A Meritable Veritable Time Paradox?

In summary, we can't send observers to "catch up" with light rays emitted from past events on Earth, so there's no way for us to see the crucifixion.
  • #1
Gear300
1,213
9
So I stumbled upon this paradox and was wondering what cosmologists had to say about it. For the most part, I take an instrumental view of science. Of course, I accept all scientific histories and truisms as rational touchstone, though I also think we can never be too precocious about the fate of things. A century or so ago, Lord Kelvin commented on the physics of the era without foresight of quantum mechanics. And centuries before that, Aristotle took a teleological perspective of evolution, whereas we flank back on natural selection at the differential level of the gene today. So we can never be too precocious about nature's ethic, though it usually does happen that the quantitative theory of anything wins out. And inasmuch as string theory or other QFTs extrapolate the fate of the universe, I do not coincide them with the fate of things in general. Can physical law churn the ethics of social norms? Could we jot down all the variables behind our decisions on a finite list, Freudian and biological rhythms and all? Stuff like that.

All that aside, it occurred to me that if someone were conveniently placed 2000 or so light years away from Earth, they could possibly observe the Crucifixion. Maybe with a phantasmagorical lenses or maybe with something as simple as an optical lens. At the moment, we flourish a number of modes of historical investigation. Cliodynamics, numismatics, prosopography vs biography, historiography, studies of archaeological cultures, linguistic cultures, philology... Not to mention, we even make use of supplemental sciences such as carbon dating or dendrology when examining tree rings to get a rough date for the Minos eruption. So it occurred to me that if we had the above mentioned lens through time, we would definitely add it to the list.

Should time be sacred? Are our future selves farming our fates? What does our current theory of relativity and optics have to say about it?
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Gear300 said:
I stumbled upon this paradox

Where? Can you give a reference?

Gear300 said:
if someone were conveniently placed 2000 or so light years away from Earth, they could possibly observe the Crucifixion

In principle, yes, if they had a sufficiently powerful telescope. However, that someone could not just go there now. They would have to have been there already when the light rays from the Crucifixion arrived, which means they would have to have left Earth more than 2000 years ago in order to be 2000 light-years away from Earth in time to see those light rays (since they would have to travel slower than light).

Gear300 said:
Maybe with a phantasmagorical lenses

I don't know what these are.

Gear300 said:
if we had the above mentioned lens through time, we would definitely add it to the list

We can't. There is no way to go faster than light, so there is no way for us to send an observer out to "catch up" with light rays emitted from past events on Earth.
 
  • #3
Yes, someone two thousand light years away could in principle observe the crucifixion, although it would only be possible to see parts of it (or maybe all of it at a very steep angle) as the Earth turns and it would turn away from the viewer. Also, there'd be no particular reason for them to be interested in the execution of a preacher in a provincial Roman town, since they wouldn't have any way to know his followers would become what they are today. They would need an unbelievably large telescope, though, on the order of hundreds of thousands of kilometres in diameter at least.

This doesn't do us any good, though, since there's no way for us to build a telescope 2000 light years away without traveling there, which would take more than 2000 years. So you wouldn't even be in time to see your own departure, let alone things that happened millenia ago. Much easier to build cameras closer to home.
 
  • #4
I don't see what's paradoxical about this either, by the way. It's just the same as hearing thunder and knowing that the lightning discharge happened seconds earlier. It's just that you're imagining distances so large that even light takes a while to cross it.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #5
PeterDonis said:
In principle, yes, if they had a sufficiently powerful telescope...

Ibix said:
Yes, someone two thousand light years away could in principle observe the crucifixion...

Well you know, what with worm holes and whatnot. Oh and a link for phantasmagoria and magic lanterns and etc.
 
  • #6
Gear300 said:
Well you know, what with worm holes and whatnot. Oh and a link for phantasmagoria and magic lanterns and etc.
Well, wormholes we can pass through remain under the heading of "there are only a couple of things that seem to be impossible stopping us from doing that". And even if we did that we'd still be faced with the challenge of building a mirror larger than most planets - and that's just to get the resolution. I've no idea if an image would be bright enough to see at that distance.

I don't see the relevance of magic lanterns (projectors, basically). You need a telescope.
 
  • #7
Ibix said:
Well, wormholes we can pass through remain under the heading of "there are only a couple of things that seem to be impossible stopping us from doing that". And even if we did that we'd still be faced with the challenge of building a mirror larger than most planets - and that's just to get the resolution. I've no idea if an image would be bright enough to see at that distance.

I don't see the relevance of magic lanterns (projectors, basically). You need a telescope.
If we could build (or find) a stable wormhole, we wouldn't need to observe, we could go there. (I think. By moving them around, they can be used to make time machines, although I don't know if you can go back in time beyond when they're built.)

Also works if we can build a toroidal black hole. They can be used to travel in a timelike direction and emerge again.

But I like the phrase "there are only a couple of things that seem to be impossible stopping us from doing that".
 
  • #8
Anyway why go back 2000 years? just go `1 light year away and train the telescope on the ticker display outside the NYSE, then you publish the prices and everyone gets rich!
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
  • #9
DaveC426913 said:
If we could build (or find) a stable wormhole, we wouldn't need to observe, we could go there.
I seem to recall a story about time travel tourism, which featured a trip to the time when Pilate release Barabas (or was it Wodewick...?). At some point the protagonists realize it's the Sabbath, all the Jews are at home, and the entire crowd is time travellers calling for Barabas' release because they knew that's what happened...
BWV said:
Anyway why go back 2000 years? just go `1 light year away and train the telescope on the ticker display outside the NYSE, then you publish the prices and everyone gets rich!
That would give you last year's prices, unless you invoke time travel, in which case you don't need to bother with the mirror.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
unless you invoke time travel

Which is, of course, another one of those things that there seem to be only a couple of impossible things stopping us from doing.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #11
Ibix said:
That would give you last year's prices, unless you invoke time travel, in which case you don't need to bother with the mirror.

I packed another fallacy in there as well
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #12
Paradox? I don't see no stinkin' paradox.
 
  • #13
How an engineer (me) reads this, the second time:

So I stumbled upon this paradox and was wondering what cosmologists had to say about it. For the most part, I take an instrumental view of science. Of course, I accept all scientific histories and truisms as rational touchstone, though I also think we can never be too precocious about the fate of things. A century or so ago, Lord Kelvin commented on the physics of the era without foresight of quantum mechanics. And centuries before that, Aristotle took a teleological perspective of evolution, whereas we flank back on natural selection at the differential level of the gene today. So we can never be too precocious about nature's ethic, though it usually does happen that the quantitative theory of anything wins out. And inasmuch as string theory or other QFTs extrapolate the fate of the universe, I do not coincide them with the fate of things in general. Can physical law churn the ethics of social norms? Could we jot down all the variables behind our decisions on a finite list, Freudian and biological rhythms and all? Stuff like that.

All that aside,
it occurred to me that if someone were conveniently placed 2000 or so light years away from Earth, they could possibly observe the Crucifixion. Maybe with a phantasmagorical lenses or maybe with something as simple as an optical lens. At the moment, we flourish a number of modes of historical investigation. Cliodynamics, numismatics, prosopography vs biography, historiography, studies of archaeological cultures, linguistic cultures, philology... Not to mention, we even make use of supplemental sciences such as carbon dating or dendrology when examining tree rings to get a rough date for the Minos eruption. So it occurred to me that if we had the above mentioned lens through time, we would definitely add it to the list.

Should time be sacred? Are our future selves farming our fates?
What does our current theory of relativity and optics have to say about it?

The answer, "not much". Since we don't know what "conveniently" means in this scenario. Also, the field of optics doesn't have much useful information about phantasmagorical lenses.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, Ibix and phinds
  • #14
I am puzzled by the suddent spate of threads that start from not understanding something to "it's a paradox I tells ya! A paradox!"

I am also wondering what this has to do with cosmology.

It's hard to extract meaning from the OP, with all those words in the way, but it seems to be saying in effect that if someone had thoughtfully put a giant mirror up 1000 light years away, one could use it to study 1st century earth. Sure.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
...wondering what this has to do with cosmology.
Considering the OP asked five questions in the last two paragraphs, and all of them are philosophical in nature, I'd say this is binned wrong. But we don't have a Philosophy Forum...
 
  • #16
Philosophy is not flinging words against a wall hoping some will stick.
 
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY and weirdoguy
  • #17
DaveC426913 said:
I'd say this is binned wrong

There is a physics question in the OP, so it isn't entirely philosophical. However, that physics question has been answered, so this thread is now closed.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, weirdoguy and DaveE

1. What is a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox?

A Meritable Veritable Time Paradox is a theoretical concept in which a person or object travels back in time and changes an event that would have led to their own existence. This creates a paradox because if the event is changed, the person or object would not have a reason to go back in time in the first place.

2. How is a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox different from other time travel paradoxes?

A Meritable Veritable Time Paradox differs from other time travel paradoxes because it involves a person or object changing their own past, rather than simply observing or influencing events. It is also unique in that it specifically relates to the existence of the time traveler themselves.

3. Is a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox possible?

There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of time travel, let alone a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox. However, some theories in quantum mechanics and relativity suggest that time travel may be possible in certain circumstances.

4. What are some examples of a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox in popular culture?

One example is the film "Back to the Future," in which the main character travels back in time and accidentally interferes with his parents' first meeting, putting his own existence in jeopardy. Another example is the TV show "Doctor Who," in which the main character's actions often lead to changes in his own past and future.

5. How do scientists explain or resolve a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox?

Since the concept of a Meritable Veritable Time Paradox is purely theoretical, there is no definitive explanation or resolution. Some theories suggest that parallel universes may be created to accommodate the changes made by the time traveler, while others propose that the paradox simply cannot be resolved and would result in a paradoxical loop.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
8K
Back
Top