite some time now - closed timelike curves. And there are a number of designs for time machines that some qualified people have argued might actually work, so, to the best of my knowledge the door is closing for now but not completely shut on this idea.

Still, the page linked is bogus.

scott1

That sounds like somthing form star trek.

SGT

There is no way to look at the curreny energetic states of the atoms, since it goes against the Principle of Uncertainty. It is all BS.

Sneil

thanks for the replies