Time Machine will not be invented

[DaveC426913]

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

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

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

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






See above.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

False.


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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

 

[Time Machine]

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

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

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

But in the mean time...

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

 

[Time Machine]

False.


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

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

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

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

 

[Time Machine]

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

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

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

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

 

[Time Machine]

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

You have already done the math.

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

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

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

This is pollution.

 

[pallidin]

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

 

[quantum1423]

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

 

[dabi]

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

 

[Studiot]

The CIA is hiding all time machines found so far.

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

 

[quantum1423]

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

 

[Ash Small]

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

No, you are completely missing what dave is saying.

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

 

[JDługosz]

No particles can occupy the same point in space time.

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

 

[Ash Small]

No, you are completely missing what dave is saying.

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

Yes, I know this.

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

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

 

[Ash Small]

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

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

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

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

 

[caseytrimble]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ash Small]

Yes, I know this.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JaredJames]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ash Small]

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

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


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

I think the point here is "Is the past fixed, or can it be changed?"

If the past is fixed and you went back in time, you wouldn't be aware of it, as you would be 'reliving' the past exactly as it was.

If it was possible to 'change the past', this would require such a huge amount of instantaneous energy (to re-arrange everything in 'no time at all') that this would contravene everything we know about physics. Unless, of course, we use antimatter (which, apparently, travels backwards in time) to create this energy when it, and the matter it meets, is anhialated.

This then begs the question 'Would we want to be there when all the matter around us is anhialated?'.

Unless, of course, you can come up with an alternative mechanism?

 

[DaveC426913]

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

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

You have it backwards. The title of the thread is a claim. An unfounded one. The onus is one the claimer to back up that claim. Until the OP satisfactorily makes the case why it will not, the default state is that it could.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the past is fixed and you went back in time, you wouldn't be aware of it, as you would be 'reliving' the past exactly as it was.

This is not true.

You do not understand the conventional concept of "going back in time". It is implicit in the concept that one experiences the event.

If it was possible to 'change the past', this would require such a huge amount of instantaneous energy (to re-arrange everything in 'no time at all') that this would contravene everything we know about physics.

This is utterly wild speculation and wishful thinking. There is no reason to suppose any of that must be true or is even likely true.

As an argument it makes no sense as a way of refuting the possbility of time travel. I could make just as strong (weak) a claim that time travel uses no energy (or generates energy) and you have no way of refuting it any more than I do yours.

But I am not making a claim that something must (or can not) be so, so I don't need to make a case. I need only show that there's nothing preventing time travel.

 

[Ash Small]

This is not true.

You do not understand the conventional concept of "going back in time". It is implicit in the concept that one experiences the event.


This is utterly wild speculation and wishful thinking. There is no reason to suppose any of that must be true or is even likely true.

As an argument it makes no sense as a way of refuting the possbility of time travel. I could make just as strong (weak) a claim that time travel uses no energy (or generates energy) and you have no way of refuting it any more than I do yours.

But I am not making a claim that something must (or can not) be so, so I don't need to make a case. I need only show that there's nothing preventing time travel.

Dave, are you saying that, unless some-one proves otherwise, time travel IS possible, or that, like Shroedinger's cat, the probability that time travel is EITHER possible or not possible is equal to one? (ie, the CONCEPT of time travel is both alive and dead at the same time)

I'd argue that time travel is not possible unless someone proves otherwise.

 

[JaredJames]

I'd argue that time travel is not possible unless someone proves otherwise.

But that's just the point though isn't it. You can argue what you like, but there is no evidence either way. For every argument you can provide against time travel, there is a counter-argument which circumvents that issue and allows it.

The OP made a statement and this thread has been a discussion of this statement (or should have been). We aren't here to debate is or isn't it possible. We are here to either explain a) why the OP is correct or b) why it is incorrect based on current hypothesis for/against time travel. Not to debate whether or not it is possible - this cannot happen for the reason given above.

Now you may not like what I've said above, but unless you have some revolutionary new evidence which shows it is not possible, you're arguments are equally as speculative as those in favour of time travel.

 

[Ash Small]

But that's just the point though isn't it. You can argue what you like, but there is no evidence either way. For every argument you can provide against time travel, there is a counter-argument which circumvents that issue and allows it.

The OP made a statement and this thread has been a discussion of this statement (or should have been). We aren't here to debate is or isn't it possible. We are here to either explain a) why the OP is correct or b) why it is incorrect based on current hypothesis for/against time travel. Not to debate whether or not it is possible - this cannot happen for the reason given above.

Now you may not like what I've said above, but unless you have some revolutionary new evidence which shows it is not possible, you're arguments are equally as speculative as those in favour of time travel.

Jared, if I argue that there is no evidence that a time machine will be invented in the future because no-one has traveled back from the future and that if a time machine were to be invented in the future then there would be evidence of it because people would have traveled back from the future, therefore we know that a time machine will never be invented, would you accept this conclusion?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, are you saying that, unless some-one proves otherwise, time travel IS possible,

No, I am saying that, unless someone proves otherwise, time travel (or anything else) might be possible. That is not a claim, it is simply a statement.

Contrarily, saying that time travel is not possible is a claim, and needs to have a case made for it.

I'd argue that time travel is not possible unless someone proves otherwise.

Fine. Back up your claim. Unless you make the case that it can't be done, the default state is that it might be i.e. we just don't know.

See how the two are not equivalent?

Sally has a marble bag with an unknown number of marbles in it.
Dave claims it may contain marbles.
Ash claims there are no marbles in it.
Dave asks Ash to show how he's sure there are no marbles in it. Ash must make his case. If ash does not show how he's sure, then Dave is correct by default - there might be marbles in it.

Dave has no such obligation to demonstrate that there might be marbles in the bag. It is simply a statement of fact until and unless shown to be otherwise.

("Might" is a very safe and easily defensible stance. It is also noncommital and not very productive for a lively discussion. )

 

[JaredJames]

Jared, if I argue that there is no evidence that a time machine will be invented in the future because no-one has traveled back from the future and that if a time machine were to be invented in the future then there would be evidence of it because people would have traveled back from the future, therefore we know that a time machine will never be invented, would you accept this conclusion?

No. This is purely speculative and not backed up by evidence. We can counter this with:

You're forgetting the whole "you can't travel back any further than when the time machine is activated" hypothesis. We don't have a time machine yet, therefore no one could have come back to tell us it's possible.

Like I said, for every argument against, there's a counter for it. This isn't a debatable topic unless you have some new evidence for/against it that strongly backs up your statement of "it's not possible".

I personally don't care one way or another regarding time travel. If I had to choose it would be 'might be possible' as per Daves post above.

 

[Ash Small]

No, I am saying that, unless someone proves otherwise, time travel (or anything else) might be possible. That is not a claim, it is simply a statement.

Contrarily, saying that time travel is not possible is a claim, and needs to have a case made for it.


Fine. Back up your claim. Unless you make the case that it can't be done, the default state is that it might be i.e. we just don't know.

See how the two are not equivalent?

Sally has a marble bag with an unknown number of marbles in it.
Dave claims it may contain marbles.
Ash claims there are no marbles in it.
Dave asks Ash to show how he's sure there are no marbles in it. Ash must make his case. If ash does not show how he's sure, then Dave is correct by default - there might be marbles in it.

Dave has no such obligation to demonstrate that there might be marbles in the bag. It is simply a statement of fact until and unless shown to be otherwise.

("Might" is a very safe and easily defensible stance. It is also noncommital and not very productive for a lively discussion. )

Dave, if we look in the bag and can't see any marbles we can conclude that there are no marbles in the bag.

Similarly, if we look for evidence that people have traveled back from the future, but can't find any, we can conclude that a time machine will never be invented.

 

[DaveC426913]

Jared, if I argue that there is no evidence that a time machine will be invented in the future because no-one has traveled back from the future and that if a time machine were to be invented in the future then there would be evidence of it because people would have traveled back from the future, therefore we know that a time machine will never be invented, would you accept this conclusion?

I too refute this conclusion.

I agree there we can speculate about why we see no evidence of time travel on our public roads, but that still leads to 'maybe's.

Would a native of Papua New Guinea be able to successfully argue that 'man cannot fly in heavier-than air machines' based on his observation that he's never seen one?

 

[JaredJames]

Similarly, if we look for evidence that people have traveled back from the future, but can't find any, we can conclude that a time machine will never be invented.

Again, see my previous post regarding a potential 'why' this isn't a definite solution to the time travel hypothesis.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree there we can speculate about why we see no evidence of time travel on our public roads, but that still leads to 'maybe's.

Exactly. It's all speculation and thanks to the countless arguments for and against time travel you end up in a loop where there is always one 'out doing' another and allowing it to occur / not occur. All you end up with is maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

 

[DaveC426913]

Exactly. It's all speculation and thanks to the countless arguments for and against time travel you end up in a loop where there is always one 'out doing' another and allowing it to occur / not occur.

Well, it's not all loosey-goosey useless. It is possible that there's a valid argument against time travel but that we just haven't found it yet. Not every avenue ends inevitably in a 'maybe'.

For example, if Ash's PEP argument had been valid, that would have shown that, according to our current understanding of physics, it can't be done (at least until someone found a loophole in the PEP argument).

So there is still value in discussing it.

 

[Ash Small]

I too refute this conclusion.

I agree there we can speculate about why we see no evidence of time travel on our public roads, but that still leads to 'maybe's.

Would a native of Papua New Guinea be able to successfully argue that 'man cannot fly in heavier-than air machines' based on his observation that he's never seen one?

Dave, by saying 'might' you are, by default, arguing that 'it is POSSIBLE that a time machine WILL be invented', yet you don't give any example of accepted scientific theory to back this claim up.

All the evidence we have indicates that the OP was correct in stating 'a time machine will never be invented'.

With all due respect, you are indicating that you are as ignorant as your hypothetical friend from Papua New Guinea.

(The above phrase is used to make a point, and is in no way meant to be taken personally, Dave.)

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, by saying 'might' you are, by default, arguing that 'it is POSSIBLE that a time machine WILL be invented', yet you don't give any example of accepted scientific theory to back this claim up.

All the evidence we have indicates that the OP was correct in stating 'a time machine will never be invented'.

With all due respect, you are indicating that you are as ignorant as your hypothetical friend from Papua New Guinea.

(The above phrase is used to make a point, and is in no way meant to be taken personally, Dave.)

Might goes either way. Just because I think time travel might be invented, doesn't mean I believe it definitely is possible. What you are throwing in there is a red herring by implying that by accepting a possibility you are completely agreeing with it.

What evidence says it isn't possible? You haven't provided any. I really would like to see it. All I've heard so far is speculation on both sides.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, if we look in the bag and can't see any marbles we can conclude that there are no marbles in the bag.

We cannot "look in the bag" when it comes to the invention of time travel. That is the future. We cannot see the future.

Similarly, if we look for evidence that people have traveled back from the future, but can't find any, we can conclude that a time machine will never be invented.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Like I said: is the native of Papua New Guinea correct when he says man cannot fly in heavier-than-air craft?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, by saying 'might' you are, by default, arguing that 'it is POSSIBLE that a time machine WILL be invented', yet you don't give any example of accepted scientific theory to back this claim up.

Don't need to.

All the evidence we have indicates that the OP was correct in stating 'a time machine will never be invented'.

We have zero evidence that it will never be invented.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With all due respect, you are indicating that you are as ignorant as your hypothetical friend from Papua New Guinea.

Yes. We are all ignorant of what will or won't happen in the future. Or do you disagree?

 

[Ash Small]

Don't need to.


We have zero evidence that it will never be invented.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



Yes. We are all ignorant of what will or won't happen in the future. Or do you disagree?

Dave, once again I'm forced to concede that you are correct.

 

[JDługosz]

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

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

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

Actually, both extend to infinity, but one falls off faster than the other. Even considering a useful cut-off for "size", one the smaller one overlaps the larger one. It doesn't cut out a hole or anything.

Consider two electrons in the same ground state, but opposite spin. In the absence of a magnetic field, they will be identical in size and shape, have zero orbital angular momentum and spherical "shape", in the exact same place.

 

[Ash Small]

Actually, both extend to infinity, but one falls off faster than the other. Even considering a useful cut-off for "size", one the smaller one overlaps the larger one. It doesn't cut out a hole or anything.

Consider two electrons in the same ground state, but opposite spin. In the absence of a magnetic field, they will be identical in size and shape, have zero orbital angular momentum and spherical "shape", in the exact same place.

JD, I agree, The radiuses I was quoting were the 'accepted' ones.

There is a problem with my maths as well, the 50,000 I quoted is radius, not volume. I think I need to multiply by 4/3 pi r^3, or something.

While the two electrons you mention do occupy the same space, they do not occupy the same 'state', as they have opposite spin (just clarifying this point following my previous comments regarding PEP).

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, once again I'm forced to concede that you are correct.

It's better this way. Saves a lot of time and heartache.

 

[Magnethos]

Almost 2 months without updating this thread...

Ok, I'm posting again because I saw some interesting information that could be useful to better understand (or not) the possibility of Time Travel. First of all, I think, we need to understand how to travel in the actual spacetime. Once we start to believe in a possible way to travel in the actual spacetime, then we can start speaking about traveling throught time.

Travel at a distance, teleportation, could be possible manipulating a finite amount of mass via electricity. To teleport something from point A to point B, the finite amount of mass needs to be de-materialized in A, and then materialized in B. For that pourpouse you need to understand about Transmutation.

First of all, we could answer to these questions...
1) What is matter?
2) How matter can be altered using electrical energy?

 

[berkeman]

This is silly. Thread locked pending cleanup.