Understanding the Paradox of Backward Time Travel: Why We Can't Go Back

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impossibility of backward time travel due to inherent paradoxes. When attempting to travel to a time before the initiation of travel, contradictions arise, such as existing in two places at once. The "Pretzel Time" concept, which suggests a predestined loop of time travel, is debated, with some arguing it leads to infinite duplicates of a person. Additionally, the conversation touches on the nature of time itself, questioning whether the past exists as a tangible place and proposing that time may be an artifact of universal expansion rather than a physical dimension. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward the conclusion that true backward time travel is not feasible.
  • #101
Thank you Lord ;-)

Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.

1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower

But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.

It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.

I don't see the confusion.

I think we said the same. ;-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Originally posted by pelastration
Thank you Lord ;-)

Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.

1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower

But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.

It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.

I don't see the confusion.

I think we said the same. ;-)
Actually, I think where we differ is that time does not need to be observed - it is a measurement of rate of change within an element or between elements - whether one of the elements is conscious of it or not...I guess I tend to define it in a more remote context.

(Te absolvo)
 
  • #103


Originally posted by Messiah
Mea Culpa - I DID misread your quote.

But saying change cannot exist without time is like saying distance cannot exist without inches.

What does time do if it does not measure change?

This is written perfectly backward, and your spatial analogy proves it. Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spatial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spatial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".
 
  • #104
Originally posted by CJames
Oh man what is going on in this thread? Stop trying to define time. It doesn't really have much of a definition, other then that which is measured by clocks. Hell, that's the definition Einstein used. Any other definition just end up using the word time in it or makes some mention of the past present and future or other literary contortions.

Instead, can we go to the past is more the subject we supposedly have here.

Do the past present and future exist, or just the present? That isn't provable, really, since all you can ever experience is the present. But it too, isn't really the point.

The point is, paradoxes pop up all over the place when you are allowed to travel to the past, many of which seem to violate other laws of physics. It may be possible, but my opinion is that it is a pipe dream. You can't visit the past.

You are correct that time is what our clocks measure (btw, Einstein also said that space is "what we measure with measuring rods", that doesn't change the fact that he used it as a dimension), and not the other way around - namely, that time is just the measure of rates of orbit, or of movement of hands on a clock.
 
  • #105
Hey my first post here.

Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.

Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.

I know this sounds a bit weird saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What I am saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.

To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.

What we measure as time isn't really time its another component of space -Relativity-.

Its better if I do this visually:


A ---------------------------------> B


To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.

So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.

Its hard to explain but mentats I am agreeing with you, you can't travel back in time, basically cause you can't travel back in space.

Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106


Originally posted by Mentat
This is written perfectly backward, and your spatial analogy proves it. Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spatial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spatial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".

False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.
 
  • #107


Originally posted by Messiah
False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.

Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change. Now, do you see why I've been debating against you? If time is a dimension, then it cannot also be a measurement - as you already know to be true of space.
 
  • #108
Originally posted by Dave_3of5
Hey my first post here.

Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.

Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.

I know this sounds a bit weird saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What I am saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.

To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.

What we measure as time isn't really time its another component of space -Relativity-.

Its better if I do this visually:


A ---------------------------------> B


To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.

So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.

Its hard to explain but mentats I am agreeing with you, you can't travel back in time, basically cause you can't travel back in space.

Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?

A hearty W[/color]E[/color]L[/color]C[/color]O[/color]M[/color]E[/color]!, Dave_3of5. :smile:

Yes, your point has great merit. Alias has been trying to make a similar point, and I entirely agree with the idea that there is no past or future. My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.
 
  • #109
Originally posted by Mentat
...
My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.
Mentat
You are right here.
The Universe exists in realities in current of the quantum of time which it is possible to consider as " present time". This is advantageously with an energy standpoint. The unceasing processes, what they seem us, has require the unmeasuredly greater energy. The Nature can not be such profligate.
 
  • #110
Hereinafter content of a proposition. The People have long ago understood that a pulsed Action more effectively than unceasing one. The advantages of digital technology before analog were realized recently. If the Nature does saves Energy that why must be squander on other essences which is realized by people? I keep in mind Space and Time. Probably the Nature can not allow billions of light years to Space and just the same (!) number of the years of Time of existence. Such a System just has not controllability. The Nature has found such decision:
" And God had created a light. And God has seen a light that he is good.." This papers had been writed the thousands of years ago, but nobody has not understood their sense hitherto, regrettably.
Hereinafter, in accordance with text of the papers, God had created all objects of universe. What kind of the material was used it is possible to guess.
Exactly the Light solves all problems.
Our life in Universe this is a Light Show, has realized on the most high digital technology. It obeys to a single law. This is a Law of the conservation of Time. He causes a set of a powers and phenomenas for compensation and counteraction in an effort of any deviation. Including not known to people yet. By the way, a digital technologies this is the Information technologies. With all characteristics and possibilities of Information . I think we know far from all.
Considering said above, I'll not become to do a hard conclusions about possibilityes of information technology. While, may be.
 
  • #111


Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change.

The analogy is valid.

Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.
 
  • #112


Originally posted by Messiah
The analogy is valid.

Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.

If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?
 
  • #113


Originally posted by Mentat
If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?


I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.
 
  • #114


Originally posted by Messiah
I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.

I didn't coin the word, "spacetime". It was coined by the physicists who realized that time was also a dimension.
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Messiah
The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship.

The word dimension describes a state of existence. Dimensions are not merely spatial measurements, because those are relative. Dimensions are almost entirely unrelated to all other ways of describing an object. For example, when describing the pen on my desk, I could say that it is about 7" in length. I could be mistaken, however, due to the effects of the doppler effect and relativity as the Earth is moving constantly. For example, a man driving past my house at 50% the speed of light would see the pen as much longer because his vision of it would be skewed. Dimensions are not the same way. I can conclude with absolute certainty that my pen has three dimensions (although they may be immeasurable, it does have a length, width, and height). Any observer in the same dimension as I would agree.

Thus, dimensions cannot be compared to other measurements, for other spatial measurements are a consequence of dimensional properties.
 
  • #116
Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimensional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?
 
Last edited:
  • #117
Originally posted by Royce
Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimensional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?

My new good buddy!

It seems obvious to us, Royce, but others don't see it that way, for some reason.
 
  • #118
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.

To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.

When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by wimms
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.

To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.

When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.

... you still haven't told us why time is "not just a dimension". And some of your arguments aren't 100% true. For example, your second paragraphs forgets the uncertainty principle. Photons travel at the speed of light, therefore do not expend time while moving. Because of the uncertainty principle, photons can be detected in two places at once! But that does not mean that there is no space between them.

All in all, time is just a dimension. The only thing special about it is that it is only linear (1-dimensional), whereas space is (3-dimensional). This fact alone is the best explanation for a lot of your arguments.
 
  • #120
construction of time(time backward travel is possible)

say one system is regulated with F=PS
F=force
P=presure
S=surface
the three (F,P,S) is legal event if it respects the law
say you start from (F1,P1,S1) and endup in (F2,P2,S2)
the vector (dF,dP,dS)
in (F1,P1,S1) is (P1*dS+S1*dP,dP,dS)
and
in (F2,P2,S2) is (-P2*dS-S2*dP,-dP,-dS)
if you want the shortest distance from event1 to event2 it has to be
F=a(P1*dS+S1*dP)-b(P2*dS+S2*dP)=ab*dP*dS and
P=(a-b)dP and
S=(a-b)dS or
a(dF,dP,dS)(1)-b(dF,dP,dS)(2)=(F,P,S)
now find b(a);
b1=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)-0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
b2=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)+0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
now you get:
b=f(a)
F=f1(a,P1,P2,S1,S2)
P=f2(a,P1,P2)
S=f3(a,S1,S2)
where a is pure number and it is the quantum of time.
assign seconds to a and you get dimension time.

NOW da>0 MEANS FORWARD IN TIME WHILE da<0 MEANS BACKWARD IN TIME.
da=0 means time is frozen/no changes.
you see my concept of time is slightly different from the common one.
 
  • #121
Originally posted by Locutus
The word dimension describes a state of existence. Dimensions are not merely spatial measurements, because those are relative. Dimensions are almost entirely unrelated to all other ways of describing an object. For example, when describing the pen on my desk, I could say that it is about 7" in length. I could be mistaken, however, due to the effects of the doppler effect and relativity as the Earth is moving constantly. For example, a man driving past my house at 50% the speed of light would see the pen as much longer because his vision of it would be skewed. Dimensions are not the same way. I can conclude with absolute certainty that my pen has three dimensions (although they may be immeasurable, it does have a length, width, and height). Any observer in the same dimension as I would agree.

Thus, dimensions cannot be compared to other measurements, for other spatial measurements are a consequence of dimensional properties.
The measurement of a spatial relationship is independent of observation. Just because you 'observe' something which is altered between the object or process and the senses with which you view it does not change the 'reality' of the phenomenon...it just changes how you perceive it.
 
  • #122
Originally posted by Messiah
The measurement of a spatial relationship is independent of observation. Just because you 'observe' something which is altered between the object or process and the senses with which you view it does not change the 'reality' of the phenomenon...it just changes how you perceive it.

You're right, but this is what I was trying to say in my original post: that observers may percieve the physical existence of an object differently, yet they do agree on the number of dimensions. They must agree because dimensions cannot be distorted in such a way (relativity, etc) in free-moving space.
 
  • #123
Originally posted by Locutus
... you still haven't told us why time is "not just a dimension". And some of your arguments aren't 100% true. For example, your second paragraphs forgets the uncertainty principle. Photons travel at the speed of light, therefore do not expend time while moving. Because of the uncertainty principle, photons can be detected in two places at once! But that does not mean that there is no space between them.
What photons "feel" is completely outside our world. It takes billions of years to reach us from stars, would you agree? If it took nanosecond, would we call it lightyears? Time for photons might flow differently, for them, ther might be no space. Uncertainty principle doesn't say that conservation laws doesn't hold, only that you can't measure any more precisely.
One same unit of energy can't be in two places at once, its either two photons, or detection error.

Please try to define concept "exist", then concept "move", then concept "distance" and "interact" in terms that never ever needs time.
After you try you might understand why 3-dimensional space does not make any sense without time. Mathmatical 3-space does not "exist", it is imaginary. We are in real world, we exist and interact.
 
Last edited:
  • #124
Originally posted by wimms
One same unit of energy can't be in two places at once, its either two photons, or detection error.

Detection, however, is everything. Reality is a wave function fluctuating with all possible outcomes until it is observed, at which time the act of observation disrupts the wave function and yields a definite outcome (Schrodinger's cat...).

What photons "feel" is completely outside our world. It takes billions of years to reach us from stars, would you agree? If it took nanosecond, would we call it lightyears? Time for photons might flow differently, for them, ther might be no space. Uncertainty principle doesn't say that conservation laws doesn't hold, only that you can't measure any more precisely.
Please try to define concept "exist", then concept "move", then concept "distance" and "interact" in terms that never ever needs time.
After you try you might understand why 3-dimensional space does not make any sense without time. Mathmatical 3-space does not "exist", it is imaginary. We are in real world, we exist and interact.

You bring up an interesting point - the way a photon "percieves" the universe. First of all, a photon travels at the speed of light. Time dilation predicts that something traveling the speed of light cannot measure time. Therefore, time MAY flow for photons, as you said, but it would be irrelevant because there would be no means of detection. By the same token, if one were to measure the position of a photon, the same problem occurs. Since the photon is constantly travelling, its position is in quantum flux analagous to the aforementioned wave function. When an observational attempt is made, the photon is shown to be in two places at once.

Is this logically erronous? Yes, but it is the reality of our universe.
 
  • #125
Can't traveling to the past be solved with the multiple history theory?
 
  • #126
Originally posted by wimms
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.

Neurologically speaking, time is the function of the interval between each electrical charge between every straitial neuron that passes through the stratium.
Time always existed. Take, for an example, the big bang. No living thing was in existence when it happened. Yet, it took time to expand. We were not there to record its time. Therefore, time exists and it its existence is not based on our existence.

To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.
Here you contradict your above statement.
 
  • #127
Originally posted by Locutus
Detection, however, is everything. Reality is a wave function fluctuating with all possible outcomes until it is observed,
Detection is interaction. It preassumes time. Read your words: reality "is", "wave", "function", "fluctuating", "until", "observed". None of these terms obviously depends upon concept of time. Instead, when that wavefunction collapses, we detect concept of time, right? See, however much you try, you can't get rid of Time. Its fundamental. Not just a measure. You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.

You bring up an interesting point - the way a photon "percieves" the universe. First of all, a photon travels at the speed of light. Time dilation predicts that something traveling the speed of light cannot measure time. Therefore, time MAY flow for photons, as you said, but it would be irrelevant because there would be no means of detection. By the same token, if one were to measure the position of a photon, the same problem occurs. Since the photon is constantly travelling, its position is in quantum flux analagous to the aforementioned wave function. When an observational attempt is made, the photon is shown to be in two places at once.]
First of all, photon does NOT travel at speed of light. Its speed depends on medium. Second, time dilation equations are undefined for case of speed of light, that is they do not work at that range. They stop being equations. They produce crap. And afterall, GR predicts that nothing can travel at speed of light in first place.

Assumption that photon has no timeflow defined in relation to our timeframe, is not warranted. And that's why imo:
We know that photons can be years inflight, being lost with reference to both source and target. Therefore photons can not be outside our space/time. Being in photons shoes might have other local time flow, but in no way is it 0. For photon to travel infinite distance in our terms in 0 time in its terms means that photon will not interact ever with anything in our world. If it was true, we would have to perceive photons differently, they'd either not exist, or exist as lines of infinite length and propagate at infinite velocity. This is not what we observe.
Anything that is outside time/space must be for us either nonexistent, or allpervasive always. There is no other possibility.
There might be a phenomena with such properties we don't know yet, but its not the photons themselves. They are from this world, they are finite. That doesn't mean that what they perceive is not completely different than that of us.

You just shouldn't forget that time stopping to zero is enormously strong statement.
Is this logically erronous? Yes, but it is the reality of our universe.[/B]
No, its reality of our physics models. We don't even know if photon exists in the first place.

MajinVegeta, I don't see contradiction. Please show it more clearly.

As to multiple history ideas, I'd think this analogy. Game of chess has enormous possible gameplays. Do they all *exist*? No, there are that many possibilities, but only that few will ever realize. Its not that there is some chessboard that permanently plays all possible chess games (fluctuates), and we occasionally take a look (collapse). One must make distinction between imaginary possibilities, and reality that exists now and here.
 
  • #128
Originally posted by wimms
Detection is interaction. It preassumes time. Read your words: reality "is", "wave", "function", "fluctuating", "until", "observed". None of these terms obviously depends upon concept of time. Instead, when that wavefunction collapses, we detect concept of time, right? See, however much you try, you can't get rid of Time. Its fundamental. Not just a measure. You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.

First of all, photon does NOT travel at speed of light. Its speed depends on medium. Second, time dilation equations are undefined for case of speed of light, that is they do not work at that range. They stop being equations. They produce crap. And afterall, GR predicts that nothing can travel at speed of light in first place.

Assumption that photon has no timeflow defined in relation to our timeframe, is not warranted. And that's why imo:
We know that photons can be years inflight, being lost with reference to both source and target. Therefore photons can not be outside our space/time. Being in photons shoes might have other local time flow, but in no way is it 0. For photon to travel infinite distance in our terms in 0 time in its terms means that photon will not interact ever with anything in our world. If it was true, we would have to perceive photons differently, they'd either not exist, or exist as lines of infinite length and propagate at infinite velocity. This is not what we observe.
Anything that is outside time/space must be for us either nonexistent, or allpervasive always. There is no other possibility.
There might be a phenomena with such properties we don't know yet, but its not the photons themselves. They are from this world, they are finite. That doesn't mean that what they perceive is not completely different than that of us.

You just shouldn't forget that time stopping to zero is enormously strong statement.
No, its reality of our physics models. We don't even know if photon exists in the first place.

MajinVegeta, I don't see contradiction. Please show it more clearly.

As to multiple history ideas, I'd think this analogy. Game of chess has enormous possible gameplays. Do they all *exist*? No, there are that many possibilities, but only that few will ever realize. Its not that there is some chessboard that permanently plays all possible chess games (fluctuates), and we occasionally take a look (collapse). One must make distinction between imaginary possibilities, and reality that exists now and here.

Possibilities exist, here and now, otherwise how could I be conceiving of them, here and now?
 
  • #129
Originally posted by wimms
You can get rid of any spatial dimension, or add some, and construct something that could possibly exist. But as soon as you remove Time, you remove concept "exist" - its impossible.

Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions.
 
  • #130
Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions.

Very good point.
 
  • #131
In order for us to travel to the past, would the future already need to exist?
 
  • #132
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
In order for us to travel to the past, would the future already need to exist?

In a manner of speaking. Let's say a man decided to bring a cell phone back with him to 1900. For the people in 1900, their future has been predicted. The same holds true for the man in 2003 who encounters a time traveler from 2100.

The bottom line is traveling to the past in the same universe is impossible. Time progresses in a linear fashion. It may progress at different speeds and intervals, but still in the same direction.

Many Worlds theory, on the other hand, allows time travel into the past of an alternate universe, identical to your own at the instant you time travel. Then, you are free to kill your parents, as it does not contradict your existence because you are from another universe. This is all just theory, of course, but it seems to be the most practical way of time travel to the past (or possibly wormholes but those would cause paradoxes as well).
 
  • #133
But there is still a paradox. If the man goes back to 1900, before he was born, that contradicts the very first law of thermodynamics. Even with the multiple hisotry theory.
The man going back to 1900 would cause a closed time loop to occur. That is, the same thing will continue to happen again and again, infinitely. in 2003, the man decides to go to 1900, and when 1900 proceeds into the future, (say the guy was born in 1980) the man is born again, and then he decides to go back to 1900 hundered...

so, the question remains, are closed time loops paradoxical?
 
  • #134
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But there is still a paradox. If the man goes back to 1900, before he was born, that contradicts the very first law of thermodynamics. Even with the multiple hisotry theory.
The man going back to 1900 would cause a closed time loop to occur. That is, the same thing will continue to happen again and again, infinitely. in 2003, the man decides to go to 1900, and when 1900 proceeds into the future, (say the guy was born in 1980) the man is born again, and then he decides to go back to 1900 hundered...

so, the question remains, are closed time loops paradoxical?

Are saying this is all happening in the same universe?? I don't understand, because in my post I was saying the same thing--that time travel in the same universe creates paradoxes.

When a man travels to a different universe, however, he escapes the paradox of a closed time loop because he involves himself with the timeline of another universe.

Can you please clarify your last post because I think we are agreeing on the same thing here, just saying it differently.
 
  • #135
Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, but this is also true for space. If you remove all spatial dimensions, there is no existence either. If you remove one spatial dimension, things can still exist, but not if you remove all of them. The fact that the universe can't exist without its time dimension stems from the fact that time is one-dimensional. If there were multiple time dimensions, we could add/subtract them the same way we could add/subtract spatial dimensions.
No existence in our familiar form. That does not warrant idea that no existence is possible. Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.

Besides spatial dimensions, you can imagine arbitrary number of any other dimensions, like imagine computer program - its in its own "space", in this case space is freedom of states, possibilities. And computing steps are interactions that can be assigned notion of particles or forces, and they exist in that computer time. Dimensionality of such computer can be made arbitrariliy large, and it has not even close resemblence to our spatial dimensions. When you stop that computer time, these particle cease to exist, and only single state remains. You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And that's possible only when computer clock is restarted. And for particle inside computer program, there is no way to detect whether time runs or is stopped. The only thing what particle can detect is interaction _when_ time runs. For it, to exist is to have computer time running. Same for us, to exist _requires_ concept of time and interaction. For computer program, to jump in time means skipping series of cause/effect interactions and start interacting with something that doesn't exist yet or anymore. Not only does this scrap causality, it simply doesn't make sense.

Multiple time dimensions is as meaningless as multiple lengths. You can introduce as many as you like, it does not change essence of the concept, it remains unique.
Originally posted by Mentat
Possibilities exist, here and now, otherwise how could I be conceiving of them, here and now?
Possiblity: I imagine that I'm god and destroy that universe. Do you feel anything? Is that possibility "real"? Why is it not possible? Because we live in _real_ world? What makes it real? Constraints to possibilities? Okay, is there such a law of nature that forbids wimms to destroy universe? No, but there are laws of nature that states that to do that, you'd need to spend energy - interact. And they state that wimms has not even pion's chance in myuon's ass to kick the universe. Therefore we safely conclude, that this imagination is not real. But I conceive it, perfectly vividly. Its here, it exists! So what? It has no capacity to interact with real world. Therefore, it does not exist. There exist my braincells, that fired this way for duration of this post, they are real, but not the imagination. When I'm finished, horrible image of wimms destroying universe ceases to exist even in my imagination. And definitely its not something that could exist separately from my delusion.

See? To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form. You might imply that now that I've written that delusion down, it exists on this forum in electronic shape. But its not what I imagined. What you perceive is delusion crap of somebody who'd better be drunk. And that's what it is - useless crap not end of world. But if you'd truly perceive sky crushing down on you, it would be real. Thing is what it appears to other thing to be.

There is a difference between imaginary delusions and real world out there. Imaginary delusions are limited by your own constraints only, real world limits you with requirement to interact in frame of laws we are trying to find out. As long as this universe is causal and logical, there is no room for "all possible universes", there is only one, here and now, constrained by only one possible direction of time - from past to future by means of cause/effect interactions.

To add here, consider abstract ideas, like geometric point, or line. Are they real? Do they exist? In our delusions, yes, but in universe out there - no, they don't exist. We can model world around us by using our imaginary shapes, but that doesn't make our imagination real, its merely description of something out there.
Time as coordinate dimension is of that kind - its is convenient to use it as spatial dimension, because this allows us to compute formulas, but it doesn't mean you can move on it the same way as you move in space.

As to multiple histories, they can't exist concurrently. To exist means to interact, if they don't interact they don't exist. You can shape the world around you, if you have free will, and this way decide which way your history develops, but there is no way you could swap your reality, much the same way as wimms cannot destroy universe, or how single value of variable in computer program cannot arbitrarily and acausally change whole state or even structure and program of the supercomputer. The only way how you could escape into other universe is via imagination. This is apparently perfectly possible, as we can learn from institutions with soft walls.
 
  • #136
We can't prove that time has always existed. At the instant of The Big Bang nothing existed but energy at infinite temperature and density. No matter or mass existed and there was no dimention to the singularity, just a mathematical point. Did spacetime exist? I don't think so. I don't think that spacetime existed until after inflation and matter or mass started to form out of the expanding and thus cooling singularity. I believe that only then did space, time, dimension, location and direction come into existence.
Also remember that we are 3 dimensional beings and cannot preceive nor conceive of four or more dimensional spacetime. Things pop into and out of our 3 dimensional universe without our being able to "see" where they came from or where they went and though a photon may be seen by us to take a billion years to reach us from a distant galaxy, to the photon it took no time at all. The trip was instantaneous and it existed everywhere along it's path at the same time. Not only can it be two places at once but it can and is everywhere at once. It doesn't make sense to us 3D beings, but it is. I like to think of it as "Instantaneous travels at 300,000 k/sec or c to us. That is our limit and constant not the cosmos's.
 
  • #137
mentat
"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
royce:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #138
Originally posted by wimms
Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.

Okay, but as soon as you remove time, 1 time dimension no longer remains. The best example is to imagine a universe with one time and one space dimension. If you remove either dimension, existence as we know it disappears. What makes time unique is that we can't remove any time dimensions because (according to you) there must be one that always remains. We can remove some spatial dimensions (as there are three of them), but not all of them. It seems like you are trying to say that time dimensions are somehow more fundamental to existence than space dimensions, where as I am saying this only seems this way because we have 1 time dimension and 3 space...


You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And that's possible only when computer clock is restarted.

However, running that program on two different computers may yield two different results, meaning that multiple outcomes are possible. If you hadn't observed the results of the program, all outcomes would exist simultaneously as they would be in a state of quantum flux, until of course they are observed, the wave function breaks down, and a definite outcome emerges (Schrodinger's cat again).


To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form.

Now we're speaking the same language! You said in a previous post that detection is interaction, and I was saying that something must be detected to definitely exist. So we finally agree.
 
  • #139
Originally posted by Royce
We can't prove that time has always existed. At the instant of The Big Bang nothing existed but energy at infinite temperature and density. No matter or mass existed and there was no dimention to the singularity, just a mathematical point. Did spacetime exist? I don't think so. I don't think that spacetime existed until after inflation and matter or mass started to form out of the expanding and thus cooling singularity. I believe that only then did space, time, dimension, location and direction come into existence.
Sigh. I know its hard to talk about time. Especially talking about not time. Let's see how well did you manage to get away without time.

At BB instant - temporal, ok zeropoint. Existed nothing but energy - so, energy already existed? temporal concept. Energy - concept requires interaction to have meaning. Temperature - concept requires motion. Density - spatial concept. No "spacetime existed until after inflation" - until after is temporal concept. existed is temporal concept. Not exist until - contradiction. Inflation - verb, requires time. "matter started to form", expansion, cooling - all verbs requiring concept of time. And only then did time come into existence? hmm...

Imho, best you can, is start like this: First, nothing existed. (It sucked.) So, Time began. (..and it was good) Then singularity appeared. Then dimensions appeared. Then bang, it diversified into holy universe. Concept of energy and temperature appeared. Local density, cooling, inflation. (damn, almost like bible.)

Note that density of universe is still infinity, its still perhaps singularity, temperature is still infinite, etc. Its just we happen to exist in some arbitrary range of all of this, and perceive some local fluctuations as our reality, maybe falling down some entropy gradient perceiving phase shifts ala cooling and lumping of matter.

So here we are. If there ever was beginning, then it had to begin with time. Then there was 1 thing - singularity that existed (omm). Then it split into parts. Problem with this: its a creation. Hastalavista energy conservation laws.

Also remember that we are 3 dimensional beings and cannot preceive nor conceive of four or more dimensional spacetime. Things pop into and out of our 3 dimensional universe without our being able to "see" where they came from or where they went and though a photon may be seen by us to take a billion years to reach us from a distant galaxy, to the photon it took no time at all. The trip was instantaneous and it existed everywhere along it's path at the same time. Not only can it be two places at once but it can and is everywhere at once. It doesn't make sense to us 3D beings, but it is. I like to think of it as "Instantaneous travels at 300,000 k/sec or c to us. That is our limit and constant not the cosmos's. [/B]
Why you think we can't conceive 4th dimension? Have you ever played 3D games on your computer? Had a sensation of depth? You played it on 2D monitor. Technique called projection. In 3D world, you can happily watch 4D movie and it'll actually make sense. What would you think, why any string theory of the week has all those upper dimensions curled into Planck size? They are not here.

Well, I can perfectly understand and even agree, that photon with 0 time feels like it travels at infinite speed. Problem with that photon being everywhere at once is that its enough to have single one for the whole universe. God maybe, the overseer?
 
  • #140
Originally posted by Locutus
It seems like you are trying to say that time dimensions are somehow more fundamental to existence than space dimensions

However, running that program on two different computers may yield two different results, meaning that multiple outcomes are possible. If you hadn't observed the results of the program, all outcomes would exist simultaneously as they would be in a state of quantum flux, until of course they are observed, the wave function breaks down, and a definite outcome emerges (Schrodinger's cat again).

Now we're speaking the same language! You said in a previous post that detection is interaction, and I was saying that something must be detected to definitely exist. So we finally agree.
But of course detection is interaction. How else can you detect anything? I don't even see now where the disagreement was..

Yes I'm trying to say that time is more fundamental. It actually creates all other spatial dimensions (And 3 are sufficient, but that's opinion). If you think of 1D line as of mathmatical concept, then its possible abstraction, but it cannot exist as reality. There is no way to detect any distinguishable points on it without concept of time. As soon as concept of time emerges, its minimal "planck" time creates distinguishable points, and arbitrary "lightspeed" to detect them.

I don't understand why are you fascinated by that poor cat. Computer program is not quantum flux, its perfectly and completely deterministic system whose outcome can be reproduced indefinitely with completely predictable results. What I was talking about is program, algoritm, and its execution steps as concept of time. objects inside the program are those that "exist". Think of your favourite 3D game.
 
  • #141
Originally posted by wimms
No existence in our familiar form. That does not warrant idea that no existence is possible. Notice yourself, you can remove or add spatial dimensions freely, given that at least 1 remains, but as soon as you remove time, all spatial dimensions loose sense. Therefore time is more fundamental than spatial dimensions.

Besides spatial dimensions, you can imagine arbitrary number of any other dimensions, like imagine computer program - its in its own "space", in this case space is freedom of states, possibilities. And computing steps are interactions that can be assigned notion of particles or forces, and they exist in that computer time. Dimensionality of such computer can be made arbitrariliy large, and it has not even close resemblence to our spatial dimensions. When you stop that computer time, these particle cease to exist, and only single state remains. You can't think of all possible states as existing simultaneously, given constraints of computer program, there is only 1 way to proceed from given state - via causal interaction. And that's possible only when computer clock is restarted. And for particle inside computer program, there is no way to detect whether time runs or is stopped. The only thing what particle can detect is interaction _when_ time runs. For it, to exist is to have computer time running. Same for us, to exist _requires_ concept of time and interaction. For computer program, to jump in time means skipping series of cause/effect interactions and start interacting with something that doesn't exist yet or anymore. Not only does this scrap causality, it simply doesn't make sense.

Multiple time dimensions is as meaningless as multiple lengths. You can introduce as many as you like, it does not change essence of the concept, it remains unique.
Possiblity: I imagine that I'm god and destroy that universe. Do you feel anything? Is that possibility "real"? Why is it not possible? Because we live in _real_ world? What makes it real? Constraints to possibilities? Okay, is there such a law of nature that forbids wimms to destroy universe? No, but there are laws of nature that states that to do that, you'd need to spend energy - interact. And they state that wimms has not even pion's chance in myuon's ass to kick the universe. Therefore we safely conclude, that this imagination is not real. But I conceive it, perfectly vividly. Its here, it exists! So what? It has no capacity to interact with real world. Therefore, it does not exist. There exist my braincells, that fired this way for duration of this post, they are real, but not the imagination. When I'm finished, horrible image of wimms destroying universe ceases to exist even in my imagination. And definitely its not something that could exist separately from my delusion.

See? To exist requires interaction. And interaction creates form. You might imply that now that I've written that delusion down, it exists on this forum in electronic shape. But its not what I imagined. What you perceive is delusion crap of somebody who'd better be drunk. And that's what it is - useless crap not end of world. But if you'd truly perceive sky crushing down on you, it would be real. Thing is what it appears to other thing to be.

There is a difference between imaginary delusions and real world out there. Imaginary delusions are limited by your own constraints only, real world limits you with requirement to interact in frame of laws we are trying to find out. As long as this universe is causal and logical, there is no room for "all possible universes", there is only one, here and now, constrained by only one possible direction of time - from past to future by means of cause/effect interactions.

To add here, consider abstract ideas, like geometric point, or line. Are they real? Do they exist? In our delusions, yes, but in universe out there - no, they don't exist. We can model world around us by using our imaginary shapes, but that doesn't make our imagination real, its merely description of something out there.
Time as coordinate dimension is of that kind - its is convenient to use it as spatial dimension, because this allows us to compute formulas, but it doesn't mean you can move on it the same way as you move in space.

As to multiple histories, they can't exist concurrently. To exist means to interact, if they don't interact they don't exist. You can shape the world around you, if you have free will, and this way decide which way your history develops, but there is no way you could swap your reality, much the same way as wimms cannot destroy universe, or how single value of variable in computer program cannot arbitrarily and acausally change whole state or even structure and program of the supercomputer. The only way how you could escape into other universe is via imagination. This is apparently perfectly possible, as we can learn from institutions with soft walls.

You are wrong here. Concepts that exist within my mind, right now, do exist. They are not physical, but they do require physical interaction (of neurons) to be produced. They don't exist in the past or future, because nothing "exists" in the past or future. For something to be said "to exist", it has to exist in the present.
 
  • #142
Originally posted by Royce
mentat
"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
royce:wink:

LOL

Not always. Sometimes the true test of another man's intelligence is how well he can argue with you.
 
  • #143
Originally posted by wimms
Yes I'm trying to say that time is more fundamental.

Time and space are each definite properties of the universe. To say one is "more fundamental" than the other is just irrelevant. They are both fundamental and crucial to existence.

If you think of 1D line as of mathmatical concept, then its possible abstraction, but it cannot exist as reality. There is no way to detect any distinguishable points on it without concept of time.

You are not looking at the flip side of things. If there was no space, there would be no points to detect in the first place! The bottom line is: BOTH TIME AND SPACE ARE EQUALLY FUNDAMENTAL TO EXISTENCE!

As far as the computer program analogy goes, if you meant to describe a program in which the same outcome is arrived at each time, this is not an accurate analogy because the universe cannot be predicted in the same way that a computer program can. Maybe I just don't see your message behind the example of the computer program in the first place.
 
  • #144
Originally posted by Locutus
Time and space are each definite properties of the universe. To say one is "more fundamental" than the other is just irrelevant. They are both fundamental and crucial to existence.

You are not looking at the flip side of things. If there was no space, there would be no points to detect in the first place! The bottom line is: BOTH TIME AND SPACE ARE EQUALLY FUNDAMENTAL TO EXISTENCE!
Of course I am looking for both sides. Its not irrelevant, because you can have concept of time without geometric spatial dimensions, but spatial dimensions cannot exist without time. Spatial dimensions can only be _imagined_ without time, and even that is illusion, because "to continue to be" (definition of "exist") you need time.

There is another aspect. 1D line has no distinguishable points. Its continuum, and it has infinite number of points between any two you pick, or nothing, ie same point. You need distinguishing criteria, you need detection means. Zero time make no sense, infinite time makes no sense, this leaves finite timestep as the only meaningful concept, and this finite timestep is what quantifies space into distinguishable points. Only after that can you speak of space as of usable reality. Whats more important, if you try to quantify 1D line into points with uniform spacing, you can't do that without uniform time. But even if time is not uniform you have no means to detect that, for you space is uniform, as the only criteria for you is time.
This leads to suspicion that space is perception, not real. But oh well.
I do agree that both are fundamental for existence, but I tend to put time in higher rank of importance.

As far as the computer program analogy goes, if you meant to describe a program in which the same outcome is arrived at each time, this is not an accurate analogy because the universe cannot be predicted in the same way that a computer program can. Maybe I just don't see your message behind the example of the computer program in the first place.
Not predictability is important. Concept of time and existence is what I tried to explain. Think of this computer as of universe, and yourself as of creature inside the program. There is no outside. Creature inside cannot know anything about predictability, even uncertainty principle applies to it, because any interaction it makes with other creatures change states of both. But yeah, if it didn't help, then it wasn't a good example. Still, there is notion of space in that program, there is notion of time. But space isn't geometric as in 3D. How it is perceived by creatures inside, is matter of interactions, they might even perceive it as our 3d space.

Originally posted by Mentat
You are wrong here. Concepts that exist within my mind, right now, do exist. They are not physical, but they do require physical interaction (of neurons) to be produced. They don't exist in the past or future, because nothing "exists" in the past or future. For something to be said "to exist", it has to exist in the present.
Well, I think you have confusion about concept of exist. What exists, is your neurons, and their state, that both requires energy and generates energy. Concepts you are imagining, have no capacity to generate energy, consume energy, interact with anything, or even sustain their existence on their own.

Its something like arguing about concept of water. Does water exist? sure. So where is fundamental particle of water? ah, its not water that exist, its our abstraction of molecules.

When we talk about existence in universe, we are not talking about all possible abstractions we can arrange from quantums of existence, like when 3 photons for Planckscale moment of time happen to be in triangular arrangement, we don't say that triangle exists. Even less can we say that this triangle can interact with square in the future. When you look deeper, you see that the only way to exist is to interact.

And although I agree with your second part about "exist", I suggest to make further distinction between abstract concepts and reality.

ps. no need to quote long posts in full.
 
  • #145
Wimms,
You argue semantics and our inability and the limits of our language to speak or write about events that we think happened outside of our normal spacetime. While your logic may be impeccable, it is simply not relevant. Logic, Mathematics, Relativity and probably Quantum Mechanics blow up and become meaningless and incomprehensible inside the event horizon of a black hole much less the singularity itself. Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space. While matter may not be able to exist outside of spacetime energy and gravity apparently can and do.
There are a number of very good books on black holes, singularities and The Big Bang. I just finished one by John Gribbin "In The Beginning" written for laymen like me who are facinated by science but don't have the math or background to understand highly technical and mathematical writing.
 
  • #146
Originally posted by wimms
Well, I think you have confusion about concept of exist. What exists, is your neurons, and their state, that both requires energy and generates energy. Concepts you are imagining, have no capacity to generate energy, consume energy, interact with anything, or even sustain their existence on their own.

This may be the materialist's viewpoint, but it is not necessarily true. Think of this, why does our brain create new synapses, and "fire" neurons, if not to produce "thought"? Thought is not a physical entity, but it is the metaphysical product of the physical action of the brain.

Its something like arguing about concept of water. Does water exist? sure. So where is fundamental particle of water? ah, its not water that exist, its our abstraction of molecules.

But water does exist, and that's the point. As far as matter goes, there are no real molecules either, there are just quark and gluons (or just strings, in my preferred viewpoint). However, the fact that they interact, in a certain matter, produces "water".

When we talk about existence in universe, we are not talking about all possible abstractions we can arrange from quantums of existence, like when 3 photons for Planckscale moment of time happen to be in triangular arrangement, we don't say that triangle exists. Even less can we say that this triangle can interact with square in the future. When you look deeper, you see that the only way to exist is to interact.

Yes, and unless concepts interact with physics, such as occurs in the brain, they don't exist either. But the fact that there is an interaction (within the brain) proves that there is [at least conceptual] existence.

And although I agree with your second part about "exist", I suggest to make further distinction between abstract concepts and reality.

I do believe in a distinction between abstract concepts and physical reality. However, I also believe that I'm "really" thinking right now.

ps. no need to quote long posts in full.

I know, I was just in a hurry.
 
  • #147
Originally posted by Mentat
This may be the materialist's viewpoint, but it is not necessarily true. Think of this, why does our brain create new synapses, and "fire" neurons, if not to produce "thought"? Thought is not a physical entity, but it is the metaphysical product of the physical action of the brain.
Chemistry. Try smoke some good stuff and you'll see. Metaphysics is quite an area of its own. While discussing fundamental physics, its hard to mix them comfortably. It will lead to pure beliefs and philosophical running circles with strong force. Thought is state or process, and brain is machine that works by its own rules to compare those states. But that'll go too far off topic.
That thought is not physical entity is exactly my point. In same way any abstract concept, like 1D line, can not be physical entity.

But water does exist, and that's the point. As far as matter goes, there are no real molecules either, there are just quark and gluons (or just strings, in my preferred viewpoint). However, the fact that they interact, in a certain matter, produces "water".
Exactly, produces abstraction we call water. But its not fundamental. Whole universe we can talk about consists of abstractions we put into hierarchy. While digging into fundamentals, we are trying to dismantle abstractions into anteriority/posteriority relations so we can see what is made of what. While we do so, we continuously find that there is no such "thing" as what we call by our abstraction. But we always, always see that something interacts, and at times forms stable systems we can assign abstract ideas to.

Human thought is extremely unstable "thing", process rather than a product, and needs constant "refreshing" by additional energy shaped to interact in specific manner, constraint by design of our brain.

Yes, and unless concepts interact with physics, such as occurs in the brain, they don't exist either. But the fact that there is an interaction (within the brain) proves that there is [at least conceptual] existence
I do believe in a distinction between abstract concepts and physical reality. However, I also believe that I'm "really" thinking right now.
Absolutely. You are thinking. But not concepts you use. They don't think. They don't exist. Its stuff that makes up the concepts that exists. Take for eg. concept of infinite line. It can't exist even in your mind, as your finite number of neurons simply can't represent it. You imagine line by few samples and few properties it would have if it existed. Even here you imagine actually not the concept itself but ingredients of it.

But ok, at least we both agree that to exist something needs to interact.

Originally posted by Royce
Wimms, You argue semantics and our inability and the limits of our language to speak or write about events that we think happened outside of our normal spacetime. While your logic may be impeccable, it is simply not relevant. Logic, Mathematics, Relativity and probably Quantum Mechanics blow up and become meaningless and incomprehensible inside the event horizon of a black hole much less the singularity itself. Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space. While matter may not be able to exist outside of spacetime energy and gravity apparently can and do.
Royce, your attitude hurts the spirit. Its essentially giving up before even trying. I really didn't mean to play games with language, although its educating to notice that not even single sentence can be meaningful if it doesn't include concept of time, explicit or implicit.

Theories don't produce understanding, not even explanation. They produce models, internally consistent models, refutable and testable by experiment. Interpretation is done by using philosophy of age, paradigm. Models are round, circular, pretty much indifferent to what is anterior vs posterior. They simply interrelate bunch of simplicities into consistent complexity. Take this simplest formula: v=l/t. There is not even hope to decide which is fundamental of the 3, velocity, distance or time. For this model it is irrelevant. Possibly for any model. But when you move deeper into the hierarchy of abstractions, closer to fundamentals, importance of such ordering becomes relevant. Not too long ago timeflow was considered constant. SR was revolution, and not even now does it go down easily. Back then, it didn't go down at all. After it was proved unrefutable, it started process of paradigm shift, philosophy changed. And its still not done yet - time has lost its respect and is reduced to 4th dimension, even though its still always assumed that timeflow is uniform and even within a reference frame.

Most complex theories produce sideeffects, results that have no sense. There is whole set of rules how to decide when to discard such results as "physically meaningless". When stripped off from all the complex hitech talk, its essentially what is called "common sense". Basically stuff that doesn't fit into framework gets discarded as meaningless. Criteria for decision is existing paradigm. The more beautiful is model of prevailing theory, the harder it is to get paradigm shifted. It takes mad scientist or mad philosopher to do that, and in our times only scientist can possibly do that. But scientist can't do that if he hasn't philosophy ground to think different. So, philosophical and scientific evolution need to progress together.

Models use equations. Equations by their very nature equalize concepts, even if they are in hierarchical relationship. One example of this happening is concept of time that has been equated to dimension. Within framework of model, its irrelevant, and it is useful to think so for sake of computations within layer of abstraction. But meaning to such irrelevance gives human, and here we are, thinking of time as of dimension for travel.

"Events that must have happened sequentially but outside of normal time and normal space, i.e. 0 time and 0 space." You know, this is pretty much definition of time. You can't get rid of it. Its fundamental.
There is something wrong with our current models. Its a fact. These same models predict such incomprehensible things. I'd say we should accept such predictions with caution. Accept, but don't trust. New paradigm shift is around the corner.
 
  • #148
Wimms,
The whole point of modern Physics is the common sense doesn't apply anymore nor does it make sense. Relativity whether general or special and Quantum Mechanics are beyoun and outside of everday experience and therefore do not make common sense. The more crazy an idea is the more its is probably right. If it is crazy enough.
Time is not constant nor even flowing but relative and local to the given reference set. That was one of the major features of GR. Time is relative to the observer. Time does not flow smooth at the quantum level just as spacetime is not smooth at the quantum level but is quantumized.( I still don't know if that's a word or not.)
I believe that spacetime is a function or characteristic of mass/matter based somewhat on what little I know and understand of string theory. Until matter begins to form out of the expanding and thus cooling energy inside a, the, singularity there is no spacetime within the singularity. As mass/matter forms it also forms dimensions. What is the number now, 11+? Of these dimenions are the four that we experience directly and know as spacetime. If a void contains no matter then it is my beleif that it contains no space, no time, no spacetime and is total infinity without constraints or limits and as they pointed out in "MenIn Black" "Size doesn't matter." It is totally irrelevent.
Once again Common Sense does not and cannot apply because such conditions are forever totally outside human experience and human experience is what Common Sense is bases on.
I cannot write or talk without words that have time/duration connotation; but, that connotation does not apply in this context.
 
  • #149
Mentat,
To get back to the your original point, "Why we can't go back." If we were really 4-D beings and could see time just as we see east or west or up or down and you, traveling forward in time, watched me traveling backward in time; you would see me NOW at point A, then I would also appear at point B somewhere in your past, being both places, A, NOW and B,PAST at the same time. I would then disappear
from point A, NOW and continue on from B, PAST. Impossible and incomprehensible to you, of course. However to me, traveling backward it time in reference to your time and place, it would be perfectly normal and natural, an orderly and timely progression from A, my NOW to B, my FUTURE.
Time, like space is relative to the observer. I'm not saying that it is physically possible, I don't know but I believe it would involve have an intrinsic velocity greated the C. Fortunatly or perhaps unfortunately, again depending on your point of view or mind set, we are not truly 4-D being but only 3-D beings and while we live in TIME and know we live in TIME we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane.
PS I'm not even sure I understand what I just said/wrote. Your thoughts and comments, please!
 
  • #150
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat,
To get back to the your original point, "Why we can't go back." If we were really 4-D beings and could see time just as we see east or west or up or down and you, traveling forward in time, watched me traveling backward in time; you would see me NOW at point A, then I would also appear at point B somewhere in your past, being both places, A, NOW and B,PAST at the same time. I would then disappear
from point A, NOW and continue on from B, PAST. Impossible and incomprehensible to you, of course. However to me, traveling backward it time in reference to your time and place, it would be perfectly normal and natural, an orderly and timely progression from A, my NOW to B, my FUTURE.


Exactly. "Your future". This means that you are not traveling to the past, but to the future.

Time, like space is relative to the observer. I'm not saying that it is physically possible, I don't know but I believe it would involve have an intrinsic velocity greated the C. Fortunatly or perhaps unfortunately, again depending on your point of view or mind set, we are not truly 4-D being but only 3-D beings and while we live in TIME and know we live in TIME we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane.
PS I'm not even sure I understand what I just said/wrote. Your thoughts and comments, please!

I don't really know the point you are trying to get at either. First you seem to deny that time is a dimension. Then you say that "we can only see NOW which is the spacetime point that Time coincides or intersects our spacetime 3-D plane". I'm just confused. We call it "spacetime" because we are including time (obviously). Thus is must be four-dimensional, unless you think there are only two dimensions of space.
 
Back
Top