|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 4, 2017 0:51:06 GMT
any you sort of feel could be true?.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 4, 2017 23:35:48 GMT
A freaking classic:  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 4, 2017 23:46:54 GMT
any you sort of feel could be true?. No time travel is possible. A fortiori because time is nothing like a substance in which one can travel in the first place. The closest you can get to it is to simply exploit the fact that time is different relativistically, so that someone traveling fast enough would age much more slowly with respect to a relatively static frame of reference. So in other words, the most you can do is travel close to the speed of light and only age a year or whatever compared to the many years that would pass on the planet you departed from. So practically, it would seem like you're "traveling into the future," but really, changes are just occurring at different rates relativistically. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 5, 2017 0:40:36 GMT
any you sort of feel could be true?. No time travel is possible.
April 28, 2017IN BRIEF Physicists have developed a new mathematical model that shows how time travel is theoretically possible. They used Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as a springboard for their hypothetical device. BENDING TIME Even before Einstein theorized that time is relative and flexible, humanity had already been imagining the possibility of time travel. In fact, science fiction is filled with time travelers. Some use metahuman abilities to do so, but most rely on a device generally known as a time machine. Now, two physicists think that it’s time to bring the time machine into the real world — sort of. “People think of time travel as something as fiction. And we tend to think it’s not possible because we don’t actually do it,” Ben Tippett, a theoretical physicist and mathematician from the University of British Columbia, said in a UBC news release. “But, mathematically, it is possible.” Essentially, what Tippet and University of Maryland astrophysicist David Tsang developed is a mathematical formula that uses Einstein’s General Relativity theory to prove that time travel is possible, in theory. That is, time travel fitting a layperson’s understanding of the concept as moving “backwards and forwards through time and space, as interpreted by an external observer,” according to the abstract of their paper, which is published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. Oh, and they’re calling it a TARDIS — yes, “Doctor Who” fans, hurray! — which stands for a Traversable Acausal Retrograde Domain in Space-time. FEASIBLE BUT NOT POSSIBLE. YET. “My model of a time machine uses the curved space-time to bend time into a circle for the passengers, not in a straight line,” Tippet explained. “That circle takes us back in time.” Simply put, their model assumes that time could curve around high-mass objects in the same way that physical space does in the universe. For Tippet and Tsang, a TARDIS is a space-time geometry “bubble” that travels faster than the speed of light. “It is a box which travels ‘forwards’ and then ‘backwards’ in time along a circular path through spacetime,” they wrote in their paper. Unfortunately, it’s still not possible to construct such a time machine. “While is it mathematically feasible, it is not yet possible to build a space-time machine because we need materials to bend space-time, but they have yet to be discovered,” Tippet explained. Indeed, their work isn’t the first to suggest that time traveling can be done. Various other experiments, including those that rely on photon stimulation, suggest that time travel is feasible. Another theory explores the potential particles of time. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 5, 2017 0:43:19 GMT
any you sort of feel could be true?. No time travel is possible. A fortiori because time is nothing like a substance in which one can travel in the first place. The closest you can get to it is to simply exploit the fact that time is different relativistically, so that someone traveling fast enough would age much more slowly with respect to a relatively static frame of reference. So in other words, the most you can do is travel close to the speed of light and only age a year or whatever compared to the many years that would pass on the planet you departed from. So practically, it would seem like you're "traveling into the future," but really, changes are just occurring at different rates relativistically. What do you make of The Major seeing the updated airfield. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 5, 2017 0:43:49 GMT
No time travel is possible.
April 28, 2017IN BRIEF Physicists have developed a new mathematical model that shows how time travel is theoretically possible. They used Einstein's Theory of General Relativity as a springboard for their hypothetical device. BENDING TIME Even before Einstein theorized that time is relative and flexible, humanity had already been imagining the possibility of time travel. In fact, science fiction is filled with time travelers. Some use metahuman abilities to do so, but most rely on a device generally known as a time machine. Now, two physicists think that it’s time to bring the time machine into the real world — sort of. “People think of time travel as something as fiction. And we tend to think it’s not possible because we don’t actually do it,” Ben Tippett, a theoretical physicist and mathematician from the University of British Columbia, said in a UBC news release. “But, mathematically, it is possible.” Essentially, what Tippet and University of Maryland astrophysicist David Tsang developed is a mathematical formula that uses Einstein’s General Relativity theory to prove that time travel is possible, in theory. That is, time travel fitting a layperson’s understanding of the concept as moving “backwards and forwards through time and space, as interpreted by an external observer,” according to the abstract of their paper, which is published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. Oh, and they’re calling it a TARDIS — yes, “Doctor Who” fans, hurray! — which stands for a Traversable Acausal Retrograde Domain in Space-time. FEASIBLE BUT NOT POSSIBLE. YET. “My model of a time machine uses the curved space-time to bend time into a circle for the passengers, not in a straight line,” Tippet explained. “That circle takes us back in time.” Simply put, their model assumes that time could curve around high-mass objects in the same way that physical space does in the universe. For Tippet and Tsang, a TARDIS is a space-time geometry “bubble” that travels faster than the speed of light. “It is a box which travels ‘forwards’ and then ‘backwards’ in time along a circular path through spacetime,” they wrote in their paper. Unfortunately, it’s still not possible to construct such a time machine. “While is it mathematically feasible, it is not yet possible to build a space-time machine because we need materials to bend space-time, but they have yet to be discovered,” Tippet explained. I have never seen this article before. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 5, 2017 0:47:46 GMT
PHYSICISTS PROVE THAT TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE BY ‘SENDING’ LIGHT PARTICLES INTO THE PAST
Scientists from the University of Queensland, Australia, have used single particles of light ( photons ) to simulate quantum particles travelling through time. They showed that one photon can pass through a wormhole and then interact with its older self. Their findings were published in Nature Communications.
The source of this time travel conundrum comes from what are called “closed time-like curves” ( CTC ). CTCs are used to simulate extremely powerful gravitational fields, like the ones produced by a spinning black hole, and could, theoretically ( based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity ), warp the fabric of existence so that space-time bends back on itself – thus creating a CTC, almost like a path that could be used to travel back in time.
According to Scientific American, many physicists find CTCs “abhorrent, because any macroscopic object traveling through one would inevitably create paradoxes where cause and effect break down.” Others disagree with this assessment, however; in 1991, physicist David Deutsch showed that these paradoxes ( created by CTCs ) could be avoided at the quantum scale because of the weird behavior of these fundamental particles that make up what we call matter.
It’s well known that at the quantum scale, these particles do not follow the rules that govern classical mechanics, but behave in strange and unexpected ways that really shouldn’t even be possible.
Welcome to the world of Quantum physics, where pioneering Physicist Niels Bohr once said, “if quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.” – Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate of the twentieth century
In the quantum world, paradoxes that we don’t understand are common findings, but this should not deter people from taking this science seriously. Even Einstein didn’t believe a lot of quantum theory, but I’d like to think that if he were alive today, he would definitely be having some fun, given all of the recent breakthroughs.
“It’s intriguing that you’ve got general relativity predicting these paradoxes, but then you consider them in quantum mechanical terms and the paradoxes go away.” – University of Queensland physicist Tim Ralph
The Experiment
Tim Ralph ( quoted above ) and his PhD student Martin Ringbauer simulated a Deutsch’s model of CTCs, according to Scientific American, “testing and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory.” Although it’s just a mathematical simulation, the researchers ( and their team / colleagues ) emphasize that their model is mathematically equivalent to a single photon traveling through a CTC. Nothing has actually been sent back through time though; to do that, scientists would have to find a real CTC, which has yet to happen as far as we know. Of course, there always remains the possibility that black budget science has.
Think in terms of the ‘grandfather paradox,’ a hypothetical scenario where someone uses a CTC to travel back through time to cause harm to their grandfather, thus preventing their later birth. Now imagine a particle going back in time to flip a switch on the particle-generating machine that created it – this is a possibility that these physicists say they have shown through their simulation.
You can read the specifics of the experiment here.
Why This Is A High Probability
In my opinion, there is no doubt time travel is possible. Why do I believe this? Well, it’s because we know one hundred percent that superposition is real on a quantum scale.
“The maddening part of that problem is that the ability of particles to exist in two places at once is not a mere theoretical abstraction. It is a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been experimentally confirmed many times over.”
“One of the supreme mysteries of nature… is the ability, according to the quantum mechanic laws that govern subatomic affairs, of a particle like an electron to exist in a murky state of possibility — to be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere at all — until clicked into substantiality by a laboratory detector or an eyeball.”
This means that one particle can exist in multiple states at one time. This is best demonstrated by the quantum double slit experiment. Recent experiments have also confirmed quantum entanglement, showing that space is really just a construct that gives the illusion of separation. One thing that suggests there is a high probably of time travel, in conjunction with the experiment mentioned in this article, is the fact that there are experiments showing that particles can actually be entangled through time.
‘Delayed Choice Experiment’
Like the quantum double slit experiment, the delayed choice/quantum eraser has been demonstrated and repeated time and time again. For example, physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have successfully conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment. Their findings were recently published in the journal Nature Physics.
In 2007, scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus and showed that their actions could retroactively change something which had already happened.
This particular experiment illustrates how what happens in the present can change what happened in the past. It also shows how time can go backwards, how cause and effect can be reversed, and how the future caused the past.
“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” – Asher Peres, pioneer in quantum information theory
Although we do not have access to a CTC quite yet, there are good reasons to believe that this type of time travel is possible at the quantum mechanical level, and that is why I chose to mention these other experiments, to show that ‘time’ doesn’t even really exist as we think it does. You can access an excellent description of the delayed choice experiment using a cosmic scale explanation here, which makes it easier to understand.
Why these same quantum mechanical laws have not been observed on the macroscopic level is yet to be understood, but physicists are working on the problem. For example, in 2012 physicists David Wineland and Serge Haroche received the Nobel Prize in physics for demonstrating how “quantum weirdness” could not only exist at the subatomic micro-world level, but also show itself in the macro-world. At one time, superposition was only thought to exist in the inaccessible quantum world, but not anymore. We know it’s possible, we just haven’t figured out how. We do, however, seem to be getting closer to finding out.
Perhaps one day, we will have determined the key to this puzzle and be able to observe large objects like cars, humans, apples, and oranges behave in the ways that matter does on a subatomic level, and perhaps one day we will find a wormhole, or a CTC in space, to conduct actual experiments that go beyond theory. That being said, a lot of what used to be considered theoretical in quantum physics is no longer theoretical, like quantum entanglement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 5, 2017 1:42:54 GMT
Seriously, I'm on the fence about this. While I do not think our understanding of the universe and its "laws" is absolute, there is a significant discrepancy between time travel described in many stories or seen in movies like Back to the Future and what should be expected, according to our knowledge. I mean, we consider time as something linear and going "forward". If those 2 feature are both absolutely true and the only characteristics, then it means we could mostly be observers not actors and for the few times we could be "actors", then we could only make travels "forward" (or in the "future"). Maybe it's not the best example out there but here is how I would define all of that, using this picture:  Let's say you are standing on the terrace (bottom center-left) and you look down at the intersection/crossroads. While on a global scale you are part of the general time flow, the traffic down under also has its very own, in which you can't intervene (let's keep it that way for the sake of my example) but you can still observe. The garbage truck is now stopped in front of the yellow cab (on the left side). While the 2 are now at (roughly) the same spot, moments ago, it was still in their "future" that they would "meet" there. Back then, from the terrace, you could have observed how they were on course to their "meeting" but it still had not happened. From that spot, on the terrace, you can now see their present situation (which was their future from their past leading there) and you can guess what is now their "future" from their actual trajectories. Maybe it's confusing but in short, your position on the terrace allowed you to be a witness of the cab and the garbage truck timelines, from their original locations until they "met" at the intersection right under you, to their future destination once they start moving again. While it all happened, you were only an observer (in this case) not an actor in those timelines. That means that if time is both linear and going forward, we could only see the whole thing (past, present and future) if we are somehow able to get a point of view from the outside. Since time was defined (by Einstein if I remember correctly) by the particles emitted by the Sun and that flow (light) is moving extremely fast, then we would have to either go faster or find a way to slow or stop/freeze it for us to observe it. The other way is getting a point of view from the outside and far away, so like the scientists claim, we could probably see dinosaurs on earth, if we were able to stand light years away from earth and be able to look at the light emanating from it with a telescope. That means we would gaze into the flow of information that was carried by the particles, just like you were able to gaze at the flow of traffic happening down on the streets. That was for the observer part but let's talk about the actor part now. Keeping the same image in mind, let's talk about how we could only make "jumps" into the future but not the past. Let's say we follow the cab on the left. Had he gone a bit faster, he might have been the one standing in front of the garbage truck and not the opposite. Basically, he would have jumped and also somewhat altered his future but only his relative location compared to the garbage truck, not the fact he would "meet" it there. Now, had he slowed it would only have made the garbage truck completely cross the intersection right in front of him. Now, let's suppose the cab would go in reverse and backtrack on his itinerary. While he would only alter the time at which he crosses the intersection or if he crosses it at all, it wouldn't stop the garbage truck from crossing it. So, even if the cab stops, he doesn't stop the flow in which he is a part of. While he can delay what is bound to happen or make it happen faster, he can't "stop" it or make it roll back. In other words you can only change your progress through the flow of time but not alter how that flow progress. Well that's my understanding of our actual understanding of time and consequently how we imagine time travel. Now, if linear and going forward are either untrue or only partially explaining Time, then time travel as seen in the movies or described in stories can be realistic and true to an extent. Well, that's how I see it but I'm tired and I am not sure if it all made sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 5, 2017 12:41:06 GMT
No time travel is possible. ... First, "mathematically possible" simply means that the mathematics makes sense, given how time is conventionally dealt with in mathematical physics. All that says is that per the game as it's set up, time travel is possible within the game, purely by the numbers. And that's certainly the case. But the real world isn't the game we've set up. For one, time is simply (the ontological process of) change or motion. You can't "travel in change," the idea of that is incoherent. All you can do is have changes occur at different rates relativistically. Mathematical physics doesn't treat time as if it's simply change or motion, though. It treats it as if it's a dimension, sometimes as if it's a "substance" or container (it does this with space as well)--you can "travel in it," you can "bend it," etc., and as if it exists independently of any other phenomena. Treating it that way has instrumental utility for mathematical physics, but it's not correct ontologically. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 5, 2017 12:47:06 GMT
No time travel is possible. A fortiori because time is nothing like a substance in which one can travel in the first place. The closest you can get to it is to simply exploit the fact that time is different relativistically, so that someone traveling fast enough would age much more slowly with respect to a relatively static frame of reference. So in other words, the most you can do is travel close to the speed of light and only age a year or whatever compared to the many years that would pass on the planet you departed from. So practically, it would seem like you're "traveling into the future," but really, changes are just occurring at different rates relativistically. What do you make of The Major seeing the updated airfield. I don't know (or don't recall) what that's referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Nov 5, 2017 17:08:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 5, 2017 17:56:54 GMT
Ah. Well that's the one kind of "time travel" that can happen. It's the effect of what's known as time dilation. I don't recall the exact equation, but if the pilot could travel at 99% of the speed of light for about 4 years from his reference frame, he'd be able to travel 30 years "into the future" with respect to a relatively stationary reference frame. That's surely the idea that inspired that episode. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 6, 2017 0:03:26 GMT
I will not mention John Titor.
I will not mention John Titor.
I will not mention John Titor.
By not mentioning John Titor, I am mentioning John Titor.
("John Titor" was a ridiculous hoax in the early 2000s in which an online poster said he was a time-traveller. Just about every one of his predictions ended up incorrect, but--no worries!--he had an ace in the hole: by his coming back, it would create a new timeline--so he would never be wrong! Sorry, the story just amuses me... Speaking of which, no, I don't really believe in time-travel, but I'm no scientist, and I despise physics and mathematics, so I've do idea what I'm talking about. I'll stay mum.)
|
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Apr 1, 2018 11:52:52 GMT
Seriously, I'm on the fence about this. While I do not think our understanding of the universe and its "laws" is absolute, there is a significant discrepancy between time travel described in many stories or seen in movies like Back to the Future and what should be expected, according to our knowledge. I mean, we consider time as something linear and going "forward". If those 2 feature are both absolutely true and the only characteristics, then it means we could mostly be observers not actors and for the few times we could be "actors", then we could only make travels "forward" (or in the "future"). Maybe it's not the best example out there but here is how I would define all of that, using this picture: Let's say you are standing on the terrace (bottom center-left) and you look down at the intersection/crossroads. While on a global scale you are part of the general time flow, the traffic down under also has its very own, in which you can't intervene (let's keep it that way for the sake of my example) but you can still observe. The garbage truck is now stopped in front of the yellow cab (on the left side). While the 2 are now at (roughly) the same spot, moments ago, it was still in their "future" that they would "meet" there. Back then, from the terrace, you could have observed how they were on course to their "meeting" but it still had not happened. From that spot, on the terrace, you can now see their present situation (which was their future from their past leading there) and you can guess what is now their "future" from their actual trajectories. Maybe it's confusing but in short, your position on the terrace allowed you to be a witness of the cab and the garbage truck timelines, from their original locations until they "met" at the intersection right under you, to their future destination once they start moving again. While it all happened, you were only an observer (in this case) not an actor in those timelines. That means that if time is both linear and going forward, we could only see the whole thing (past, present and future) if we are somehow able to get a point of view from the outside. Since time was defined (by Einstein if I remember correctly) by the particles emitted by the Sun and that flow (light) is moving extremely fast, then we would have to either go faster or find a way to slow or stop/freeze it for us to observe it. The other way is getting a point of view from the outside and far away, so like the scientists claim, we could probably see dinosaurs on earth, if we were able to stand light years away from earth and be able to look at the light emanating from it with a telescope. That means we would gaze into the flow of information that was carried by the particles, just like you were able to gaze at the flow of traffic happening down on the streets. That was for the observer part but let's talk about the actor part now. Keeping the same image in mind, let's talk about how we could only make "jumps" into the future but not the past. Let's say we follow the cab on the left. Had he gone a bit faster, he might have been the one standing in front of the garbage truck and not the opposite. Basically, he would have jumped and also somewhat altered his future but only his relative location compared to the garbage truck, not the fact he would "meet" it there. Now, had he slowed it would only have made the garbage truck completely cross the intersection right in front of him. Now, let's suppose the cab would go in reverse and backtrack on his itinerary. While he would only alter the time at which he crosses the intersection or if he crosses it at all, it wouldn't stop the garbage truck from crossing it. So, even if the cab stops, he doesn't stop the flow in which he is a part of. While he can delay what is bound to happen or make it happen faster, he can't "stop" it or make it roll back. In other words you can only change your progress through the flow of time but not alter how that flow progress. Well that's my understanding of our actual understanding of time and consequently how we imagine time travel. Now, if linear and going forward are either untrue or only partially explaining Time, then time travel as seen in the movies or described in stories can be realistic and true to an extent. Well, that's how I see it but I'm tired and I am not sure if it all made sense. This is probably how psychics are able to see the "future", i.e. they have a higher vantage point. While we can guess the future from our higher POV, there are other possibilities. The cab might break down and the driver might call a towing service, an earthquake might occur, a car might squeeze through etc. Unlikely but it could happen, which is why psychics cannot always predict the future as it is not yet. |
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Apr 1, 2018 13:40:30 GMT
Seriously, I'm on the fence about this. While I do not think our understanding of the universe and its "laws" is absolute, there is a significant discrepancy between time travel described in many stories or seen in movies like Back to the Future and what should be expected, according to our knowledge. I mean, we consider time as something linear and going "forward". If those 2 feature are both absolutely true and the only characteristics, then it means we could mostly be observers not actors and for the few times we could be "actors", then we could only make travels "forward" (or in the "future"). Maybe it's not the best example out there but here is how I would define all of that, using this picture: Let's say you are standing on the terrace (bottom center-left) and you look down at the intersection/crossroads. While on a global scale you are part of the general time flow, the traffic down under also has its very own, in which you can't intervene (let's keep it that way for the sake of my example) but you can still observe. The garbage truck is now stopped in front of the yellow cab (on the left side). While the 2 are now at (roughly) the same spot, moments ago, it was still in their "future" that they would "meet" there. Back then, from the terrace, you could have observed how they were on course to their "meeting" but it still had not happened. From that spot, on the terrace, you can now see their present situation (which was their future from their past leading there) and you can guess what is now their "future" from their actual trajectories. Maybe it's confusing but in short, your position on the terrace allowed you to be a witness of the cab and the garbage truck timelines, from their original locations until they "met" at the intersection right under you, to their future destination once they start moving again. While it all happened, you were only an observer (in this case) not an actor in those timelines. That means that if time is both linear and going forward, we could only see the whole thing (past, present and future) if we are somehow able to get a point of view from the outside. Since time was defined (by Einstein if I remember correctly) by the particles emitted by the Sun and that flow (light) is moving extremely fast, then we would have to either go faster or find a way to slow or stop/freeze it for us to observe it. The other way is getting a point of view from the outside and far away, so like the scientists claim, we could probably see dinosaurs on earth, if we were able to stand light years away from earth and be able to look at the light emanating from it with a telescope. That means we would gaze into the flow of information that was carried by the particles, just like you were able to gaze at the flow of traffic happening down on the streets. That was for the observer part but let's talk about the actor part now. Keeping the same image in mind, let's talk about how we could only make "jumps" into the future but not the past. Let's say we follow the cab on the left. Had he gone a bit faster, he might have been the one standing in front of the garbage truck and not the opposite. Basically, he would have jumped and also somewhat altered his future but only his relative location compared to the garbage truck, not the fact he would "meet" it there. Now, had he slowed it would only have made the garbage truck completely cross the intersection right in front of him. Now, let's suppose the cab would go in reverse and backtrack on his itinerary. While he would only alter the time at which he crosses the intersection or if he crosses it at all, it wouldn't stop the garbage truck from crossing it. So, even if the cab stops, he doesn't stop the flow in which he is a part of. While he can delay what is bound to happen or make it happen faster, he can't "stop" it or make it roll back. In other words you can only change your progress through the flow of time but not alter how that flow progress. Well that's my understanding of our actual understanding of time and consequently how we imagine time travel. Now, if linear and going forward are either untrue or only partially explaining Time, then time travel as seen in the movies or described in stories can be realistic and true to an extent. Well, that's how I see it but I'm tired and I am not sure if it all made sense. This is probably how psychics are able to see the "future", i.e. they have a higher vantage point. While we can guess the future from our higher POV, there are other possibilities. The cab might break down and the driver might call a towing service, an earthquake might occur, a car might squeeze through etc. Unlikely but it could happen, which is why psychics cannot always predict the future as it is not yet. Maybe but I wasn't referencing psychics precisely. I was trying to explain an article I read few years ago. The article used Side-by-side bicycles:  The main difference is the length of the bars separating them. They used a distance measurable in lights years (also based on Einstein's explanation). They meant that as long as they are held together and go in a forward and straight direction, even if they are separated by a great distance, both persons pedaling should see little to no deviation in the other person's position at any given time. Even if what they see is the past (because of the distance), since they a locked together and moving at the same pace, their timeline is still "frozen" so to speak. It remains linear and forward. Now, if we removed the bars but those two persons keep the same pace it shouldn't change much. If one change his pace, either by slowing or accelerating, the other, because of the distance, should see a deviation that might correspond to that person's past or future compared to its actual location. In any case we're not at the Back to the Future stage. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 1, 2018 16:44:09 GMT
This is probably how psychics are able to see the "future", i.e. they have a higher vantage point. While we can guess the future from our higher POV, there are other possibilities. The cab might break down and the driver might call a towing service, an earthquake might occur, a car might squeeze through etc. Unlikely but it could happen, which is why psychics cannot always predict the future as it is not yet. Maybe but I wasn't referencing psychics precisely. I was trying to explain an article I read few years ago. The article used Side-by-side bicycles: The main difference is the length of the bars separating them. They used a distance measurable in lights years (also based on Einstein's explanation). They meant that as long as they are held together and go in a forward and straight direction, even if they are separated by a great distance, both persons pedaling should see little to no deviation in the other person's position at any given time. Even if what they see is the past (because of the distance), since they a locked together and moving at the same pace, their timeline is still "frozen" so to speak. It remains linear and forward. Now, if we removed the bars but those two persons keep the same pace it shouldn't change much. If one change his pace, either by slowing or accelerating, the other, because of the distance, should see a deviation that might correspond to that person's past or future compared to its actual location. In any case we're not at the Back to the Future stage. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Apr 2, 2018 7:01:48 GMT
Seriously, I'm on the fence about this. While I do not think our understanding of the universe and its "laws" is absolute, there is a significant discrepancy between time travel described in many stories or seen in movies like Back to the Future and what should be expected, according to our knowledge. I mean, we consider time as something linear and going "forward". If those 2 feature are both absolutely true and the only characteristics, then it means we could mostly be observers not actors and for the few times we could be "actors", then we could only make travels "forward" (or in the "future"). Maybe it's not the best example out there but here is how I would define all of that, using this picture: Let's say you are standing on the terrace (bottom center-left) and you look down at the intersection/crossroads. While on a global scale you are part of the general time flow, the traffic down under also has its very own, in which you can't intervene (let's keep it that way for the sake of my example) but you can still observe. The garbage truck is now stopped in front of the yellow cab (on the left side). While the 2 are now at (roughly) the same spot, moments ago, it was still in their "future" that they would "meet" there. Back then, from the terrace, you could have observed how they were on course to their "meeting" but it still had not happened. From that spot, on the terrace, you can now see their present situation (which was their future from their past leading there) and you can guess what is now their "future" from their actual trajectories. Maybe it's confusing but in short, your position on the terrace allowed you to be a witness of the cab and the garbage truck timelines, from their original locations until they "met" at the intersection right under you, to their future destination once they start moving again. While it all happened, you were only an observer (in this case) not an actor in those timelines. That means that if time is both linear and going forward, we could only see the whole thing (past, present and future) if we are somehow able to get a point of view from the outside. Since time was defined (by Einstein if I remember correctly) by the particles emitted by the Sun and that flow (light) is moving extremely fast, then we would have to either go faster or find a way to slow or stop/freeze it for us to observe it. The other way is getting a point of view from the outside and far away, so like the scientists claim, we could probably see dinosaurs on earth, if we were able to stand light years away from earth and be able to look at the light emanating from it with a telescope. That means we would gaze into the flow of information that was carried by the particles, just like you were able to gaze at the flow of traffic happening down on the streets. That was for the observer part but let's talk about the actor part now. Keeping the same image in mind, let's talk about how we could only make "jumps" into the future but not the past. Let's say we follow the cab on the left. Had he gone a bit faster, he might have been the one standing in front of the garbage truck and not the opposite. Basically, he would have jumped and also somewhat altered his future but only his relative location compared to the garbage truck, not the fact he would "meet" it there. Now, had he slowed it would only have made the garbage truck completely cross the intersection right in front of him. N ow, let's suppose the cab would go in reverse and backtrack on his itinerary. While he would only alter the time at which he crosses the intersection or if he crosses it at all, it wouldn't stop the garbage truck from crossing it. So, even if the cab stops, he doesn't stop the flow in which he is a part of. While he can delay what is bound to happen or make it happen faster, he can't "stop" it or make it roll back. In other words you can only change your progress through the flow of time but not alter how that flow progress. Well that's my understanding of our actual understanding of time and consequently how we imagine time travel. Now, if linear and going forward are either untrue or only partially explaining Time, then time travel as seen in the movies or described in stories can be realistic and true to an extent. Well, that's how I see it but I'm tired and I am not sure if it all made sense. But what if the cab drives in front of the garbage truck and stops in front of it? Wouldn't that keep the truck crossing? |
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Apr 2, 2018 7:05:26 GMT
What if we attempt to go in back in time, it produces another timeline, a parallel universe / many worlds? Maybe time is linear and once we go forward we cannot go back and change the past. If we do go back and change something, time branches out and creates another universe.
Or perhaps that universe/world/dimension is already there. Maybe there is an infinite number of universes where all possibilities and permutations exist.
|
|
