Time travel

8,641 Views | 96 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Caesar4
10thYrSr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reality is formed by people believing in that reality. What is real? Without the agreement of another, nothing.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
10thYrSr said:

Reality is formed by people believing in that reality. What is real? Without the agreement of another, nothing.
You examine atoms and find that they are mostly empty space. The neutrons and protons are made up of quarks. All we know about quarks and other subatomic particles are their quantum numbers. So then, in essence, we've boiled down all physical matter down to numbers. And what is space? It's a type of geometry.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I, for one, am not smart enough to participate in this discussion.

Thank you. I will move along now.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No matter what, time travel isn't possible because it violates conservation of mass. If you take yourself and move yourself from (0,0,0,t) to (0,0,0,t-x), then the total mass and energy of the universe at t-x would necessarily increase. The traditional paradox of a loop in time and you always having being there and it not causing any problems in the present doesn't really apply because time traveling you was not there at any point before. The mass of the universe would necessarily equal the mass prior to t-x plus you after t-x. That's because everything that makes you up already existed at t-x, and everything that makes up time traveling you would then be an extra duplicate of that mass and energy.

Moving forward presents the same problem. For some time T, t<T<t+x, the mass of the universe during T would be the mass of the universe at time t minus you. So jumping forward would temporarily remove your mad and energy from the universe.
Tomdoss92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Talk to this guy, he's done it.... but only once.

Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
God, or as it relates to us Sacramentally the Logos Incarnate, is not a thing but the act of existing itself. Our human theosis, the becoming of greater union toward God, is a self-awakening toward the truly Real, which is a divine Person.

Humans can observe all of what is seen. Yet the seeing eye is limited to the vision field, not what lies outside. I believe that by the standards of materialism alone we have very strong evidence of other "vibrations," or "dimensions" - including at the tiniest observable data point of matter. What happens when this matter is observed?

If this summary is reasonable concerning ultimate reality, then time travel is reasonable because our understanding of space - time is so limited. Our dimension is but one.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


We've been discussing time travel in the Q anon thread


Because, of course you have.

Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tomdoss92 said:

Talk to this guy, he's done it.... but only once.



This lead to a fantastic movie.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/
spanky
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Isn't that only applicable if you are thinking about time travel in the sense of moving your physical body in human form? Isn't the more realistic approach to move information/code to a display/host?
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swc93 said:

Flying through space ain't like dusting crops.

If you are on a vessel traveling at the speed of light and you walk from the back to the front; you are traveling faster than the speed of light but not really.

that's all I got.

Relativistic speeds are not linearly additive.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexAgs91 said:

You can measure an entangled particle and if the other entangled particle is measured, it will instantly have the same state as the first measured particle. That isn't useful communication.

If you force the state of an entangled particle thinking that you could also force the state of the other particle, that won't work. Forcing the state breaks the entanglement.
Kind of.

More like the opposite of the first particle.

For example, if the total spin is zero and one particle has spin of +1/2, then the other has a spin of -1/2. So if you measure the spin of one, you know the spin of the other.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexAgs91 said:

While we're on the topic, I'd like to throw this out there.

The flow of time is an illusion.

There's been some silly FB debates on whether time exists. It does. But the flow of time is an illusion. Can you ask "how many seconds per second does time flow?". No. That doesn't make sense. We are all 4D static space-time structures. Light exists in spacetime as 4D light cones. Whatever light intersects your 4D eyes at a particular instance is what you see at that instance in time.

The reason that we can't remember the future is like what Philip J Fry says: you must obey the laws of thermodynamics. The chemistry required to encode memories only works in one direction in time because entropy always increases. So at each point in time, you can only remember the past. And every point along the time axis of your 4D self is simultaneously (in 4-space) conscious of only one instance in time.

It's like a video file. Every frame exists at once, and each frame only shows one instance in time.

And yes, this also means that everything is predetermined and free will is out the window.
You might be interested in some of Roger Penrose's works. (Or may have already read them.)
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
spanky said:

Isn't that only applicable if you are thinking about time travel in the sense of moving your physical body in human form? Isn't the more realistic approach to move information/code to a display/host?


I don't even think that's realistic because to do such a thing you would basically need to copy the arrangement of atoms/quarks that make up your brain and create it somewhen else. The "information/code" you're thinking of is basically the current state and location of every subatomic particle of what you want to move. You're basically talking about rearranging matter and literal alchemy.
G Martin 87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CrottyKid said:

This is some interesting and crazy sounding stuff!
Could we learn to "remember" the future? Could we take drugs that would open the ability to remember the future? This sounds like a movie script.
It's the premise of both the short story "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang and the movie "Arrival", based on the same story. (Although not by using drugs.) Both are excellent.
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Arrival does a good job of showing how it would work. An simple way to explain it is in terms of dimensions. Asking a 1 dimensional object to explain how to move in three dimensions is outside of its grasp. It can only move in one direction.

Similarly, we are 3 dimensional beings that move forward in the 4th dimension in a straight line. Always forward. Maybe one day we can move in a "5th" (backwards in time, or forwards in time) or a "6th dimension" (what I would consider a multiverse, where you go to the same point in time, but after a different decision in the past has altered that universe).

I'm over simplifying, but that's kind of an easy way to understand it imo.
taxpreparer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Time travel happens all the time. Pick up any book and read what is printed; the information a has traveled from the past to your present. No, you cannot go back in time, but you are continuously moving into the future.
***It's your money, not theIRS! (At least for a little while longer.)
Decay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The thing I settle on with time travel is similar to interstellar travel. Could there be some crazy physical edge case to make time travel possible? Sure. But one, you don't see time travellers (or space travelers, again just speaking in common knowledge, don't need to go down that hole) so at least some aspect of time isn't being cracked.

Second, the staggering amount of energy required to make these things work is a really hard obstacle. Realistically, it's impossible. Like near-light travel is requiring so much energy we only see it by individual particles, or things falling into black holes. You can't carry enough fuel to accelerate anything that fast, you can't shoot anything out of a gun that fast without completely destroying it, etc.

It's neat to talk about, and fun physics, but it's not a "thing". Don't lose sleep over it. It's kinda freeing in a way because as a kid I always worried we would never develop time travel and warp drives. But it's like I read the last page of a book that would have taken a thousand years to read, and I was really only worried about how it ends anyway.
Tomdoss92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

swc93 said:

Flying through space ain't like dusting crops.

If you are on a vessel traveling at the speed of light and you walk from the back to the front; you are traveling faster than the speed of light but not really.

that's all I got.


what about cropdusting in space?

Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexAgs91 said:

Redstone said:

The idea would be that time is a creation by a Being outside of time, and that a spirit is not of time but can enter it. "Travel," therefore, by a disembodied spirit is intention (assuming allowance by the Being).

Second, regarding interstellar travel
Is it possible alien intelligence can generate a gravitational field, and then use that field to distort space / time? By "bringing" destination to source, bypassing linear understanding?

I don't know. But our understanding of physics underwent a radical overhaul about a century ago, didn't it?
But in their domains, the two theories are extremely successful. They aren't making bad predictions like the ultraviolet catastrophe

Remind me how big of a number you would have to multiply by to account for the difference between calculated and measured vacuum energy density again.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Really makes you wonder why they waited forever and lost all of their other ships, plus a bunch of people, before turning one into a bullet at the speed of light and blowing up the giant whatever it was supposed to be.
Bradley.Kohr.II
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think this, "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive" indicates a theoretical way to travel at higher than light speed, with a reasonable amount of mass.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To follow up a bit, here are some points of why materialism is weak:
- attempts to characterize matter is - Aristotle was right ! - a description of the form matter has taken, not necessarily of the matter itself
- how does a materialism argument account for awareness, consciousness, thought, will, volition, emotion ... - without introducing non-material principles?
- why is there something rather than nothing? .... "nothing has ever come from nothing" .... so hard to answer in a non-arbitrary way

Atomism an indivisible particle as the ultimate ontological reality now seems to be on very shaky ground.

Please correct me, science-people, but don't particle and anti-particle collide to produce energy? Does the weak gauge boson have mass? Doesn't this really complicate materialist notions of matter? Aren't we at the place now of "more ultimate" string-like particles carrying different "frequencies" and thus differing "phenomena?" Isn't this inaccessible to any possible experiment we could do now?

Is this not waves of other dimensions?

Heisenberg:
"The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures, or - in Plato's sense - Ideas"
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/64309.Werner_Heisenberg
....a co-founder of quantum physics
Bradley.Kohr.II
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't know anything about those philosophies and p chem was a long time ago.

Essentially, small particles are only really capable of being thought of as mathematical formulas.

Essentially, the smaller they are, the more the wave aspect dominates, rather than the particle one.

Matter and energy are really the same thing, it's just that as size increases, the wave aspects cancel out.

Never had to worry about strings or bosons in biochem, at least when I was at A&M.

From the brief synopsis of those ideas I found online, I don't think physics really offers much light, other than both the Big Bang and the creation of new species both seem to require "and then some magic happens" in the modeling.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am posting this on November 13th to test messaging into the future. With any luck, this will be displayed on December 5th, 2019.
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I also like Altered Carbon's take on it, where human consciousness has the ability to be downloaded in a disc, so you can store people virtually for however long you can keep the lights on.

So they send one ship with enough crew stored virtually to start up a human body sleeving facility on a new planet, however long that takes, and once operational they can send people at or near the speed of light as data transmissions that are then downloaded into new bodies when the transmission arrives.

DE4D
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hmmm.that didnt work.

As an aside to travel at the speed of light i would like to discuss the idea of anchor travel. Will leave this here to remind myself
Caesar4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
On a related note, I recomend this movie:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.