Is it possible to know the future through a biological mechanism?

[tino lin]

From these discussions, it seem a lot of people accept the idea that time slow down at high velocity. I can't seem to fully accept this fact cause the only proof so far is a delay in the measurement instrument like a machanical clock or light clock with two reflecting mirror, for example. When the measurement instrument is moving at high velocity the error, I think, come from the fact that the measurement instrument is made of moving part. It is time really being delay or the measurement instrument is affected at high velocity? Is there any experiment that prove time is being delay in a biological clock like the twin paradox, unfortunately this kind of experiment is not feasible yet.
If time is really being delay, then a photon that alway travel at C should not age. Does a photon have any decaying property while traveling purely at the speed of light??

 

[wolram]

The thing i find strange is where this relative mass comes from, does the
higgs field monitor particle speed? or do gravitons detect a law breaker and
latch on to halt illegal speed?

 

[Phobos]

Lots of past debates about relativistic mass in PF's Relativity forum. Perhaps rather than thinking of it as actual mass being added, think of it as (1) the change in behavior of matter interaction with spacetime...increased inertia? and (2) which is what an outside observer would measure as increased mass.

 

[George]

Special Relativity is wrong.

Bart Simpson leaves Earth on a skateboard at lightspeed - 670 M MPH, c. He takes with him a wristwatch synchronized on Earth time, (but the synchronisation is largely irrelevant), and 26 cards, each with a letter of the alphabet on them, from A-Z.

He holds up the letter "A" as he leaves Earth. At one minute elapsed time, on his watch, he holds up the letter "B" instead. As he does this, his actions, and the appearance of letter "B", seem to him to happen every bit as quickly as they would on Earth. He sees "B" just about immediately. But on Earth, before we see the letter "B", it takes 1 more minute - the time it takes for light to travel to Earth from Bart.

He continues to hold up a new letter each minute on his watch, so after 26 minutes in his time, he is holding up the letter "Z". But on Earth, we have to wait 26 minutes for the image of "Z" to reach us. For Earthlings, seeing the whole alphabet would have taken 26+25+24+23+22+21+20+ ... +1 minute, (351 minutes), but for Bart, the whole thing took only 26 minutes.

Of course, this assumes that Bart has taken his own local light source with him to illuminate the proceedings. If not, then you can add to the time it would take to see the alphabet from Earth with the time it would take for light to shine from its source (say the Sun) to reach and reflect from Bart.

If Bart took his own light source, and used it to illuminate the righthand side of his body only for example, while the Sun illuminated the lefthand side, and, in between changing his alphabet cards, he clapped his hands, then you would see Bart's right hand making (approximately) twice as many clapping actions as his left hand! This alone drives a coach and horses through Special Relativity, which seems to have escaped simple scrutiny for over 100 years.

As a footnote : "Time" is not warped, dilated, stretched, shortened nor anything else. Since nothing can travel faster than light or EM waves, no physical or other process can progress in less than one photonic wave period. No synapse can exchange chemicals, no atomic particle physcially move position, fission or fuse, no politician be elected, no bird sing, no chemical reaction take place, in less than one photonic emission cycle. This *guarantees* that light captures every physical change observable at the photonic interface of any object.

 

[meaticus]

Special Relativity is wrong.

Bart Simpson leaves Earth on a skateboard at lightspeed - 670 M MPH, c. He takes with him a wristwatch synchronized on Earth time, (but the synchronisation is largely irrelevant), and 26 cards, each with a letter of the alphabet on them, from A-Z.

He holds up the letter "A" as he leaves Earth. At one minute elapsed time, on his watch, he holds up the letter "B" instead. As he does this, his actions, and the appearance of letter "B", seem to him to happen every bit as quickly as they would on Earth. He sees "B" just about immediately. But on Earth, before we see the letter "B", it takes 1 more minute - the time it takes for light to travel to Earth from Bart.

He continues to hold up a new letter each minute on his watch, so after 26 minutes in his time, he is holding up the letter "Z". But on Earth, we have to wait 26 minutes for the image of "Z" to reach us. For Earthlings, seeing the whole alphabet would have taken 26+25+24+23+22+21+20+ ... +1 minute, (351 minutes), but for Bart, the whole thing took only 26 minutes.

Now Bart, remembering that Homer's bringing pizza home for dinner, turns arround and heads back, repeating the aphabet thing, and hoping he makes it back before Homer eats all the pizza. The same times will apply as he returns - 26 more minutes for him, 351 more minutes for Lisa (and Homer, who got tired of waiting and went to eat some pizza).
When he gets back, his watch says that 52 minutes have elapsed, and Lisa's has advanvanced 702 minutes. Bart is 52 minutes older, the Earth is 702 minutes older.
And the pizza is gone.

 

[tino lin]

As a footnote : "Time" is not warped, dilated, stretched, shortened nor anything else. Since nothing can travel faster than light or EM waves, no physical or other process can progress in less than one photonic wave period. No synapse can exchange chemicals, no atomic particle physcially move position, fission or fuse, no politician be elected, no bird sing, no chemical reaction take place, in less than one photonic emission cycle. This *guarantees* that light captures every physical change observable at the photonic interface of any object.

If this universe is created or simulated it seem like the cpu cycle is
f = c/wavelength of photon. And the tick of time would be 1/f.

 

[George]

The cumulation I proposed is wrong actually. The alphabet gets seen on Earth and by Bart both in 26 minutes. When he returns home, 52 minutes elapsed on all clocks, and he gets the pizza.

 

[Arctic Fox]

So, time doesn't matter...

 

[George]

I am personally not sure about what you mean by time not mattering. I think that time passes at the same rate wherever you are and whatever you are doing, or whatever speed you are traveling at. It only looks like events speed up or slow down as light receded or advances from the source. The passage of Time, and how "quickly" events appear to happen are not related.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Know the future

A quick question that I was wondering. If the brain works sort of like a computer, in that it stores information by creating neural links. Then theoretically speaking if we were able to go into the future and come back we would be able, from a biological point of view, be able to know what happened. The future events would rewire our synapses and we would physically know the future. Well, is it possible for those same synapses to be accidentally linked without any actual experience of the future, it would then be physically possible to know the future. However, as it is irrelevant to the situation and our brains logic circuits would filter any accidental knowledge from reaching our conscious mind. This could potentially happen all the time, but then perhaps a future event fires all the exact same synapses triggering a familiar feeling, (Deja veux). Now, what if in a small segment of the population this foreknowledge was not properly filtered. Would it then, from a physical point of view be possible to know the future?

Just wondering, I may be way off base, I’m a physicist not a neuro-scientist, but your input on this thought would be appreciated.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A quick question that I was wondering. If the brain works sort of like a computer, in that it stores information by creating neural links. Then theoretically speaking if we were able to go into the future and come back we would be able, from a biological point of view, be able to know what happened. The future events would rewire our synapses and we would physically know the future. Well, is it possible for those same synapses to be accidentally linked without any actual experience of the future, it would then be physically possible to know the future. However, as it is irrelevant to the situation and our brains logic circuits would filter any accidental knowledge from reaching our conscious mind. This could potentially happen all the time, but then perhaps a future event fires all the exact same synapses triggering a familiar feeling, (Deja veux). Now, what if in a small segment of the population this foreknowledge was not properly filtered. Would it then, from a physical point of view be possible to know the future?

Just wondering, I may be way off base, I’m a physicist not a neuro-scientist, but your input on this thought would be appreciated.

Yes, this is a common idea. But as a physicist you must know there is no known mechanism by which the acausal modification of our synapses by future information could take place. Neurologists have plausible if not completely rigorous explanations of deja vu.