Time Machine will not be invented

[Ash Small]

Can anyone point out any flaws in the following statement?

The hypothetical time machine and time traveller are made up of quarks, etc.

Quarks, etc can only exist in one place at one time.

If quarks, etc traveled backwards in time they would exist in two places at the same time.

This is not possible.

 

[Mentallic]

Can anyone point out any flaws in the following statement?

The hypothetical time machine and time traveller are made up of quarks, etc.

Quarks, etc can only exist in one place at one time.

If quarks, etc traveled backwards in time they would exist in two places at the same time.

This is not possible.

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? There wouldn't be any remnants of you in the future time.

 

[Ash Small]

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? There wouldn't be any remnants of you in the future time.

That is correct, but the same quarks,etc would exist twice at the point in time that you travel back to.

They cannot exist in two different places at the same time.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is correct, but the same quarks,etc would exist twice at the point in time that you travel back to.

They cannot exist in two different places at the same time.

Who says?

 

[Ash Small]

I think it follows from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states, simply, that " two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time."

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

Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time.

Can you suggest any sources that state otherwise?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it follows from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states, simply, that " two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time."

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

You just moved the goalposts. Now you're saying same place and same time. Who said they have to be in the same place?

Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time.

Can you suggest any sources that state otherwise?

How does that follow from the above??

You're just making rules up.

 

[Ash Small]

You just moved the goalposts. Now you're saying same place and same time. Who said they have to be in the same place?


How does that follow from the above??

You're just making rules up.

Dave, You've misread what I said and you've mis-quoted me.

I actually said that it follows that "Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time."

 

[Studiot]

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway?

That's another way of putting what I said.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, You've misread what I said and you've mis-quoted me.

I actually said that it follows that "Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time."

No I have not, and no I have not.

Please note my post is broken into two parts, and each part directly addresses the direct quote from you.



You invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle, which talks about same place and same time. Since we are not talking about same place and same time, it is not applicable.

You then invent some sort of corollary rule out of thin air, about an object cannot be in two places at the same time. This is complete fabrication.

 

[Ash Small]

"If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? "

The simple answer is no.

Only the atoms within the time machine would travel back in time.

Some of the atoms that comprise you at the time that you travel back in time would have comprised, for example, the food you ate before you travelled. If you travel back in time a couple of months, some of those atoms that comprise you at the time of travel will comprise a cow or a potato at the time you travel to, for example.(Assuming you ate steak and chips before travelling)

So the same atoms would occupy different places at the same time.

(Unless you have a different explanation)

 

[DaveC426913]

So the same atoms would occupy different places at the same time.

Yes. If we posit time travel at all, the above statement is implicit.

Just as a person going back in time means he could come face-to-face with himself, so individual atoms going back in time means they can come face-to-face with themselves. No biggie.

 

[Ash Small]

No I have not, and no I have not.

Please note my post is broken into two parts, and each part directly addresses the direct quote from you.



You invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle, which talks about same place and same time. Since we are not talking about same place and same time, it is not applicable.

You then invent some sort of corollary rule out of thin air, about an object cannot be in two places at the same time. This is complete fabrication.

Dave, The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that if one particle is in state x, then another particle is in state y. Pauli actually does state that one particle cannot be in state x AND state y any more than two particles can be in state x or state y.

(BTW, Does the C stand for Cooper?)

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that if one particle is in state x, then another particle is in state y. Pauli actually does state that one particle cannot be in state x AND state y any more than two particles can be in state x or state y.

But one particle is not in two states at the same time. It's in two states at different times in its life.

You're got a "young" particle and a "slightly older" particle. PEP does not state that a particle can't be in state x at time a and then in state y at time b.

(BTW, Does the C stand for Cooper?)

No. It stands for Collins. About as common as Cooper.

 

[Ash Small]

But one particle is not in two states at the same time. It's in two states at different times in its life.

You're got a "young" particle and a "slightly older" particle. PEP does not state that a particle can't be in state x at time a and then in state y at time b.

I see your point, Dave.

The particle is older when it occupies the other state, even though it occupies both simultaneously.

(From the particle's time reference it doesn't occupy both states at the same time, although from the observer's time reference it does.)

 

[Time Machine]

Hello people,

Time Machine will not be invented. We will never travel in time, not in future, not in past.

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, perhaps the concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time could be created with gravity control. If passing through faster time/gravity variables in a slow/gravity controlled craft, time could potentially be travelled, not in, but through at a faster rate than usual. Perhaps?

 

[DaveC426913]

(From the particle's time reference it doesn't occupy both states at the same time, although from the observer's time reference it does.)

No, from the obsever's PoV, there are simply two particles in two different states. Particles do not wear nametags.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, perhaps the concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time could be created with gravity control.

Yes. One could slow time using either strong gravity or high relativistic speeds.

If passing through faster time/gravity variables in a slow/gravity controlled craft, time could potentially be travelled, not in, but through at a faster rate than usual. Perhaps?

Well, you could slow time, but you couldn't move backwards.

 

[Time Machine]

Well, you could slow time, but you couldn't move backwards.

Granted. No going backwards. But would my hypothetical parallel universe self experience time speeding up as a result, I wonder?

 

[DaveC426913]

Granted. No going backwards. But would my hypothetical parallel universe self experience time speeding up as a result, I wonder?

What?? What parallel universe self?

 

[Ash Small]

No, from the obsever's PoV, there are simply two particles in two different states. Particles do not wear nametags.

Dave, I hope I'm not going off topic here, but, from what you say, there could just be one set of elementary particles repeatedly traveling back in time until they caused the Big Bang.

Would this not violate the principle of Conservation of Energy?

 

[Time Machine]

What?? What parallel universe self?

Not really a serious question but more of an amusing ponder. Parallel universe as in Shrodinger's cat. Both dead and alive. If I slow time down for myself in this universe, would time speed up for me in parallel universe. Some reference was made as to Steven Hawking earlier in the thread...in that perhaps he actually did meet with time travellers as arranged in alternate universe.

As for creating gravity control in a craft, I realize the difficulties in encapsulating one field of gravity inside of the craft and keeping another out... interesting idea though.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not really a serious question but more of an amusing ponder. Parallel universe as in Shrodinger's cat. Both dead and alive. If I slow time down for myself in this universe, would time speed up for me in parallel universe.

There is no reason to suppose this.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I hope I'm not going off topic here, but, from what you say, there could just be one set of elementary particles repeatedly traveling back in time until they caused the Big Bang.

What evidence do we have that particles are traveliing back in time?

Would this not violate the principle of Conservation of Energy?

LCE does not take time travel into consideration.

 

[Ash Small]

What evidence do we have that particles are traveliing back in time?


LCE does not take time travel into consideration.

We don't have any evidence (except, possibly, anti-particles)

I was just taking what you said to it's logical conclusion.

If it's possible for particles to travel backwards in time, you could start with one of each type of quark, etc., they could travel back in time, resulting in two of each type. They could then travel back a bit further, resulting in three of each type...

This process could continue until the conditions required for the Big Bang are satisfied.

(I'm not arguing in favour of this idea, it just follows from the point that you made.)

 

[Time Machine]

There is no reason to suppose this.

And also no reason to suppose not, I suppose. Not that it was a serious question...I'm not keen on parallel universes... wish I'd not mentioned it now. Time is more my area of interest.

 

[Brin]

We don't have any evidence (except, possibly, anti-particles)

I was just taking what you said to it's logical conclusion.

If it's possible for particles to travel backwards in time, you could start with one of each type of quark, etc., they could travel back in time, resulting in two of each type. They could then travel back a bit further, resulting in three of each type...

This process could continue until the conditions required for the Big Bang are satisfied.

(I'm not arguing in favour of this idea, it just follows from the point that you made.)

Three notes:
- Firstly, quarks don't exist in isolation.
- Secondly, Pauli-E says two fermions can't occupy the same quantum state/have the same quantum numbers. So even if quarks existed in isolation, they wouldn't have any problems because of the Pauli principle since basically they'd have different spatial locations.
- Thirdly, a particle spontaneously changing its four-momentum would violate something like Newton's first law (which holds in special relativity, but I don't know about GR... as I haven't gotten that far in this class!)

Then, I think you need to think a bit more about this before you arrive at its "logical conclusion." If you take ONE single particle, and make it move away from some point P in space time for like, 100 billion years, and then spontaneously jump it back to the beginning of time to have it travel out in another direction, then in essence you've altered the future of the particle, and it has never traveled 100 billion years, and so it will never see "itself" again.

Were it to travel back like fifty years and alter its own course, similar things would occur. It'd be rewriting itself.

Ergo, you'd never see a "big bang."

If there were a parallel universe theory, then one couldn't travel backwards in the same timeline. Only "sideways" to other timelines. Then you just end up with a bunch of parallel universes with particles going in different directions. You'd never see a big bang in this case either.

 

[Ash Small]

Three notes:
- Firstly, quarks don't exist in isolation.
- Secondly, Pauli-E says two fermions can't occupy the same quantum state/have the same quantum numbers. So even if quarks existed in isolation, they wouldn't have any problems because of the Pauli principle since basically they'd have different spatial locations.
- Thirdly, a particle spontaneously changing its four-momentum would violate something like Newton's first law (which holds in special relativity, but I don't know about GR... as I haven't gotten that far in this class!)

Then, I think you need to think a bit more about this before you arrive at its "logical conclusion." If you take ONE single particle, and make it move away from some point P in space time for like, 100 billion years, and then spontaneously jump it back to the beginning of time to have it travel out in another direction, then in essence you've altered the future of the particle, and it has never traveled 100 billion years, and so it will never see "itself" again.

Were it to travel back like fifty years and alter its own course, similar things would occur. It'd be rewriting itself.

Ergo, you'd never see a "big bang."

If there were a parallel universe theory, then one couldn't travel backwards in the same timeline. Only "sideways" to other timelines. Then you just end up with a bunch of parallel universes with particles going in different directions. You'd never see a big bang in this case either.

I never said quarks could exist in isolation.

I was merely taking the point that Dave made that a particle could exist in two places at the same time if it was 'older' at one location to it's logical conclusion.

The point I was making is that if there were only six quarks at the end of time, and they traveled back in time, so that there were 12, and then those twelve trevelled back in time, making 18...etc...eventually, due to the fact that they all start in the same place and have no external influence acting upon them, eventually you'd reach the conditions required for the big bang.

I personally believe that Pauli exclusion prevents time travel. I was just taking the point that Dave made to it's logical conclusion.

 

[Brin]

I misread, you wrote "Quarks etc" I didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument was destroyed because of this. You could just pick some other fermion.

Anyways, those were just notes which can be overcome, as you can see I permitted those and gave your idea a chance. I understood your idea, and it still failed.

You seem to have ignored this.

I reiterate, Pauli Exclusion doesn't prevent time travel and it doesn't have to. The time travel we seem to be talking about is pretty much impermissible for other paradoxical reasons. However, your idea makes no sense to conquer "time travel," by parallel universe theory method. So, you haven't conquered "time travel" in general, and definitely not because of Pauli-E.

 

[Ash Small]

I misread, you wrote "Quarks etc" I didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument was destroyed because of this. You could just pick some other fermion.

Anyways, those were just notes which can be overcome, as you can see I permitted those and gave your idea a chance. I understood your idea, and it still failed.

You seem to have ignored this.

I reiterate, Pauli Exclusion doesn't prevent time travel and it doesn't have to. The time travel we seem to be talking about is pretty much impermissible for other paradoxical reasons. However, your idea makes no sense to conquer "time travel," by parallel universe theory method. So, you haven't conquered "time travel" in general, and definitely not because of Pauli-E.

I never mentioned parallel universes, Brin, that was someone else's post. I merely stated that, due to Pauli Exclusion, the same particle cannot occupy two different states at the same point in time. Dave said that a particle could, if the particle was a different age, I then took his idea to it's logical conclusion,ie that the universe 'could' be comprised of only one of each elementary particle, if each particle of each type was the same particle, but a different age. I still believe that Pauli excludes this possibility.

 

[DaveC426913]

I was just taking what you said to it's logical conclusion.

If it's possible for particles to travel backwards in time, you could start with one of each type of quark, etc., they could travel back in time, resulting in two of each type. They could then travel back a bit further, resulting in three of each type...

This process could continue until the conditions required for the Big Bang are satisfied.

(I'm not arguing in favour of this idea, it just follows from the point that you made.)

I don't see how that follows. We were talking about time travel technology. How did we get to an idea of particles spontaneously travelling backwards en mass?