Time travel and Multiverse Theory

[sol2]

Yes, please further explain.

Can someone common on my previous post as well?

I am a lay person myself who does a lot of reading:)

The book you are reading called Hyperspace is a good introduction.

The very first chapter when Kaku is standing on the bridge, we are given a perspective that is extremely amazing about how we can look at surfaces.

Imagine like he saids the pond, and what realization comes to him with the raindrops. Being able to envision the world from two different view points.

If you move through the undertanding of shape, from the saddle to a hyperbolic view, how does one understand these movements, if we did not first start off in a euclidean view, and then end up in a non-eclidean view?

So imagine then what a triangle measures, in its angles. On a flat surface? On a saddle or on a sphere?

 

[sol2]

Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence by Michio Kaku

I am curious as to others' beliefs/opinions on how time travel and/vs. multiverse theory correlate.

Theory/Question 1. If you could go back in time and try to alter an event, could it turn out that you can't change it and are actually only helping history along it's course?

Theory/Question 2. Or could you go back in time and actually change the event, effectively creating a parallel universe, an alternate reality where events will now play out differently?

Scenario: Your family is killed. You go back in time and save them.

What happens then if you succeed in your endeavor and travel forward in the timeline you just altered to when you last left only to find yourself trapped in a branch of the timeline where you are out of place? You could potentially find yourself living alongside yourself since the alternate version of you would then have no motivation to travel through time, thus leaving the time traveling version of you displaced. To return to your place of origin, you would then need to find new means to travel through alternate time dimensions. If traveling through your own timeline is like traveling in a straight line, then you would have to find a way to travel across parallel lines to return to the point where there isn't another you. Would this then not defeat the whole purpose of having traveled through time in the first place?

I myself like to fall back on Occam's Razor for this one.

I found this article you might be interested in.

Now, there are at least two ways to resolve this. The first is the Wigner school. Eugene Wigner was one of the creators of the atomic bomb and a Nobel laureate. And he believed that observation creates the Universe. An infinite sequence of observations is necessary to create the Universe, and in fact, maybe there's a cosmic observer, a God of some sort, that makes the Universe spring into existence.

There's another theory, however, called decoherence, or many worlds, which believes that the Universe simply splits each time, so that we live in a world where the cat is alive, but there's an equal world where the cat is dead. In that world, they have people, they react normally, they think that their world is the only world, but in that world, the cat is dead. And, in fact, we exist simultaneously with that world.

This means that there's probably a Universe where you were never born, but everything else is the same. Or perhaps your mother had extra brothers and sisters for you, in which case your family is much larger. Now, this can be compared to sitting in a room, listening to radio. When you listen to radio, you hear many frequencies. They exist simultaneously all around you in the room. However, your radio is only tuned to one frequency. In the same way, in your living room, there is the wave function of dinosaurs. There is the wave function of aliens from outer space. There is the wave function of the Roman Empire, because it never fell, 1500 years ago.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0585.html?m%3D1

 

[rtharbaugh1]

I am curious as to others' beliefs/opinions on how time travel and/vs. multiverse theory correlate.

Theory/Question 1. If you could go back in time and try to alter an event, could it turn out that you can't change it and are actually only helping history along it's course?

Theory/Question 2. Or could you go back in time and actually change the event, effectively creating a parallel universe, an alternate reality where events will now play out differently?

Scenario: Your family is killed. You go back in time and save them.

What happens then if you succeed in your endeavor and travel forward in the timeline you just altered to when you last left only to find yourself trapped in a branch of the timeline where you are out of place? You could potentially find yourself living alongside yourself since the alternate version of you would then have no motivation to travel through time, thus leaving the time traveling version of you displaced. To return to your place of origin, you would then need to find new means to travel through alternate time dimensions. If traveling through your own timeline is like traveling in a straight line, then you would have to find a way to travel across parallel lines to return to the point where there isn't another you. Would this then not defeat the whole purpose of having traveled through time in the first place?

I myself like to fall back on Occam's Razor for this one.

The thing is that when you travel in timespace, you can only rarely deviate very much from a straight line. Actions are very small and you hustle along so fast that you can hardly be expected to see a single change, so you, like me, like all of us, have to watch the statistics. Consider the idea of your timespace existence cone. Your maximum possible futures. All the potential universes your presense here may participate in or have some effect upon.

But the counter argument to multiverses is that infinite energies are required to justify their complexity. No one asks the sky to justify its infinite complexity, and who looks at how long our Universe will exist in time? And who looks beyond that to wonder about other universes. And I have to bow to those who say there is no use in wondering about those other universes, because the only things we can ever know must exist by definition in this Universe. The others have no bearing. Go ahead, point at an event that will occur after our Universe turns to cold dust or ultimate density or whatever it is sceduled by the clock to become.

Another way to say this is to consider what an event is, in space time. Think of yourself as an event if you like, or as the main event if that's what it takes to keep yourself awake. You make actions in this Universe. And in the utlimate multitude of universes in the multiverse every thing that can happen has to happen somewherewhen. If you could go on forever, my friend, you could circle back again, my self, my other, our beings united by a grand scale that here in our rooms we can have no imagining of, or hope of living long enough to participate in, again. Being is not conserved. You see this means that we must die, but it means also that we can live. It means that we are one in our infinite multitude.

Can you relive your past again? And again and again and again, in a sort of time fugue? Well, what do you imagine? If you imagine it strongly enough, you may be condemned or blessed to revisit it forever. Is that the kind of limit that you choose?

Old story, I should have such a memory as to attribute but I don't: monks meet girl crossing stream. Leagues later one monk says "How could you bear to touch her like that, carry her across the stream?" "I put her down on the other bank, brother, but you still carry her."

ANyway by the time you return to your past in a straight circle you forget everything. Being does not last two Pi in any universe.

Wandering again.

Thanks for Being

 

[deedubbleyoo]

I wondered about multiple line lines, non-linear time, singular time and positive/negative time, starting with the question, "does time exist?".

I decided that time as we know it, does exist, since time is just a label we put on the measurement between start and end points that we are measuring. I also decided that time is relative to the things that we are measuring, as a yard stick. I don't think time can be said to exist, though, because we use time as a variable to describe something, not a constant that we can hold.

Whilst considering different types of time-lines (linear, non-linear, mutliple, +/-) I reached the conclusion that there must be multiple time lines and wondered how many there might be.

I decided there couldn't only be one time line since that would be far too infinity like, and therefore could only be relative to parts of itself, which would then have times, and therefore many time lines would exist, each instance having its own sets of parameters.

That thought provoked the rejection of any other theory whilst I scraped around in my head for the bigger picture of such an idea.

The idea is that each atom, or particle, or piece of anything that contains substance (call it a being), has its own time line. Sometimes actions on that time line can be predicted because they follow suit of other actions that have taken place on other time lines, however, the end may be different for each occurrence of the same action - which gives us chaos.

The relation of time to each being is personal to that being. One cannot relate time for another being unless one applies that beings rules of time to oneself. However, one can disrupt another being's time through one's own actions, for example, by interrupting the other being's action.

Therefore it is possible that there are many many universes that have actions taking place at the same time as the other universes - but maybe with different endings. A bit like a mandlebrot.

To prove such a theory is probably similar to proving there is a god. Maybe if we look for clues we can guess that it could be right - deja vu, out of body experiences, ghosts, stuff in dreams and how some amazing thoughts ever get into our heads. They are all natural phenomena that are often explainable unless somehow, time lines have crossed or matched each other in that short instance.

Could this really happen?? How could two time lines cross and how do we decide which time lines we're on?

Simple, we all have our own time line and sometimes we steer ourselves towards events through positive thinking, belief, a goal or some other state of mind that makes us go after something important.

Things that you consider to be bad luck are often things out of your control, a crossing of time lines where yours met a bunch of others that resulted in a negative action for you. Good luck is supposedly the opposite. Both have the ability to be looked back upon and avoided, but neither were planned by you.

When you live with someone you can often predict things they are about to say, finish sentences for them, carry out actions in preperation for something you predict they are going to do and you still get surprised by this because you didn't intentionally plan it.

Maybe the answer to life,the universe and everything is intention. If you can predict another being by being close to it, and so on, for every being there is, there can be harmony, and each being could exist for longer except for the fact that each being is responsible for its own actions (the chaos bit). Therefore the only thing that lasts forever is nothing because it isn't there - I suppose that's the reverse of everything.

As for time travel, this theory suggests one cannot travel in one's time to a previous time unless one can experience another instance of one's lives in another universe.

Why would actions take place at the same time? How can one catch a glimpse of an action in a time line that conflicts with one's own time line?

It must have something to do with nothing, and everything being its opposite. The multiverse is a living organisation. Life exists to protect life, evolution is the result of this action.

If the multiverse exists then why wouldn't it thrive to survive? We are such small parts of the universe, and there are many smaller parts, but we can effect much bigger parts, in the same way that some miniscule particles can effect us (gas, poison etc). Because we are intelligent we have some control over the things that effect us and we can make plans that will improve our chances of survival.

In such behaviour, other universes would be dieing and being created throughout our lives. If your time line crossed with a time line in such a universe, you would get the impression of traveling in time, although you would simply be witnessing a different instance of yourself.

If there was a way to really travel in time, the answer would be to share a multiversal existence. For your mind to be one with each instance of yourself (and the same application for each being).

This would give the multiverse the best chance of survival, but also a greater chance of failure, unless the multiverse is intelligent.

What sort of intelligence could do such a thing?

The natural behaviour of a being, is to multiply. Some things do not need to multiply because they are replaced by another instance through some other means than breeding, such as blood cells do. For intelligent beings, there is often a choice about breeding, but natural beings are designed to thrive, or they become nothing. I can't prove that we share the minds of other instances of ourselves, but it might explain those things that we call the paranormal.

What about God? Whatever he is, I don't think he's a person. This theory does allow for cause and effect, and therefore behaviour (which religion teaches) is a part of it. If we lived a perfect life, that harmony that I mentioned earlier would become more of a reality...but that's another discussion altogether.

 

[sol2]

.

The idea is that each atom, or particle, or piece of anything that contains substance (call it a being), has its own time line. Sometimes actions on that time line can be predicted because they follow suit of other actions that have taken place on other time lines, however, the end may be different for each occurrence of the same action - which gives us chaos.

The relation of time to each being is personal to that being. One cannot relate time for another being unless one applies that beings rules of time to oneself. However, one can disrupt another being's time through one's own actions, for example, by interrupting the other being's action.

Therefore it is possible that there are many many universes that have actions taking place at the same time as the other universes - but maybe with different endings. A bit like a mandlebrot.

There is so much more to quote here that I quickly grabbed this for now.:)

A bit like mandlebrot?

If one was to consider pascal's triangle, the potential for expression has certain patterns emerging. This fruitation of sorts, like a fractal design (the tree fractal)?

We see where Stephen Wolfram uses such an idea here about such possibilties?

What might emerge and from where? What pattern will it grow into? Fortunately crystaline natures have been catelogued:)

I am often remind of John Nash here and the birds as they gathered and while others played the game of Go. How might he of perceived such a pattern?

The danger was losing himself in dillusional acts, but he also realized, that the pattern for negotiation could exist. It had to be mathematically proven.:)

The anomalies in nature. It takes a keen eye It has possibillites? All we have to do is create the space for it?

 

[deedubbleyoo]

There is so much more to quote here that I quickly grabbed this for now.:)

A bit like mandlebrot?

If one was to consider pascal's triangle, the potential for expression has certain patterns emerging. This fruitation of sorts, like a fractal design (the tree fractal)?

We see where Stephen Wolfram uses such an idea here about such possibilties?

What might emerge and from where? What pattern will it grow into? Fortunately crystaline natures have been catelogued:)

I am often remind of John Nash here and the birds as they gathered and while others played the game of Go. How might he of perceived such a pattern?

The danger was losing himself in dillusional acts, but he also realized, that the pattern for negotiation could exist. It had to be mathematically proven.:)

The anomalies in nature. It takes a keen eye It has possibillites? All we have to do is create the space for it?

I'm no mathematician, so I'll never be the person who creates the equation that illustrates this. :(

If the prediction for every being is that its offspring will generally be an improvement, and this CAN be shown for the majority of beings, that should be proof in itself. I'm hoping this work already exists, since I have no qualifications in such matters, other than an open mind. A bit of help wouldn't go amiss :)

 

[Nightsword]

another possibility

Another possibility with time and motion is that they are an illusion, and every event exists as a tiny point in time (time point, or "now"). Therefore, instead of movement, people and things exist as very slightly different entities from nanosecond to nanosecond, and all of these existences overlap each other, therefore existing simultaneously. We only percieve them as separate events (one at a time in sequence) and separate physical positions. (Think of watching a movie on a movie screen [illusion, or time streams/fourth dimension] versus looking at each individual still-frame on a movie reel [simualtaneity/time points).

According to most time travel concepts I have studied, a majority of academia consider time to flow along in streams, or the fourth dimension. But what if time and motion are illusions ala Julian Barbour? Would time travel be possible under such conditions? And if so, how?

 

[sol2]

Julian Barbour( End of Time)

Just thought I would add this.

In a world where everything is happening NOW, it seems a strange thing to think of everything happening in the instance. Curvature being automatic where ever any concentration of energy might exist?

Action, having consequence immediately, when any thought formed?

So having spent time in the superstring forum, it soon became apparent that the greater/lessor degrees of this energy, might impart to the nature of this, as of dimenisonal significance?

on February 06, 2003 at 07:44:41:

Started to read the book here, and I wonder and speculate.

Had he recognized then, that any Now, would have been relevant to the idea of, "to matters form", (there you are there you be)where times measure, being instantneous would have reocgnized the issues of gravity in expression always?

I just started the first couple of pages, and I recognized the importance of what a Smolin might have realized, in the expression of any moment, and the requirements of a logic that instantaneously recognizes the matters in expression.

Even at Planck scale, we have a measure of Planck time, and in the unification of the Quantum mechanics with Relativity, had we joined the principals of classical physics with the world of the every small?

It would seem to me, that based on the work by Smolin and Rovelli, others that having developed this logic, a world had to be recognized that was much different at Planck scale, then what we have come to understand, in the measures we find there.

A revision of the way we interpret what is happening and strings takes us here in what becomes the heart of the matters? Any thoughts or considerations here?

Further thoughts to consider?

 

[sol2]

We All Can Carry the Equation?

I'm no mathematician, so I'll never be the person who creates the equation that illustrates this.

Yes, but you can be the person, and never have created the equation that can illustrate this:)

Even a generalized view, can be mathematically correct?

 

[deedubbleyoo]

Another possibility with time and motion is that they are an illusion, and every event exists as a tiny point in time (time point, or "now"). Therefore, instead of movement, people and things exist as very slightly different entities from nanosecond to nanosecond, and all of these existences overlap each other, therefore existing simultaneously. We only percieve them as separate events (one at a time in sequence) and separate physical positions. (Think of watching a movie on a movie screen [illusion, or time streams/fourth dimension] versus looking at each individual still-frame on a movie reel [simualtaneity/time points).

According to most time travel concepts I have studied, a majority of academia consider time to flow along in streams, or the fourth dimension. But what if time and motion are illusions ala Julian Barbour? Would time travel be possible under such conditions? And if so, how?

Time is just a measurement, that one uses to explain the interval between two events. Time would not be a consideration for something that is not intelligent, therefore time, as we know it, only exists as a measure for us. For other beings that are intelligent, the same could be said, but their time may well be measured differently to ours.

Therefore time travel is not possible, since the sudden change of events would happen in one's own timeline. Time travel as we percieve it could only being events forward. Time travel backwards would mean bringing past events to the present, so one would not take themselves to another time, but bring another events from another time to oneself.

So how can such a thing be achieved?? It has to be something to do with energies, and transporting one's energy (spirit or whatever) to another place...

 

[Wolf 278]

To Nightsword,
Each frame would be a decision-point, sort of decisions following in columns, each one distinctly different from the other ones. Follow one time-line and it has it's own decision-points, go to another time-line (parallell universe) and it has it's distinct decision-queu. The thing to keep in mind is that time as a linaer flow is an illusion, more of a movie, were each frames decision makes out the next frame. A bit about energy and multiverse-theory. I think that the 2.nd law of Thermodynamics can't be broken. But in a multiverse were one universe splits off, that means that the inherent energy is also split off in the process. Sort of instead of the electron going into a right-spin decision, it instead does a left-spin decision. It's just an analogy, not an exact portrayal of what happens.

W

 

[hey.like]

Time travel is differn to back past

The time travel is a event in time right direction, but in time to back is different in time action. right time system is to permit exist in now. but the back time system is different.
The time travel profit in space or distance some times!

 

[somy]

I think time has a deep phylosophical mean. You might all agree that:
WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
(Just think in deep. What we know about time, distance, and so on...)
talking about time travel is just like to talk about twisting the space inorder to make a papion!
maybe I'm wrong.
If so, please help me.
thanks.
somy