Time Machine will not be invented

[Ash Small]

That's kind of my point. It's not that PEP rules out things being in two places at once, it's simply our conventional non-time-traveling physics. Once we posit time travel, we have to re-examine these assumptions about two places at once.


This argument is silly. By your logic, no atom can ever move, since to do so, it might "occupy the same space" as an adjacent atom.

Again, you do not understand PEP. PEP means that two electrons in the same atoms cannot both occupy the same state. It does not say that one whole atom pushing another atom out of its way somehow constitutes these two atoms occupying the same space and being in the same state.

You're really going off the reservation now.



No I don't. That is an engineering issue, far down the road. We first posit that time travel may be possible in pirinciple. We then try to determine if there are any existing laws that prohibit it (the is where we are in the discussion right now). So far, we know of none.

Dave, here is a quote from the wikipedia article on PEP. This conclusively proves that I am correct here.

"In one dimension, not only fermions, but also bosons can obey the exclusion principle. A one dimensional Bose gas with delta function repulsive interactions of infinite strength is equivalent to a gas of free fermions. The reason for this is that in one dimension, exchange of particles requires that they pass through each other, and for infinitely strong repulsion, this cannot happen."

Time is one dimensional, so nothing can travel through time. Pauli clearly states that.

PEP clearly states that time travel is impossible.

The full article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

(I've already provided this link in my first post on the subject, If you'd read it you would already be aware of the above quote.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, here is a quote from the wikipedia article on PEP. This conclusively proves that I am correct here.

"In one dimension... bosons can obey the exclusion principle. A one dimensional Bose gas with delta function repulsive interactions of infinite strength is equivalent to a gas of free fermions. The reason for this is that in one dimension, exchange of particles requires that they pass through each other, and for infinitely strong repulsion, this cannot happen."

Time is one dimensional, so nothing can travel through time. Pauli clearly states that.

Nonsense. It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Once again you are using an "all dogs are mammals therefore all mammals are dogs" argument. There is no way you could understand what the quote was saying and still come to that conclusion logically.

x (of xyz) is only one dimension too. Next you'll be telling me that objects cannot travel through x. The whole point of spacetime is that it is freedom in all 4 dimensions simultaneously. Two particles at the same x coordinate can certainly coexist if they are not at the same y coordinate. For two particles to be "in the same place at the same time" all four coodinates must be the same.

You are really burning credibility now. You should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[Ash Small]

Nonsense. It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Once again you are using an "all dogs are mammals therefore all mammals are dogs" argument. There is no way you could understand what the quote was saying and still come to that conclusion logically.

x (of xyz) is only one dimension too. Next you'll be telling me that objects cannot travel through x. The whole point of spacetime is that it is freedom in all 4 dimensions simultaneously. Two particles at the same x coordinate can certainly coexist if they are not at the same y coordinate. For two particles to be "in the same place at the same time" all four coodinates must be the same.

You are really burning credibility now. You should have quit while you were ahead.

Dave, One question.

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point (x,y,z) at the time you arrive in the past?

(Or, for that matter, at any point in time en-route)

Unless you can ensure this, my reasoning above still holds.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, One question.

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point (x,y,z) at the time you arrive in the past?

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point xyz when you arrive at the cottage in your car?

Or are you going to insist that it is impossible for your car to move into the space occupied by other atoms near your cottage? Are your car atoms and the air atoms going to threaten to be co-incident in spacetime, meaning your car will not move? (No, you're not.)

Unless you can ensure this, my reasoning above still holds.

Your reasoning was about PEP. I'm glad you've finally abandoned this, it was fruitless.


Now we are simply down to an engineering aspect as to how time travel might be implemented, and how we might insert an object in a past time. Who knows?

The point was simply that - whether or not there are loads of implementation issues - we have yet to find a principle that excludes time travel.

 

[Ash Small]

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point xyz when you arrive at the cottage in your car?

The simple answer to that is that my car doesn't travel through time.

I will concede that my car will push air molecules, insects, rabbits, etc. out of the way, but it won't push larger vehicles, trees, buildings out of the way.

OK, Dave, I guess I'll have to concede that you can't (hypothetically) travel backwards in time without altering the past, because whatever was at (x,y,z) before you travel there will have to be pushed out of the way.

If you change the past you change the present, so by traveling into the past you will alter reality at the time you left the present.

This raises a different set of problems.

 

[Magnethos]

Possibly not, but there are some theories to look at first.

Possibly time travel won't be invented never. But I've read some different theories about "pseudoscience".

I think to travel into time, you don't need to go faster than light. Time travel means to dematerialize into this space-time continuum, travel in the hyperspace and materialize in the selected time, and in the selected physical reality.
The first thing to understand is to know how to materialize/dematerialize matter. That means that you need to understand alchemy (unconventional chemistry). Once you understand how to do this, then you can alter finite matter in a specific space-time continuum. In some texts have been documented the possibility to do this using some kind of non-hertzian waves (not electromagnetic energy). In pseudoscience texts it's very know that other kind of electrical manifestation exists. With that non electromagnetic waves you need to know how to interact with matter.

This thing can be proved with a simple idea. You can build a device to measure the resonance properties of materials, and then place a material between an electrical arc. After discharging some electrical energy, then you can "Scan" the material and look if some change has been made (some "transmutation").

Once you understand how to affect matter via electrical waves, you need to understand about time. You need to know that the space-time is a continuum, not an emptiness. All the universe is full of a non-electromagnetic energy. That kind of energy is electron deficient, it means that there is not electron flow. There is a sub-electronic particle that have very different names.
I have some books of an Italian man that build a device to read the acoustic phenomena recorded in materials. He explains that all matter has memory to record past events. He used some electrical equipment and demonstrated that he can "play" the information that was recorded in that stone (or other materials). So, if the physical matter has memory... Why not the ether has memory too? The ether is a chemical compound that is electron deficient. It means that he has not electrons, and it's a gas lighter than Hydrogen, because its atomic number is less than 1. For that reason it's called "Virtual Chemical Compound", since virtual means "massless".

So, if we would able to read the data that was recorded in the ether... we can materialize matter in other time, since we can read and affect time at a distance.

Of course, all this theory is pure hypothesis and it's non proven. But it's only a suggestion...

 

[JaredJames]

If you change the past you change the present, so by traveling into the past you will alter reality at the time you left the present.

There are a number of theories which negate this possibility.

Multiple dimensions and the whole "everything has already happened so whatever you do doesn't change anything" (can't remember the name for that one).

 

[Magnethos]

There are a number of theories which negate this possibility.

Multiple dimensions and the whole "everything has already happened so whatever you do doesn't change anything" (can't remember the name for that one).

I think the same. There are multiple spaces, so anyone can travel through time or through present but in different realities. The universe is running an extremely large amount of multiple realities at the same time.
It's like a world of possibilities. In the present, we're affecting the direction of each reality we're traveling to.
I mean, each little change in this present, affects the next "space frame" we're traveling to.

We're living in a space-reference but we can travel to other space-references, in the present and in other times. Only if the correct characteristics are given and you travel to an exact past space-reference, then could be possible that you affect this space-reference. But if you travel to other past space-reference, then nothing will happen in this space-present.

 

[Time Machine]

The original question was:

"Time machine will not be invented. we will never travel in time, not future, not past.

Why?
Etc.."

I will concur that in your present avenue of approach to time travel that it is highly relevant whether a fermion can be in two places at the same time.
I do believe that with a slight perspective adjustment in the way of thinking about time travel itself, that other methods can be considered and that even if Ash proves (good luck with that) a violation of PEP, that perhaps time can be traveled without the need for anyone to be in two places at the same time...

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is the best theory on the market and also very well funded.

Other not so well funded projects are probably not acceptably cited and therefore shall not be mentioned again. However on the basis that time travel itself is a purely speculative topic, I feel that I am not out of line in speculating that if gravity could be manipulated, that a time travel of sorts may be theoretically possible.

Your concerns, Dave, for the return journey are logical. I'm not seeing a way round this actually. Perhaps this is what puts off the OP's theoretical potential time traveling visitors from making the journey.

Thank you Ash for agreeing that it is (I think he did actually mean) "theoretically" possible to slow time using relative speeds and gravity.

Read your hypothesis Mognethos. Thinking on that...

 

[Brin]

While I'm done arguing since I wanted to pull my hair out (I <3 DaveC), I thought ANYONE interested in a serious and reasonable discussion of time travel might find the following philosophy of physics article interesting:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a brilliant source for discussions about these kinds of things. These guys are the experts.

 

[Magnethos]

Brin
Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works. People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.
So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...
In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

These kind of paraphysics include:
Quantum electrodynamics, vorticular physics, quantum numerology, vibratory chemistry, hyperdimensional physics, unified field theories, etc...
Another obstacle is that is very difficult to find information about these fields. The little I know, I have learned reading books in 5 different languages since 1920 to the actuality. And I have found very little amount of books. And you need to know about chemistry, physics, electrical engineering...
Almost an impossible task to achieve.

The only way is to read all kind of things with an open mind, get the points in common that the information has and put in practice very simple experiments. The only experiment I've proposed, is to interact with matter using non-electromagnetic waves, aka pure potential waves.
With this experimentation, it could be possible to learn how to affect matter with electrical currents. And, understand than materialization and dematerialization could be possible.
I've also some books in Italian that explains how to access to the memory of solid objects, reading past events.

 

[Studiot]

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works.

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

 

[pallidin]

Time travel, to the past, seems wholly plausible if considered as being only observational.

 

[Magnethos]

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.
I know, for example that time travel can also be achieved using non physical matter in the astral plane.

I will look at those post in a few hours, because I need to leave right now.

 

[Studiot]

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

I don't see where you're having difficulty. Yes, time is as continuous as any of the spatial dimensions. My car, headed North along Hwy 400 is going from [y t] to [y' t']. I can easily move it smoothly from [y' t'] back to [y t''] if I want. (I add the t > t' > t'' element simply for completeness since it can't remain stationary in the t dimension.)

By analogy, my stationary car (and everything else) is going from [x y t] to [x y t']. Why would I not be able to move it smoothly from [y t'] back to, say [y' t]? (In this case, I translate it through y so it does not end up on top of itself.)

No beads.

 

[Studiot]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

My car sits on my driveway, very much stationary. It traverses the t dimension constantly, but none of the others.

EDIT: before anyone says "but your car is moving because the earth/galaxy etc is, let's take it as a fixed, completely stationary point.

 

[Studiot]

constantly

What forever?

 

[JaredJames]

What forever?

Does time stop?

 

[Studiot]

Does time stop?

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

 

[JaredJames]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant. The matter/energy always exists, just in a different form.

If the car doesn't move in the x,y,z frames, it still moves through t. On basic principle, if a time machines were possible, why would you not be able to move backwards through t instead of forwards without moving the other three (or at least only enough to compensate so you don't run into the car again)?

Anyone seen the film The Time Machine? The guy builds a time machine and it shows him moving through time (forward or back) with the machine staying completely stationary all except time. (They ignored 'collisions' with other objects). That is the sort of thing myself (and DaveC I believe) is referring to.

 

[Studiot]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by this. Just because you don't appreciate the point, doesn't give you the right to declare it irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry; I've gotten lost. What exactly is the problem again?

 

[Magnethos]

I know for some people the next information would be irrelevant. Check the next video, of a scientist explaining what is time.
Remember, it's non-oficially accepted, but this other version to ear to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmjMVXO506A&feature=related"

Start in 5:50, before nothing is very important.

Update #1

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

There would be another option that we need to look at.
We can have different types of "time travel", and I think the time axis would be more than 1.
When saying about time travel, we usually think about selecting a portion of the X, Y, Z (space entity in a reference) and sending it backward or forward in time.
But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

@magenthos?
So you are saying our time dimension is a bivector produced by a more complicated physical entity or set of entities?

 

[Magnethos]

Studiot
Something like that, yes. Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.
I have to read more about that. I can think something about that, but just right now I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.

Not sure what you mean here I have never heard of this.

For those who are interested, Wiki give a good exposition of Bi vectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector

Nevertheless none of this affects what I had to say or my analogies.

 

[DaveC426913]

But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

You could speed up an object (cat gets old), you could slow down an object (cat is in stasis), but you could never reverse time this way - you could never "make the cat get younger" - even in principle.

Consider the cat's memories as one example. Let's pretend you put the cat in your time chamber and switch it on. The cat is still seeing the walls of the test chamber, which means it is still moving forward in time - new things being sensed new memories are being implanted in its brain. It's brain is growing, just like its body is.

In order for the cat to be traveling backward through time, it would have to be experiencing everything in reverse - it is pulled out of the time box, food is pulled from its mouth, it is put back in its cage, where it sucks its urine back into its body. The cat's memories get younger even as its body gets younger.

Even if the cat in the chamber is moving backward through time, how can this happen? A half hour ago, it was stretched out to its full length, sleeping under its favourite smelly blanket. The chamber is only a foot long. How can the cat be in the chamber, having moved back a half hour (and therefore back to sleeping, and under its fuzzy blanket that it can smell) if its new space does not accommodate everything it was expereincing?



Time travel in the sense of speeding up and slowing down time is pretty straightforward - it can be done with SR and GR tricks.

No, when people speak of time travel, they are almost always talking about moving backward in time.

 

[JDługosz]

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

Your idea, interesting for a bad Sci-Fi movie as an unusual twist on the idea, doesn't actually make sense.

Imagine the example done with a salt crystal. You say you move the "birth" and "death" positions of the salt crystal to new locations. But, why does the time machine care about your concept of the crystal being "the thing" to move? The atoms existed before they came together to form that crystal. The "birth" has no physical meaning. The sodium atoms, for example, were in the ocean, then underground, then an ocean again, then part of a cell, etc. Does the entire world-line of each sodium atom get so-translated?

Well, what about the "birth" of the atom? It was forged in a star out of primordial hydrogen and electrons. Do all those particles get translated too?