Time travel - Page 3

Previous 1 | 2 | 3
Author Message
Wayne Author Profile Page


Posts: 101

Reply: 41



PostPosted: May 1, 2007 12:40 PM 

re Logan: if you went backward, wouldn't you forget you went backward

Yes, exactly!! See? We do it all the ... uh ... time!!

We just don't know we did it, because we have to expend memory to move backwards in time. Very Happy

Albert Einstein Author Profile Page


Posts: 6

Reply: 42



PostPosted: May 2, 2007 6:27 AM 

Wayne, you're right about your reply 37. And regarding your reply number 34...

If you look at interactions in physics on the scale of individual particles, there is NO time direction implicit in what you see. Reactions are utterly symmetrical.

For example, a proton can transform into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino - and vice-versa, if the conditions are right. Time is not an issue.

Your fire's reactions, on a particle level, are similarly oblivious to which time-direction the interactions are viewed. The fire - at this size - doesn't give a hoot about time.

It's only through scaling up the fire, beyond the quantum size, that a direction of time (and therefore the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) kicks in. The world as we know it - "clearly" with a direction of time fundamentally ensconsed within it - is but one opinion of the universe.

So...we "know" it's now, and that next weekend's lottery numbers are unknowable.

Go down to the quantum level and the now (location/speed) of a particle is unmeasurable. Quantum uncertainity smears particles into a statistical mush. Particles must jiggle around a particular location in time as much as they do a particular location in space.

Go up to the speed of light and (I've hopefully demonstrated) the now of the photon is the entirity of spacetime - all the positions/spins/energy levels/everything of all particles existing at the one moment - in no dimensions.

So there's three views of now, and of time, depending on the scale or speed in which we view the universe.

Which is real? Wink

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 43



PostPosted: May 2, 2007 7:20 AM 

Albert,

Your view is all that matters to you and your job in the universe.

All other things going on in the universe are like cell division in your body as to your ability to mow the grass.

Darwin

SingleVoyce Author Profile Page


Posts: 1

Reply: 44



PostPosted: May 2, 2007 6:16 PM 

Al,

I am somewhat confused by your post 7. You say that, as you ride your photon, the rest of the universe seems to stand still. However, in some of your earlier work, you concluded that the speed of light was a constant from any inertial frame. Since you are in an inertial frame, shouldn't other light in the universe still be moving at the speed of light relative to you?

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 45



PostPosted: May 2, 2007 6:47 PM 

Single,

Good observation. The universe is not one way.

Darwin

Bongo


Posts: 1

Reply: 46



PostPosted: May 2, 2007 7:47 PM 

No matter how fast you go, you could always be going faster.

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 47



PostPosted: July 9, 2007 11:41 AM 


Taking that a step further, in 180 points relative to your position and direction you would just be slowing down to a stop.

The other 180 points you would be engaging photons at up to 2x the speed of light, and in fact traveling back in time relative the spot you are currently in. Chew on that.

Darwin

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 48



PostPosted: July 9, 2007 4:56 PM 

When particles travel they can dissapear and emerge somewhere else often we do not know where they have gone in relation to the point or group they began with. Hydrogen fuses to make helium 3 using nuetrinos which we cannot see or detect, it simply goes faster than everything we see or know so how fast is fast? Is this the fastest particle? Light bends, time bends therefore speed will bend if we go that fast we shall simply turn up elsewhere (god knows where) and simply be in another now until another interaction sends us off again. Millions of years going everywhere, bonding, disentangling or simply getting very hot and energetic is the life of a sub atomic particle.......reminds me of something else.... hmmmmm but that is more to do with nature in that form! Or is it all just one big happy sphericle mirror where infinity is simple created by the never ending reflection creating infinity and the illusion of vastness when really time and distance do not exist, touch the part of the sphere above your head and touch your feet at the same time in the opposite way which will actually be the right way around.

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 49



PostPosted: July 9, 2007 5:01 PM 

Er...

That is touch the sphere above your head and see your reflection below at your feet i.e. your own hand reaching back up toward your own feet and see your own hand above your head reaching out as you look down at the same again and it will be curved and warped. Lensing.

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 50



PostPosted: July 9, 2007 5:04 PM 

KPM,

Plain English please.

Darwin

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 51



PostPosted: July 10, 2007 5:33 PM 

OK will speak plainer give me time to adjust.

Parlez? Wink

Albert Einstein


Posts: 1

Reply: 52



PostPosted: July 11, 2007 6:56 AM 

KPM - if I read you right I think you've got it.

From the point of view of a speed-of-light photon, the universe has no apparent size, as it takes no photon-riding-time to go from a photosphere to the retina. In that no time, you'd be basking in a zero-size universe of totality. (And, SingleVoyce, you'd "measure" other photons' radiation as being of infinite frequency. Whatever that means. Slower than s-o-l, incoming radiation has a measurable, set, speed which means you perceive the red or blue shift of relativity.)

The illusion of time kicks in when you're not going 300000km/s, and the illusion of past-being known, present-being-now and future-being-unknowable appears when you're not quantum-sized but are stuck in spacetime.

So, KPM: think of a spectrum. At one end (the photon) we have a universe of everything in no space or time, at the other end (the entirety of big-scale spacetime) we have a universe of everything seen outside space or time, and in the middle, embedded in it, our perspective of reality. Each is valid. The ends of the spectrum are equivalent. Your idea of reflection is true.

The real wonder of it all is that a bipedal ape growing up on the plains of Africa has a brain capable to construct such a world-view.

Albert Einstein


Posts: 1

Reply: 53



PostPosted: July 11, 2007 7:42 AM 

...and onwards...

I hope you're all now convinced, on some level, that our view of the universe is illusional. Our scale and speed leads to experiences which are not compatible to a total understanding of the universe.

We can prove this simply by switching on a radio. Listening to the radio I can judge that there are frequencies of EM radiation which I need tools to access. (And, in the case of hip-hop, avoid. That was eine kleine joke.)

Of course, I can construct mental models of a deeper understanding of the universe - such as the full EM spectrum - testable by science, but on an experiential level I'm stuck in this post-cro-magnon suit.

So if my personal experience of the universe is not total, can I be sure that yours is similarly faulty?
Well, surely not - for if someone's colour blind they won't experience red the same as myself, who isn't.

Take it further: that blade of grass doesn't experience red like I do, but the physics underlying photon-matter interactions are the same for the grass as they are for me, and for those unfortunate enough to be colour blind.

In which case - Is the grass' concept of red better or worse than mine?

Hopefully you'll be thinking "neither".

We are, for whatever reason, creatures of the universe, whether grass blade, colour blind, or dead German scientist.

We are able to react to it while being part of it. Here's the big leap: if there's a purpose behind the numbers, constants and laws being "just so" to permit our existance, can I suggest that our experientialism is the purpose? Our very presence here makes the universe what it is (the Strong Anthropic Principle) - our experientialism, in our case aided by consciousness (but just as valid in the unconsciousness of grass) is the de facto purpose of it all?

In that case, we are all undeniably The Creator - and as sum parts of the cosmos, no different to atoms millions of light years away, the entire universe is of ourselves.

Through all of us, the universe is experiencing itself. Outside spacetime, my track of experientialism is just a part of a grander, richer, multifaceted thing - a thing that I would define as "God".

Frieden, Liebe und Respekt!

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 54



PostPosted: July 11, 2007 9:03 AM 

...and onwards...

“In that case, we are all undeniably The Creator - and as sum parts of the cosmos, no different to atoms millions of light years away, the entire universe is of ourselves.”

A conclusion I reached several threads ago.

Now look at the model we have set up with the MER’s, communication across a great distance, interaction between the creator and the created. Even in our own body communication by impulse is the model. The blueprint of the universe is simple and will repeat itself on whatever scale.

The nuro network of the Universe is evident. The blade of grass has its purpose just as the cilia of tissue, one as important as the other.

Darwin

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 55



PostPosted: July 11, 2007 5:43 PM 

Thanks for the replies,

Yes Albert you read me well.

I read this today that helps even more:

chrislintott.net/2007/07/03/blind-light/

Darwin>

God is Man, Man is God, I had a beer on the way home with a man who has created and split synthetic cells for cancer research, all would be so much easier if he could use stems cells.

Man has a moral issue with the stem technolgy, nature does not and the universe has no rules either.

Neither you and I will be a God or a Gladiator but great thinkers yes.

My views are there is no existance only past.

No distance only here, we go where we want if we want to.

Future is suddenly present or past.

All is an illusion of the eye because that is all it can do.

The present is ancient and the future has been written, and we are now just actors in the future past and present.

You will not die everything in the universe recycles you just do not know where you may end up next or where or what you may see.

Nature and science are never ending but is also beyond the math.

We all are stardust. Ashes to ashes carbon friend.

no less no more.

Cheers! And I think to myself what a wonderful world......

Darwin Author Profile Page


Posts: 1238

Reply: 56



PostPosted: July 11, 2007 5:54 PM 


Have another one my friend. It wasn't that hard to figure out was it?

Darwin

Albert Einstein


Posts: 1

Reply: 57



PostPosted: July 12, 2007 4:57 AM 

An excellent article, KPM. I would be a great fan of Gormley's work if I were still around.

KPM Author Profile Page


Posts: 836

Reply: 58



PostPosted: July 12, 2007 4:24 PM 

Albert,

Dr. Lintott is pretty good too.

Thanks Darwin did not have another went and did some work on Galaxy Zoo....with Stu too.

We are getting nearer.

bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/629024.stm

Looking forward to the 10 red shift!

We know but it's good to be proven right...eh Albert?

Wink

Sara


Posts: 1

Reply: 59



PostPosted: January 8, 2008 9:31 AM 

there was interessting disscusion on time travel in the link below

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=114257&p=3&topicID=13177415

yo momma


Posts: 1

Reply: 60



PostPosted: April 28, 2008 2:54 PM 

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Confused

Previous 1 | 2 | 3


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys