does time travel?

[cacian]

this topic is inspired by free.



Entropy a concept I have just dipped my toes into and I am not sure I am quite there with it. thermodynamics and quantum disorder. I am not sure it is safe.

my theory is that if time travel then there could not have been a big bang. stillness create friction which causes a bang. time travels uncause the friction.
when I think time travel I thing forward never backward.

[hypatia_]

1. why do you choose to apply unequal weight to the backward passage of time, as you do forward?

2. "i am not sure it is safe" what do you mean? i think i know, but i'm not positive.

3. time travel and big bang can both exist as functional concepts, despite the belief that there was "nothing" before the bang occurred. just because you can't comprehend what the opposite of "a universe existing" is, does not mean there isn't an opposite.

4. stillness creates friction which causes a bang seems odd to me. how does stillness create friction? i get how friction could cause a bang, but according to big bang theory, at one point all the matter in the universe was contained in a single point. if it is a single point, a single unit, it cannot cause friction because it is not interacting with anything else. friction requires 2 entities interacting.

[YesNo]

I like the way you phrased the title, "does time travel". I thought entropy was the reason why there is a direction to time, but I don't know. It all reminds me of Dr. Who.

[Buh4Bee]

Does water run?

[Volya]

I always thought stillness creates the OPPOSITE of friction.

[cacian]

I always thought stillness creates the OPPOSITE of friction.

stillness condenses and therefore pushes in and out in an opposite direction. a bit like ice when it pushes hard it can eventually under the pressure of not moving.


Does water run?

depends. normally water circulates under oxygen bubble.


1. why do you choose to apply unequal weight to the backward passage of time, as you do forward?
well for me the word 'travel' means forwards. winds travel they go forward but not the opposite in one forward direction. clouds travel .they move from one spot to the next then aspire. they could not if they travelled backward.


2. "i am not sure it is safe" what do you mean? i think i know, but i'm not positive.

what do you think you know? :)


3. time travel and big bang can both exist as functional concepts, despite the belief that there was "nothing" before the bang occurred. just because you can't comprehend what the opposite of "a universe existing" is, does not mean there isn't an opposite.
time travel means in constant move. big bang means something stopped. there could not be an explosion if something was moving.
a bit like watching a bullet. it travels fast but it only explode because it had hit a target. it has stopped moving.



4. stillness creates friction which causes a bang seems odd to me. how does stillness create friction? i get how friction could cause a bang, but according to big bang theory, at one point all the matter in the universe was contained in a single point. if it is a single point, a single unit, it cannot cause friction because it is not interacting with anything else. friction requires 2 entities interacting.

if and when something stops means something has caused it to. friction is usually one of them. an explosion is usually because that something has stopped moving and it has complied from lack of movement to the point of an explosion.

[kev67]

Entropy is a pretty tricky subject. Temperature v Entropy graphs are used to represent thermodynamic cycles of steam pistons and turbines. The entropy of steam is greater than the entropy of water. The thing that gets me is that entropy represents disorder yet it can be measured?! or at least calculated. In metric, its units are kJ/kg.K, i.e. work divided by mass and temperature.

The concept of entropy is also used in digital communications compression techniques. More data bits are allocated the more unique a piece of information is. Very few data bits are allocated to very common pieces of information. In a picture, a patch of blue sky does not contain a lot of information, so would be compressed into few bits of data.

I read A Brief History of Time once, in which Stephen Hawking wrote that total entropy increases as time progresses. Highly ordered states tend to break down into lower ordered states. If you drop a glass it breaks into pieces. You can make another glass, but that uses more energy. The net result after making the glass is greater entropy because the fuel you used to make the glass has turned into CO2, and the chemical energy was turned to heat. The CO2 may eventually be turned back into wood via photosynthesis, but this process requires light energy from the sun. After billions and billions of years, all available energy in the universe is turned into heat energy. Heat can be still be converted into work, but only where a heat difference occurs. The larger the heat difference, the more efficient a heat engine is and the more work it can do. However heat flows from hot objects to cold objects until all are the same temperature. The heat death of the universe will occur when everything in the universe is the same temperature. The odd thing about the Big Bang according to Hawking (iirc), was that the conditions of the Big Bang represent very high entropy. Everything was mixed up and very hot. Somehow things went from very high entropy to very low entropy.

[Frostball]

well for me the word 'travel' means forwards. winds travel they go forward but not the opposite in one forward direction. clouds travel .they move from one spot to the next then aspire. they could not if they travelled backward.

That comparison doesn't really work because in space there is no forward or backward, every direction is just a direction. The only time you get a forward or backward is if you only have two directions, that is, one dimension.


time travel means in constant move. big bang means something stopped. there could not be an explosion if something was moving.
a bit like watching a bullet. it travels fast but it only explode because it had hit a target. it has stopped moving.

Be careful about talking about what MUST have happened at the big bang. We have a good idea about what happened from the planck time onward, but before that all the physics breaks down, and we really can't make any assumptions about what is physically possible during that time. You can't use your common sense assumptions about such a time, as the way the universe really works often runs very contrary to our common sense expectations.





if and when something stops means something has caused it to. friction is usually one of them. an explosion is usually because that something has stopped moving and it has complied from lack of movement to the point of an explosion.

Again, if you're talking about the big bang, you can't apply any current understanding of physics to it. Besides, the big bang wasn't even an "explosion" exactly, but an incredibly fast expansion.

[hypatia_]

Entropy is a pretty tricky subject. Temperature v Entropy graphs are used to represent thermodynamic cycles of steam pistons and turbines. The entropy of steam is greater than the entropy of water. The thing that gets me is that entropy represents disorder yet it can be measured?! or at least calculated. In metric, its units are kJ/kg.K, i.e. work divided by mass and temperature.

The concept of entropy is also used in digital communications compression techniques. More data bits are allocated the more unique a piece of information is. Very few data bits are allocated to very common pieces of information. In a picture, a patch of blue sky does not contain a lot of information, so would be compressed into few bits of data.

I read A Brief History of Time once, in which Stephen Hawking wrote that total entropy increases as time progresses. Highly ordered states tend to break down into lower ordered states. If you drop a glass it breaks into pieces. You can make another glass, but that uses more energy. The net result after making the glass is greater entropy because the fuel you used to make the glass has turned into CO2, and the chemical energy was turned to heat. The CO2 may eventually be turned back into wood via photosynthesis, but this process requires light energy from the sun. After billions and billions of years, all available energy in the universe is turned into heat energy. Heat can be still be converted into work, but only where a heat difference occurs. The larger the heat difference, the more efficient a heat engine is and the more work it can do. However heat flows from hot objects to cold objects until all are the same temperature. The heat death of the universe will occur when everything in the universe is the same temperature. The odd thing about the Big Bang according to Hawking (iirc), was that the conditions of the Big Bang represent very high entropy. Everything was mixed up and very hot. Somehow things went from very high entropy to very low entropy.

So the universe is simply approaching equilibrium. Then what? Stillness? Another bang? Hmm

[kev67]

So the universe is simply approaching equilibrium. Then what? Stillness? Another bang? Hmm

I think I read in Hawking's book that either the universe would keep expanding for ever, or eventually start contracting again into a Big Crunch. There was some conjecture that time would start running backward at that point, at least that was the plot of an episode of Red Dwarf. It depends on whether there is enough mass in the universe for gravity to start pulling everything back in. I think at the moment it has been decided that there is not enough mass to halt eternal expansion. If that is the case then eventually even the black holes would evaporate away due to Hawking Radiation. Quantum mechanic predicts that pairs of matter and anti-matter particles can just re-appear this side of a black hole's event horizon. If the anti-matter particle drifts beneath the event horizon but the matter particle escapes, the black hole is reduced a tiny little bit. Over the eons, even the black holes would cease to be. However, there are a lot of weird things that have not been got to the bottom of yet. Something was causing the universe to expand quicker than it should. Astronomers are still looking for all this dark matter. You would have to ask a professional cosmologist.

[hypatia_]

I think the universe expands to a certain point, perhaps to "stillness," then begins to contract again, and the cycle is eternal. it's like a heart beat.

[Frostball]

I believe the largest scientific consensus and the theory that most current data supports is that the universe is flat. This means that the universe is expected to continue expanding until heat death. The theory of a universe like a heartbeat was popular for some time, but we've since discovered the phenomenon of dark energy that seems to be pulling the universe apart faster and faster all the time, the expectation is for this to continue for ever.

[YesNo]

I've heard that the universe is flat also. That would mean there is no recycling of the matter in the universe in another big bang later on. However, I like the idea of a "heartbeat" to the universe. It is a metaphor that is closer to an organism than a machine. To me, the big bang seems like a cosmic egg, at least, that is how I remember reading Rupert Sheldrake describe it, but who knows how close any of these metaphors are to the truth?

If the universe isn't eternal, but has a beginning and an ultimate end, that means there is an "outside" to it perhaps containing other universes each starting with their own big bangs. If the big bang happened once, I can see it happening many times.

What does that have to do with time travel? Probably nothing, but I suspect if people were able to go back in time, we would have seen them coming back to this time or heard about them coming back in other times. So I doubt we have the ability to do so.

[hypatia_]

If the universe isn't eternal, but has a beginning and an ultimate end, that means there is an "outside" to it perhaps containing other universes each starting with their own big bangs. If the big bang happened once, I can see it happening many times.

.

I don't know if you can assume that something with a beginning and end has to have an "outside" to it. I agree with you that it's entirely possible that there are other universes also "big-banging" though.


I believe the largest scientific consensus and the theory that most current data supports is that the universe is flat. This means that the universe is expected to continue expanding until heat death. The theory of a universe like a heartbeat was popular for some time, but we've since discovered the phenomenon of dark energy that seems to be pulling the universe apart faster and faster all the time, the expectation is for this to continue for ever.

I don't think there's very much scientific evidence supporting the claim that the universe will continue expanding forever.

And the term "dark energy" irritates me. It is mostly a vague term used to fill in holes in relativity. Don't get me wrong, it definitely is labeling something that exists, but I'm not sure we are anywhere close to understanding it or it's relationship with pulling apart the universe.

[free]

I've read that time doesn't exist and that it is an illusion of our senses.

[Frostball]

I don't think there's very much scientific evidence supporting the claim that the universe will continue expanding forever.

I believe you are mistaken. As I said, the picture of the universe expanding forever is the picture that the great majority of evidence suggests. This picture is the current scientific consensus. You may not like this picture of the fate of the universe, but that has exactly zipp to do with whether it's actually true or not. The evidence is the important part.


And the term "dark energy" irritates me. It is mostly a vague term used to fill in holes in relativity. Don't get me wrong, it definitely is labeling something that exists, but I'm not sure we are anywhere close to understanding it or it's relationship with pulling apart the universe.

Of course it's a vague term. We have no idea what dark energy is. All we know is that something is making all the space in the universe expand. So when a I, or a physicist, is talking about dark energy, it's just a shorthand way of saying "The whatever that seems to be pulling the universe apart." The fact that something is pulling the universe apart (and not at a steady rate but actually an accelerating rate) has been very conclusively shown to be a reality. Even if there wasn't dark energy, in a flat universe we would expect the universe to expand outward but slowly lose it's speed and eventually become stagnant and die of heat death all the same. So even without dark energy, the fate of our universe wouldn't be much different. The fact that something is pulling the universe apart makes it even more of a sure thing that the universe is going out with a whimper.

But none of this should depress you. The human race will almost certainly be long gone before any of this would worry us. We have plenty of time to enjoy our life. We have much greater things to worry us, like the human race killing itself off due to nuclear warfare, biological catastrophe, or environmental hazards.

Also, as I think Yesno alluded to, we have no idea if our observable universe is all there is anyway. This could just be one bubble in an infinitely large foam of universes. If this is the case, our universe growing cold and dying is no more important than a puddle full of little bacteria drying up. There is still a whole world of puddles and bacteria out there, so the one drying up and dying isn't such a big deal--unless you're those bacteria of course. Multiple universes is a fun thing to think about, but ultimately it's all speculation. Actual beliefs should be based on evidence, regardless how bleak the evidence suggests the outcome is.

[hypatia_]

I believe you are mistaken. As I said, the picture of the universe expanding forever is the picture that the great majority of evidence suggests. This picture is the current scientific consensus. You may not like this picture of the fate of the universe, but that has exactly zipp to do with whether it's actually true or not. The evidence is the important part.



Of course it's a vague term. We have no idea what dark energy is. All we know is that something is making all the space in the universe expand. So when a I, or a physicist, is talking about dark energy, it's just a shorthand way of saying "The whatever that seems to be pulling the universe apart." The fact that something is pulling the universe apart (and not at a steady rate but actually an accelerating rate) has been very conclusively shown to be a reality. Even if there wasn't dark energy, in a flat universe we would expect the universe to expand outward but slowly lose it's speed and eventually become stagnant and die of heat death all the same. So even without dark energy, the fate of our universe wouldn't be much different. The fact that something is pulling the universe apart makes it even more of a sure thing that the universe is going out with a whimper.

But none of this should depress you. The human race will almost certainly be long gone before any of this would worry us. We have plenty of time to enjoy our life. We have much greater things to worry us, like the human race killing itself off due to nuclear warfare, biological catastrophe, or environmental hazards.

Also, as I think Yesno alluded to, we have no idea if our observable universe is all there is anyway. This could just be one bubble in an infinitely large foam of universes. If this is the case, our universe growing cold and dying is no more important than a puddle full of little bacteria drying up. There is still a whole world of puddles and bacteria out there, so the one drying up and dying isn't such a big deal--unless you're those bacteria of course. Multiple universes is a fun thing to think about, but ultimately it's all speculation. Actual beliefs should be based on evidence, regardless how bleak the evidence suggests the outcome is.

It does not depress me. The universe has been doing this cosmic dance for 13.6 billion years, and will continue to do so for a very long time.

Please contribute evidence that the universe will expand forever. P.S. "The universe's expansion is accelerating" is not enough. That idea is based on measured speeds at which other celestial objects are moving away from us, but unfortunately this is as egocentric attitude, similar to when we used to think the Earth were the center of the solar system.

Objects moving away from Earth at a faster rate does not have any relationship with the rate of expansion/contraction of the Universe.

[Frostball]

It does not depress me. The universe has been doing this cosmic dance for 13.6 billion years, and will continue to do so for a very long time.

Please contribute evidence that the universe will expand forever. P.S. "The universe's expansion is accelerating" is not enough. That idea is based on measured speeds at which other celestial objects are moving away from us, but unfortunately this is as egocentric attitude, similar to when we used to think the Earth were the center of the solar system.

Objects moving away from Earth at a faster rate does not have any relationship with the rate of expansion/contraction of the Universe.

You're going to have to research it a bit on your own if you really want to understand it. Wikipedia's article on dark energy is a good start, as it summarizes several methods by which evidence of dark energy has been obtained.

I'm not a physicist, I don't think I would really do it justice. But I do know that dark energy, and the idea that the universe's expansion is not slowing but speeding up, is the consensus of physicists today. The great majority of people who have spent their lives learning about and studying this stuff agree on this point. So I trust them. It's not a blind trust, it's a trust built from some knowledge of how the scientific method works, how the scientific community works, and the fact that any time I have actually done the legwork of finding out how something works in detail, it inevitably lines up with what I've heard from scientists already. So by all means, if you think this is incorrect do your own research and prove those physicists wrong.



Please contribute evidence that the universe will expand forever. P.S. "The universe's expansion is accelerating" is not enough. That idea is based on measured speeds at which other celestial objects are moving away from us, but unfortunately this is as egocentric attitude, similar to when we used to think the Earth were the center of the solar system.

Objects moving away from Earth at a faster rate does not have any relationship with the rate of expansion/contraction of the Universe.

On the other hand, after reading your post again, I think I might be able, even with my layman's knowledge of cosmology, to assist you on some misunderstandings I think you have.

To the extent that the fact of the universe's accelerating expansion is evidenced by measurements of objects from the perspective of earth, it is done with a great amount of prior knowledge about our place in the universe. You seem to think we're just seeing everything move away from us from our perspective, and so we're just assuming from that that everything is expanding faster just because that's how it looks from earth. I may not have explained it well, but I think I know what you're saying. To that, I say that astronomers and physicists are a lot smarter than you give them credit for, because that's just entirely too obvious a thing not to think of. What I mean, is that to the extent that we're using plain old telescopes and observations of objects as evidence for dark energy, it isn't just earth we're watching but the whole universe and the relations of all objects with each other.

There is one misconception that I think is really common about this. People have this idea of the big bang as an explosion that blew all the bits of matter into space. This is incorrect. There was no space for matter to blow up into. During the big bang, space itself and all the matter were all compressed to a tiny speck, and during the time before the planck time (an extremely short amount of time) the universe expanded extremely fast, space, matter, and all. To this day, space is STILL expanding. So when we're talking about the universe expanding, we're not talking about objects moving away from each other according to classical physics. What is happening is that the actual space itself is expanding apart. The actual space between galaxies is growing larger. This kind of concept is mind boggling, but the idea of space as a thing itself is also rather incontrovertible nowadays, as it goes back to Einstein's theories of relativity. If we didn't account for the theory of general relativity, GPS system's wouldn't work.

In no way is any of this based on an egocentric perspective of earth as somehow special. I also want to state again that I am not a physicist but a geeky layman who is interested in science and space.

[YesNo]

It is a good habit to be skeptical of what people claim to be facts, especially scientific facts. Here is the evidence that I would use to support a belief that the universe is flat: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

That evidence is just an overview of other evidence. In order to accept that summary report, I have to trust it in some way. I don't really trust that NASA actually sent humans to the moon round 1970, but I don't have any reason to doubt the above evidence.

[hypatia_]

On the other hand, after reading your post again, I think I might be able, even with my layman's knowledge of cosmology, to assist you on some misunderstandings I think you have.

To the extent that the fact of the universe's accelerating expansion is evidenced by measurements of objects from the perspective of earth, it is done with a great amount of prior knowledge about our place in the universe. You seem to think we're just seeing everything move away from us from our perspective, and so we're just assuming from that that everything is expanding faster just because that's how it looks from earth. I may not have explained it well, but I think I know what you're saying. To that, I say that astronomers and physicists are a lot smarter than you give them credit for, because that's just entirely too obvious a thing not to think of. What I mean, is that to the extent that we're using plain old telescopes and observations of objects as evidence for dark energy, it isn't just earth we're watching but the whole universe and the relations of all objects with each other.

There is one misconception that I think is really common about this. People have this idea of the big bang as an explosion that blew all the bits of matter into space. This is incorrect. There was no space for matter to blow up into. During the big bang, space itself and all the matter were all compressed to a tiny speck, and during the time before the planck time (an extremely short amount of time) the universe expanded extremely fast, space, matter, and all. To this day, space is STILL expanding. So when we're talking about the universe expanding, we're not talking about objects moving away from each other according to classical physics. What is happening is that the actual space itself is expanding apart. The actual space between galaxies is growing larger. This kind of concept is mind boggling, but the idea of space as a thing itself is also rather incontrovertible nowadays, as it goes back to Einstein's theories of relativity. If we didn't account for the theory of general relativity, GPS system's wouldn't work.

In no way is any of this based on an egocentric perspective of earth as somehow special. I also want to state again that I am not a physicist but a geeky layman who is interested in science and space.

I get the idea the space between galaxies is growing larger, and that is an indicator of expansion. I just don't understand how you can assume based on that fact that it will continue forever. I think we lack the perspective to make such a conclusion.

I find the concept of a lack of "space" fascinating. The idea that the universe is expanding reminds me of a concentration gradient.

[Volya]

I get the idea the space between galaxies is growing larger, and that is an indicator of expansion. I just don't understand how you can assume based on that fact that it will continue forever. I think we lack the perspective to make such a conclusion.

I find the concept of a lack of "space" fascinating. The idea that the universe is expanding reminds me of a concentration gradient.

If it is expanding into nothing then there is no friction or resistance acting upon it, so why WOULDN'T it keep expanding forever?

[Frostball]

I get the idea the space between galaxies is growing larger, and that is an indicator of expansion. I just don't understand how you can assume based on that fact that it will continue forever. I think we lack the perspective to make such a conclusion.

I find the concept of a lack of "space" fascinating. The idea that the universe is expanding reminds me of a concentration gradient.

Another thing to remember is the fact that when we look out into space, we're looking into the past because of how long it takes the light to reach us. So we don't just have our single timeframe to look at, in a way, we actually have a great many time periods of space that can be observed. The farther away the galaxy, or object is, the longer the light took to reach us, the further into the past the observations are. So if we see this kind of thing in effect on galaxies that are 7 billion light years away, then that's evidence for the fact that it was happening 7 billion years ago as well.

The most important thing to remember is the fact of a convergence of evidence. Similar to evolution, how no single piece of evidence can prove it to be true, it's the fact that fossil evidence, DNA evidence, geological evidence (and surely more I can't think of) all converge to the same exact conclusion. They all make sense if you account for evolution, and none of it makes sense without it.

Dark Energy is similar, though perhaps not as incontrovertible as evolution surely is. Our measurement of the total matter in the universe from cosmic background radiation suggest there is a missing 70%. Also, the large scale picture of the universe, with galaxies and clusters, also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is about 30% of the critical density, which also suggests a missing 70%. It's things like this that end up confirming a hypothesis and turning it into a real theory. It's the fact that all the current models of the universe make a lot more sense when accounting for dark energy, and they stop making sense without it.

[sandracollin]

well for me the word 'travel' means forwards. winds travel they go forward but not the opposite in one forward direction. clouds travel .they move from one spot to the next then aspire. they could not if they travelled backward.



what do you think you know? :)


time travel means in constant move. big bang means something stopped. there could not be an explosion if something was moving.
a bit like watching a bullet. it travels fast but it only explode because it had hit a target. it has stopped moving.




if and when something stops means something has caused it to. friction is usually one of them. an explosion is usually because that something has stopped moving and it has complied from lack of movement to the point of an explosion.

I'd like the way you explain things here. But my thing is if time travels means constant move or continually moving then surely it will create expansion at all phases. Not sure though?! :)

[hypatia_]

If it is expanding into nothing then there is no friction or resistance acting upon it, so why WOULDN'T it keep expanding forever?

How do you know there is no resistance acting upon it? In fact, what evidence do you have that we are expanding into "nothing?"


Another thing to remember is the fact that when we look out into space, we're looking into the past because of how long it takes the light to reach us. So we don't just have our single timeframe to look at, in a way, we actually have a great many time periods of space that can be observed. The farther away the galaxy, or object is, the longer the light took to reach us, the further into the past the observations are. So if we see this kind of thing in effect on galaxies that are 7 billion light years away, then that's evidence for the fact that it was happening 7 billion years ago as well.

The most important thing to remember is the fact of a convergence of evidence. Similar to evolution, how no single piece of evidence can prove it to be true, it's the fact that fossil evidence, DNA evidence, geological evidence (and surely more I can't think of) all converge to the same exact conclusion. They all make sense if you account for evolution, and none of it makes sense without it.

Dark Energy is similar, though perhaps not as incontrovertible as evolution surely is. Our measurement of the total matter in the universe from cosmic background radiation suggest there is a missing 70%. Also, the large scale picture of the universe, with galaxies and clusters, also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is about 30% of the critical density, which also suggests a missing 70%. It's things like this that end up confirming a hypothesis and turning it into a real theory. It's the fact that all the current models of the universe make a lot more sense when accounting for dark energy, and they stop making sense without it.

Yes yes, the first two paragraphs I learned in middle school, and the third is something I can find on Wikipedia in 5 seconds. But none of it is indicative of an indefinitely expanding universe.

[Volya]

How do you know there is no resistance acting upon it?

Because from what I am aware (theoretically) it is expanding into nothing. I'm not really an expert on physics though, this is just what I've deduced from GCSE level Physics at school.

[MorpheusSandman]

Multiple universes is a fun thing to think about, but ultimately it's all speculation. Actual beliefs should be based on evidence, regardless how bleak the evidence suggests the outcome is.There is actual evidence supporting the multi-verse in the form of observations of the CMBR. Some (like myself) would argue that the best current interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us there's a multiverse as well, though that's a whole other issue.

[PeterL]

Whether one can travel in time depends on what time is. Time is the duration of events and between events. It is analogous to physical dimensions. Between the Battle of Hastings and me writing this there is a span of 948 years and three thousand and some odd miles. The question isn't whether it is possible to travel through time but whether one can do so a rate that is other than the traditional rate and whether one can control such travel. Then there is the question of whether one can get into the branches of the multiverse that are near this one. And if you were to travel into the past of the future, what would you see? What is there?


I've read that time doesn't exist and that it is an illusion of our senses.

You were misinformed. Time is the separation between events. If there were no time,then everything would happen at the same time, and that would be inconvenient.

[YesNo]

Whether one can travel in time depends on what time is. Time is the duration of events and between events. It is analogous to physical dimensions. Between the Battle of Hastings and me writing this there is a span of 948 years and three thousand and some odd miles. The question isn't whether it is possible to travel through time but whether one can do so a rate that is other than the traditional rate and whether one can control such travel. Then there is the question of whether one can get into the branches of the multiverse that are near this one. And if you were to travel into the past of the future, what would you see? What is there?

I agree that time is the duration of events within a frame of reference.

One should be able to reach a future event in some frame of reference A faster than those remaining in frame of reference A by accelerating oneself closer to the speed of light in a different frame of reference B moving away from frame of reference A and then turning around and coming back to that frame of reference A and syncing up one's speed with it. One would reach a future point in A using less time as measured by both frames of reference. I think that is just special relativity.

Going backward in time requires that one avoids the "grandfather paradox" which basically says you shouldn't be able to kill your own grandfather if you try such a stunt. I understand that many worlds thinks it can accommodate this behavior by just splitting out a new parallel universe, but that begs the question whether there are such parallel universes at all. I find them highly unlikely, with probability 0, that they exist.

I think one could get hints of what happened in the past if there existed some dimensions that one could access that would allow one to read a history of the past more easily than physical or cultural clues surviving in our present. That is not usually considered time travel as such, but I suspect it is the only alternative for past events. To some extent one can predict future events that appear to be deterministic. Intuitives or psychics can sometimes predict future events that are not as deterministic. Although I wouldn't mind knowing what the stock market will be a year from now, I suspect I will just have to wait and see.

[PeterL]

I agree that time is the duration of events within a frame of reference.

One should be able to reach a future event in some frame of reference A faster than those remaining in frame of reference A by accelerating oneself closer to the speed of light in a different frame of reference B moving away from frame of reference A and then turning around and coming back to that frame of reference A and syncing up one's speed with it. One would reach a future point in A using less time as measured by both frames of reference. I think that is just special relativity.

I have more problems with travel to the future than with travel into the past. There is no future; there are just possibilities. But Mr Everett has pointed out that all of the inifinty of possibilities has to come into existence. That makes the problem o travel to the future going home.


Going backward in time requires that one avoids the "grandfather paradox" which basically says you shouldn't be able to kill your own grandfather if you try such a stunt. I understand that many worlds thinks it can accommodate this behavior by just splitting out a new parallel universe, but that begs the question whether there are such parallel universes at all. I find them highly unlikely, with probability 0, that they exist.

I was about to abandon hope for parallel universes a few months ago when I wrote some blog posts on time travel and the Many World Interpretation, but I discovered that there appears to have been laboratory evidence for the Many Worlds Interpretation being correct. If MWI is true, then the grandfather paradox is just something or ignorant writers of fiction.


I think one could get hints of what happened in the past if there existed some dimensions that one could access that would allow one to read a history of the past more easily than physical or cultural clues surviving in our present. That is not usually considered time travel as such, but I suspect it is the only alternative for past events. To some extent one can predict future events that appear to be deterministic. Intuitives or psychics can sometimes predict future events that are not as deterministic. Although I wouldn't mind knowing what the stock market will be a year from now, I suspect I will just have to wait and see.

According to the theory it is impossible to access other branches of the multiverse, but I think that there is a minor adjustment that could be made to the theroy that would allow for movement from branch to branch, and it would also reduce the number of worlds from infinite to just many. But the multiverse as a whole is deterministic; although there is free will within each universe, because each decision creates a new branch.

Going a year into the future to buy a copy of the stock tables for a day would create a new branch, and investing on that table would be a crap shoot, but you could travel into the past with the daily price moves from then to now and invest on that basis, and it would create new branches, if your invesments were digfferent from the original, but the tables probably would remain accurate. Now I just have to get my time machine running.

[MorpheusSandman]

...But Mr Everett has pointed out that all of the inifinty of possibilities has to come into existence. I was about to abandon hope for parallel universes a few months ago when I wrote some blog posts on time travel and the Many World Interpretation, but I discovered that there appears to have been laboratory evidence for the Many Worlds Interpretation being correct. If MWI is true, then the grandfather paradox is just something or ignorant writers of fiction.I don't think you've comprehended what you've started. There have been about 3 or 4 epic threads by now with people (mostly me) trying to explain MWI to YesNo. You are in for a lot of this: :mad2: if you continue on this course.


But the multiverse as a whole is deterministic; although there is free will within each universe, because each decision creates a new branch. Not really sure what you mean here. MWI says that each option of the "choice" happens in different worlds, so I'm not sure what you mean you'd have "free will within each universe, because each decision creates a new branch." Besides, that's not entirely accurate of what happens. It's more accurate that each choice diverges an intersects with an existing branch. It's not really clear if any genuinely "new" worlds are created as opposed to all worlds co-existing, diverging, and intersecting at each decoherence point.

[Sweetgirl]

Time does exist, if it didn't events wouldn't happen in order, there would be no sequence to them etc. However, I believe that we as humans have not yet evolved to the stage where we can undersand it fully. It would be foolish trying to decipher it, as you will get hundreds of responces with hundreds of opinions and the arguments can go on for years because there is not much evidence to fully back any of the claims.

[PeterL]

I don't think you've comprehended what you've started. There have been about 3 or 4 epic threads by now with people (mostly me) trying to explain MWI to YesNo. You are in for a lot of this: :mad2: if you continue on this course.

Not really sure what you mean here. MWI says that each option of the "choice" happens in different worlds, so I'm not sure what you mean you'd have "free will within each universe, because each decision creates a new branch." Besides, that's not entirely accurate of what happens. It's more accurate that each choice diverges an intersects with an existing branch. It's not really clear if any genuinely "new" worlds are created as opposed to all worlds co-existing, diverging, and intersecting at each decoherence point.

That is pretty clear. Any and every decision can be made in each world, but each different decision splits the universe. I agree that there is no necessary reason for a new universe being created with each decision, but that what the theory says.

[YesNo]

I have more problems with travel to the future than with travel into the past. There is no future; there are just possibilities. But Mr Everett has pointed out that all of the inifinty of possibilities has to come into existence. That makes the problem o travel to the future going home.

As far as future travel goes, it is just getting there faster than one would normally get there if one stayed on the original frame of reference. Of course, it takes a lot of energy to achieve that.

Suppose many worlds were true and you went back into the past, what you would be doing is creating a new universe by splitting one of the past universes. This would avoid the grandfather paradox. But how do you know you went back to the universe you were in originally? How would you get back to your home universe?


Time does exist, if it didn't events wouldn't happen in order, there would be no sequence to them etc. However, I believe that we as humans have not yet evolved to the stage where we can undersand it fully. It would be foolish trying to decipher it, as you will get hundreds of responces with hundreds of opinions and the arguments can go on for years because there is not much evidence to fully back any of the claims.

It is likely foolish to try deciphering time, but it is entertaining. At the moment, I look at time as a sort of sliver of the present. I don't think a "block universe" exists where time and space are all completely determined in one big block of space-time.

[PeterL]

As far as future travel goes, it is just getting there faster than one would normally get there if one stayed on the original frame of reference. Of course, it takes a lot of energy to achieve that.

Suppose many worlds were true and you went back into the past, what you would be doing is creating a new universe by splitting one of the past universes. This would avoid the grandfather paradox. But how do you know you went back to the universe you were in originally? How would you get back to your home universe?

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory is much more likely to be true than any other way of looking at the theory. I agree with you that MWI sidesteps the grandfather paradox, but a paradox is only that, and apparent contradiction, not an actual contradiction. The answers to the other questions are in stories that I have written, so you will have to twist the arm of a publisher, if you want to read them in this branch of the multiverse.

[Jack of Hearts]

I've read that time doesn't exist and that it is an illusion of our senses.

What free probably meant-- and you aren't going to like this either-- is that time, being perceived by the senses, is only posited by consciousness.






J

[MorpheusSandman]

Any and every decision can be made in each world, but each different decision splits the universe.Right, but I'm not getting how you think that relates to free-will...


I agree that there is no necessary reason for a new universe being created with each decision, but that what the theory says.No, the theory (actually interpretation) says that each world is already present in the wavefunction and something like a "decision" would be a point of "decoherence" where the already-present worlds split from each other. This isn't "creation" of new worlds, it's the "decoherence" of worlds that are already there. Think of it as a zipper: both sides of the zipper are already there, and you wouldn't say that the act of unzipping "creates" a new zipper, but that it detaches the two zipper halves that were there.

[Frostball]

Time does exist, if it didn't events wouldn't happen in order, there would be no sequence to them etc. However, I believe that we as humans have not yet evolved to the stage where we can undersand it fully. It would be foolish trying to decipher it, as you will get hundreds of responces with hundreds of opinions and the arguments can go on for years because there is not much evidence to fully back any of the claims.

So we should just put our hands up and call it hopeless then? What a dim and fatalistic view. Just because something is difficult or complicated does not mean we shouldn't try. Your attitude would get us exactly nowhere.

[YesNo]

The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory is much likely to be true than any other way of looking at the theory. I agree with you that MWI sidesteps the grandfather paradox, but a paradox is only that, and apparent contradiction, not an actual contradiction. The answers to the other questions are in stories that I have written, so you will have to twist the arm of a publisher, if you want to read them in this branch of the multiverse.

I think you said you had some blog posts somewhere on the topic. That might clarify your position for me.

It occurred to me that should you go into a many worlds time machine, decide to press the button, you would split the current universe into at least two universes, one where you stay in the current universe and the other where you go into a different past universe splitting it in the process. So you don't have to worry about coming back to the home universe. You never left it.


What free probably meant-- and you aren't going to like this either-- is that time, being perceived by the senses, is only posited by consciousness.

I doubt that time actually exists although I'm confused about the details. Here are two extreme positions:

1) Eternalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, I liked what Karl Popper had to say.

2) Presentism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, there was a quote by William James that I think I could agree with.


What free probably meant-- and you aren't going to like this either-- is that time, being perceived by the senses, is only posited by consciousness.

I doubt that time actually exists although I'm confused about the details. Here are two extreme positions:

1) Eternalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, I liked what Karl Popper had to say.

2) Presentism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, there was a quote by William James that I think I could agree with.

[cacian]

I doubt that time actually exists although I'm confused about the details. Here are two extreme positions:

1) Eternalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, I liked what Karl Popper had to say.

2) Presentism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) In this article, there was a quote by William James that I think I could agree with.
time is the changes of day and night then add into it the changes in the season cold and warmth, atmosphere and there it is time. so light and temperature is time. there may something else added to it such as sound or movement. that is my interpretation :)

[YesNo]

Yes, that's how I see it as well. It is just our experience of change. It doesn't actually exist as a real dimension.

If that is the case, I don't see how one can travel through time.

[PeterL]

I think you said you had some blog posts somewhere on the topic. That might clarify your position for me.

My blog is here on Litnet. http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?4509


It occurred to me that should you go into a many worlds time machine, decide to press the button, you would split the current universe into at least two universes, one where you stay in the current universe and the other where you go into a different past universe splitting it in the process. So you don't have to worry about coming back to the home universe. You never left it.

You are starting to understand why there is an infinity of universes. It gets even worse when one thinks about the future.


Right, but I'm not getting how you think that relates to free-will...

That's simple. One can make decisions that are independent and give the appearance of being freely made; although like everything they will be determined by cause and effect, but because all possible decisions are said to be made in effect there is free will.

No, the theory (actually interpretation) says that each world is already present in the wavefunction and something like a "decision" would be a point of "decoherence" where the already-present worlds split from each other. This isn't "creation" of new worlds, it's the "decoherence" of worlds that are already there. Think of it as a zipper: both sides of the zipper are already there, and you wouldn't say that the act of unzipping "creates" a new zipper, but that it detaches the two zipper halves that were there.[/QUOTE]

Your analogy is not correct. There would be point A in which universe A exists. Then there would be decision point B where there would be decoherence B. Then ere would be time C in which there would be universe A in which decision B was not made, and there would be universe B in which decision B was made. The two universes would be complete and inaccessible from the other. While the origin of universe B is in the earlier universe A, there was a point when universe B started to exist. First there was one; then there were two.


What free probably meant-- and you aren't going to like this either-- is that time, being perceived by the senses, is only posited by consciousness.J


You are mistaken. Time is separation between events. If there were no time, then everything would be happening simultaneously.

[Calidore]

You are starting to understand why there is an infinity of universes. It gets even worse when one thinks about the future.

Except AFAIK, infinity is strictly a mathematical concept that doesn't apply to physical reality. There's a finite amount of matter in the universe, for example; it's just a very large number.

[PeterL]

Except AFAIK, infinity is strictly a mathematical concept that doesn't apply to physical reality. There's a finite amount of matter in the universe, for example; it's just a very large number.

Think what you like.

[MorpheusSandman]

That's simple. One can make decisions that are independent and give the appearance of being freely made; although like everything they will be determined by cause and effect, but because all possible decisions are said to be made in effect there is free will. This just sounds like gobbledygook to me. It vaguely sounds like you're supporting the compatibalist version of free-will that states that even if our choices are determined, because we can not know the full causes and effect beforehand our choices will still feel free to us.


Your analogy is not correct. There would be point A in which universe A exists. Then there would be decision point B where there would be decoherence B. Then ere would be time C in which there would be universe A in which decision B was not made, and there would be universe B in which decision B was made. The two universes would be complete and inaccessible from the other. While the origin of universe B is in the earlier universe A, there was a point when universe B started to exist. First there was one; then there were two.This is quite wrong. The entire POINT of the wavefunction is that, mathematically, every option is contained within the formula. When we observe it, ie when two quantum states interact, we experience only one of those possibilities. So, to correct your explanation, there is point AB in which universe A and B co-exist in a single universe. There is decision point C where there is decoherence C, and, after that decoherence, we get a separated world for both A and B. Obviously there will always be before-C in which A and B are AB, but once the decision is made, A and B are mutually inaccessible. You seem to be assuming that "not making decision C" means that new-world B is created, but this is incorrect. "Not making decision C" would actually be one of the possibilities of decision C. So we can rephrase this as having point ABC in which A is making decision with option 1, B is making decision with option 2, and C is not making the decision between option 1 and 2. The act of not making that decision is still a decision, and would split the ABC point into World A, World B, and World C.

[cacian]

Except AFAIK, infinity is strictly a mathematical concept that doesn't apply to physical reality. There's a finite amount of matter in the universe, for example; it's just a very large number.

hi Calidore. infinity is a number. finity however is not.

[PeterL]

This just sounds like gobbledygook to me. It vaguely sounds like you're supporting the compatibalist version of free-will that states that even if our choices are determined, because we can not know the full causes and effect beforehand our choices will still feel free to us.

It is similar, and it may simply be a different way of thinking about it. I would still contend that umtilately everything is determined.


This is quite wrong. The entire POINT of the wavefunction is that, mathematically, every option is contained within the formula. When we observe it, ie when two quantum states interact, we experience only one of those possibilities. So, to correct your explanation, there is point AB in which universe A and B co-exist in a single universe. There is decision point C where there is decoherence C, and, after that decoherence, we get a separated world for both A and B. Obviously there will always be before-C in which A and B are AB, but once the decision is made, A and B are mutually inaccessible. You seem to be assuming that "not making decision C" means that new-world B is created, but this is incorrect. "Not making decision C" would actually be one of the possibilities of decision C. So we can rephrase this as having point ABC in which A is making decision with option 1, B is making decision with option 2, and C is not making the decision between option 1 and 2. The act of not making that decision is still a decision, and would split the ABC point into World A, World B, and World C.

We do not disaggre in principle, but I would say that in the original state there was a single universe A, and B and C are children of A. Yes, they were A, but that was a single thing; it was not ABC. When B and C came ito existence their histories were the history of A up to the decision point.

[MorpheusSandman]

Yes, they were A, but that was a single thing; it was not ABC. When B and C came ito existence their histories were the history of A up to the decision point.I think we're pretty close to agreement, but a few details need ironing out. B and C don't "come into existence" any more than A "comes into existence" because prior to the decision all three were already co-existing. Let's try it this way: You have World A which reaches Decision B, within Decision B are Worlds C, D, and E. Once the decision is made, C, D, and E ALL separate from A, even though they share A as a common history. In a sense, World A doesn't exist exist anymore because World A was a world in which C, D, and E co-existed. After decision B; C, D, and E split, but they don't really "come into existence," they aren't "created," they were already THERE.

I don't mean to be persnickety about this, but the idea that MW "creates new worlds" is one thing that leads laymen to assume that this would violate the conservation of energy. However, if all the worlds are already there and that they're merely separating at decoherence points, then there's no violation.

[Jack of Hearts]

You are mistaken. Time is separation between events. If there were no time, then everything would be happening simultaneously.

No. You can't read-- or more likely, choose not to. The statement's only assertion (you can read it, it's still there, unedited) was in regards to interpreting what the poster called free meant.

It could very well be the case that Jack of Hearts is mistaken about interpreting free's input. But you didn't respond to that. In an act of sophistry and belligerence, you asserted that he was 'mistaken.' The other sentences in your post have to be regarded as non-sequitur or taken with the implication that Jack of Hearts was asserting that time did not exist.

... which he didn't. You, PeterL, know nothing of what this poster thinks about time; and he wouldn't bother to discuss it with you, because your constructs are rife with intellectual laziness and ill will. They always have been, which is why these little peck-a-dillos dot your interaction record here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?58546-Agnosticism&highlight=

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?58708-On-Critiquing&highlight=

It's not coincidence.






J

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[PeterL]

No. You can't read-- or more likely, choose not to. The statement's only assertion (you can read it, it's still there, unedited) was in regards to interpreting what the poster called free meant.

It could very well be the case that Jack of Hearts is mistaken about interpreting free's input. But you didn't respond to that. In an act of sophistry and belligerence, you asserted that he was 'mistaken.' The other sentences in your post have to be regarded as non-sequitur or taken with the implication that Jack of Hearts was asserting that time did not exist.

... which he didn't. You, PeterL, know nothing of what this poster thinks about time; and he wouldn't bother to discuss it with you, because your constructs are rife with intellectual laziness and ill will. They always have been, which is why these little peck-a-dillos dot your interaction record here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?58546-Agnosticism&highlight=

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?58708-On-Critiquing&highlight=

It's not coincidence.


J

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

See also: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/entry.php?13253-How-to-Lose-an-Argument-Without-Really-Trying

[PeterL]

I think we're pretty close to agreement, but a few details need ironing out. B and C don't "come into existence" any more than A "comes into existence" because prior to the decision all three were already co-existing. Let's try it this way: You have World A which reaches Decision B, within Decision B are Worlds C, D, and E. Once the decision is made, C, D, and E ALL separate from A, even though they share A as a common history. In a sense, World A doesn't exist exist anymore because World A was a world in which C, D, and E co-existed. After decision B; C, D, and E split, but they don't really "come into existence," they aren't "created," they were already THERE.

I don't mean to be persnickety about this, but the idea that MW "creates new worlds" is one thing that leads laymen to assume that this would violate the conservation of energy. However, if all the worlds are already there and that they're merely separating at decoherence points, then there's no violation.

I know what you mean A, B, and C have the same history, but there was only one, until the decision. I don't disagree, but I don't like saying that 3=1 or other such mathematical oddities.

The conservation of mass and energy are two reasons why many physicists do not accept MWI: SHAZAM! Suddenly there is three times as much mass as there was a while ago. If you are saying that they completely existed before, then the decision was inconsequential.

I don't want to go into it, but I think there is a way around this, and I think that it has already been proposed, but I haven't found the article.

[Jack of Hearts]

Again, silly PeterL, you know not with what you play. This reader didn't attack your 'argument' or 'conclusion' through any slight on you. There was no claim or conclusion in the realm of ad hominem-- just reasoning structures (that don't pertain to the argument at hand), followed separately by a normative opinion about why Jack of Hearts holds the belief that interacting with you is the virtual equivalent of watching cable news and therefore not worth serious effort.

So you've demonstrated 1) that you don't know what ad hominem is, and 2) a very specific style of communication that approximates being 'discussion' on a superficial level but is in reality just a subversive form of narcissism.

By erroneously claiming that an 'ad hominem' fallacy made Jack of Hearts' reasoning invalid (again, it didn't commentary on you personally followed after and outside of the reasoning structures, pay attention), you've sidestepped any actual dialogue concerning any issue at hand so that you could 'win' the argument. So--

way to pull out the win, buddy.




J

[YesNo]

when I think time travel I thing forward never backward.

I agree.

A forward travel through time is what we do by living. Going backward into time doesn't make sense. It would mean there is something to go backward into, but what is that past time but memories? Remembering the past is all the time travel into the past that we would be able to achieve.

[cacian]

I agree.

A forward travel through time is what we do by living. Going backward into time doesn't make sense. It would mean there is something to go backward into, but what is that past time but memories? Remembering the past is all the time travel into the past that we would be able to achieve.

agreed another word comes to mind and that is nostalgia. I hear it a lot when people refer to remembering past time.
I think memory is ''remembering what was''. time is different. it is forward because it is updating to go back would suggest time would date as in dated which could not be the case. time updates itself rather debate itself.
human ages as they go through time if they did not that would mean time travelled back. age is the reason why time goes forward.

[YesNo]

Aging is a form of entropy, directed change. The idea of time "updating" as you mention, or rather, change updating makes sense. Change doesn't update itself, it is just more change, always forward.

Upon waking this morning it occurred to me that "space-time" is mistakenly considered real, a substitute for the rejected ether. Although in the formulas used in physics containing a t, standing for time, one could put in a negative t to get a backward prediction, this doesn't mean there is something real called time we could move into in any direction we please.

Those formulas only work as models of reality. What is out there for space are energy fields and what represents time is relative change among objects within those fields. What Einstein did was link energy fields with changing frames of reference.

[cacian]

Aging is a form of entropy, directed change. The idea of time "updating" as you mention, or rather, change updating makes sense. Change doesn't update itself, it is just more change, always forward.


ageing is as a result of time moving forward and updating ie the more we age and the more time we have in fact consumed in terms of changes. it is reflected on us because we humans are evolving around its changes/updating and the way we express the changes is through growing old. time does not add or surplus it moves in a formula of constant but changing/moving forward I think.
if you take the example of the desert and the way the wind builds up streaks or tiny dunes because the movement shifts forward in a constant but updating way because it goes forward then comes back. the desert does not move but the wind does.
the streaks could be compared to ageing and desert to a human who is exposed to time.


Upon waking this morning it occurred to me that "space-time" is mistakenly considered real, a substitute for the rejected ether. Although in the formulas used in physics containing a t, standing for time, one could put in a negative t to get a backward prediction, this doesn't mean there is something real called time we could move into in any direction we please.

I do not believe there is an ether. the reason for that is that I can only believe in what I can perceive see or feel.


Those formulas only work as models of reality. What is out there for space are energy fields and what represents time is relative change among objects within those fields. What Einstein did was link energy fields with changing frames of reference.
I do not understand energy fields and what they are about. space is energetic because of the planets including earth and humans. we are energy and what surrounds us immediately is what activates the energy within us. energy can only work both ways . it need give and take it circular in that sense. energy is activated upon another sourced one. humans are one source of energy light is another.

[PeterL]

Upon waking this morning it occurred to me that "space-time" is mistakenly considered real, a substitute for the rejected ether.

All of the predictions of relativity, both special and general hold true in Aether Theory, and there are some predictions of Aether that aare true but are not predicted by relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated many times, and was found that there is aether drift, but it is different from what the theory predicted. Dayton Miller was one of the more noted people in the field, but there have been others sinece then who have found more evidence for Aether theory.
You might start from this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller


Although in the formulas used in physics containing a t, standing for time, one could put in a negative t to get a backward prediction, this doesn't mean there is something real called time we could move into in any direction we please.

Those formulas only work as models of reality. What is out there for space are energy fields and what represents time is relative change among objects within those fields. What Einstein did was link energy fields with changing frames of reference.

Nearly all physical processes are reversible (I can't recall the one that isn't), and that may indicate that everything is actually reversible. Yes, reversing an atomic process is not the same as sending me back to 20,000 BCE, but the principal is the same.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't like saying that 3=1 or other such mathematical oddities.That "mathematical oddity" is what is within the Schrodinger Wave Equation, so it's not me saying that "3=1," it's the math.


The conservation of mass and energy are two reasons why many physicists do not accept MWI: SHAZAM! Suddenly there is three times as much mass as there was a while ago. If you are saying that they completely existed before, then the decision was inconsequential. Yes, and those that don't accept it for those reasons are wrong because nothing new is being created. You seem to share this misunderstanding with them. You don't have "three times as much mass," you have a single mass split (to use our example) three ways. I don't know why you say "the decision was inconsequential if they existed before," because even though they existed they couldn't be experienced distinctly until the decision was made. This is Schrodinger's Cat; until we look into the box, the cat is alive AND dead, and our looking eliminates the "and" and splits between one ALIVE world and one DEAD world.

[PeterL]

That "mathematical oddity" is what is within the Schrodinger Wave Equation, so it's not me saying that "3=1," it's the math.

It strongly suggests that there is something wrong with the math.


Yes, and those that don't accept it for those reasons are wrong because nothing new is being created. You seem to share this misunderstanding with them. You don't have "three times as much mass," you have a single mass split (to use our example) three ways. I don't know why you say "the decision was inconsequential if they existed before," because even though they existed they couldn't be experienced distinctly until the decision was made. This is Schrodinger's Cat; until we look into the box, the cat is alive AND dead, and our looking eliminates the "and" and splits between one ALIVE world and one DEAD world.

Sorry, but the problem of Schrodinger's Cat was eliminated by MWI. The cat is alive in some worlds and dead in other worlds, but it is one or the other. There was only one cat, and it was bifurcated, along with the rest of the world. There was one, and now there are two. Our looking doesn't change anything; the cats were dead and alive respectively from the time the box was closed.

[MorpheusSandman]

It strongly suggests that there is something wrong with the math.Based on what?


Sorry, but the problem of Schrodinger's Cat was eliminated by MWI. The cat is alive in some worlds and dead in other worlds, but it is one or the other. There was only one cat, and it was bifurcated, along with the rest of the world. There was one, and now there are two. Our looking doesn't change anything; the cats were dead and alive respectively from the time the box was closed.Our looking changes how we interact with other quantum entities; even if we assume that there is a dead-cat world and alive-cat world before we look, we don't know what world we're in until we look, so we "experience" the cat as "alive and dead." This is the same thing with particles. When we're not measuring them, they display the quality of existing in all possible states at once. Once we look, they behave like ordinary matter, one thing or another, not everything simultaneously. In Schrodinger's Cat, the cat is like a particle until we look. This is because we ourselves, as quantum entities, become entangled with other quantum entities. So while our observation is not a "cause" of anything (it doesn't affect the cat), it very much affects how we experience the cat. So, while MW has an answer to what's happening with Schrodinger's Cat, I wouldn't say it "eliminates the problem" (if it even ever was a problem, since it was merely meant to illustrate our observations of particle behavior on a macro level).

[PeterL]

Based on what?

Newtonian physics.


Our looking changes how we interact with other quantum entities; even if we assume that there is a dead-cat world and alive-cat world before we look, we don't know what world we're in until we look, so we "experience" the cat as "alive and dead." This is the same thing with particles. When we're not measuring them, they display the quality of existing in all possible states at once. Once we look, they behave like ordinary matter, one thing or another, not everything simultaneously. In Schrodinger's Cat, the cat is like a particle until we look. This is because we ourselves, as quantum entities, become entangled with other quantum entities. So while our observation is not a "cause" of anything (it doesn't affect the cat), it very much affects how we experience the cat. So, while MW has an answer to what's happening with Schrodinger's Cat, I wouldn't say it "eliminates the problem" (if it even ever was a problem, since it was merely meant to illustrate our observations of particle behavior on a macro level).

Schrodinger's Cat demonstrated uncertainty. The uncertainty no longer exists. There is no need to look to see whether the cat is alive or dead; it is alive in one universe and dead in another.

[MorpheusSandman]

Newtonian physics.Newtonian physics is wrong. It's a mere approximation that couldn't even account for the orbit of Mercury. General Relativity is better yet, but even it can't account for quantum events. Quantum math can scale to GR's levels, though (minus gravity). Its minute accuracy is reason enough not to doubt it. But saying "Newtonian physics" as a reason for doubting Quantum math is rather laughable.


Schrodinger's Cat demonstrated uncertainty. The uncertainty no longer exists. There is no need to look to see whether the cat is alive or dead; it is alive in one universe and dead in another.The uncertainty was always on the observer's (our) side, so it still exists until the observer looks. The only thing the observer can say for certain is that both the alive and dead worlds are real (because possible) and they will find themselves in one or the other once they look. You're making a similar mistake to those that Copenhagen makes, and that's taking the observer out of the equation. Even if the observer doesn't effect the world the object ends up in (as in Copenhagen, who also denies the reality of the other worlds), the observer does effect how the observer ends up in each world.

[YesNo]

I do not believe there is an ether. the reason for that is that I can only believe in what I can perceive see or feel.

I don't believe in it either.



I do not understand energy fields and what they are about. space is energetic because of the planets including earth and humans. we are energy and what surrounds us immediately is what activates the energy within us. energy can only work both ways . it need give and take it circular in that sense. energy is activated upon another sourced one. humans are one source of energy light is another.

Space would be some relationship between objects which generate fields and time would be the change of those objects. I don't understand energy fields either. I was trying to get away from thinking that space-time is something real rather than just a coordinate system for a formula to use.

[YesNo]

All of the predictions of relativity, both special and general hold true in Aether Theory, and there are some predictions of Aether that aare true but are not predicted by relativity. The Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated many times, and was found that there is aether drift, but it is different from what the theory predicted. Dayton Miller was one of the more noted people in the field, but there have been others sinece then who have found more evidence for Aether theory.
You might start from this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller

Looking at the link, it seems that Shankland could not confirm Miller's results suggesting there were some kind of ether. However, I think it is worth testing physical constants to see just how constant they are. Ultimately that might bring up the notion of an ether indirectly.




Nearly all physical processes are reversible (I can't recall the one that isn't), and that may indicate that everything is actually reversible. Yes, reversing an atomic process is not the same as sending me back to 20,000 BCE, but the principal is the same.

I assume you would accept that our lives are physical processes going from birth to death. Are they reversible (outside of some science fiction tale)?

[Volya]

Looking at the link, it seems that Shankland could not confirm Miller's results suggesting there were some kind of ether. However, I think it is worth testing physical constants to see just how constant they are. Ultimately that might bring up the notion of an ether indirectly.


I assume you would accept that our lives are physical processes going from birth to death. Are they reversible (outside of some science fiction tale)?

Our lives involve chemical processes too, which are not always reversible.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Our lives involve chemical processes too, which are not always reversible.

That's a good point. There are physical/chemical changes (processes) that are considered to be either reversible or non-reversible, depending
on the laws of thermodynamics applied to specific situations. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the global (i.e. system and its
surroundings) change in entropy of any spontaneous process is greater than or equal to zero. It's never a negative number.

In most situations entropy increases because there is some loss of "useful" energy that is "wasted" in the form of "heat" dissipation. In
mechanical systems, for example, energy is lost through friction. This is a major reason why we haven't been able to make "perpetual
motion" machines. The best that we can hope for in spontaneous physical processes is zero total entropy change. We can't expect that
it will be possible for a physical process to decrease total entropy. It is possible to have a LOCAL decrease in entropy, but this will always
come at a cost of TOTAL (i.e. "universal") entropy. Maxwell described a famous thought experiment, "Maxwell's Demon," that proposed
a plausible way to violate the Second Law. There has been a lot of discussion about why the Demon could not do what he was tasked to
do (i.e. violate the Second Law).

One of the reasons why so many folks believe that the Second Law explains the "unidirectionality" of time is that the 2nd Law states that
entropy is always greater than or equal to zero.

systems

[YesNo]

What would a spontaneous physical process with zero total entropy change be? Perhaps the earth's motion around the sun? I assume a reversible physical process would have to have zero total entropy change.

[Nick Capozzoli]

What would a spontaneous physical process with zero total entropy change be? Perhaps the earth's motion around the sun? I assume a reversible physical process would have to have zero total entropy change.

You ask about two different things: 1) spontaneous processes; and, 2) reversible processes. Spontaneous processes are those for which the Gibbs Free Energy, defined by the equation deltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS is negative. G=Gibbs Free Energy, H=enthalpy, T=temperature, and S=entropy....and delta="change in." Reversible processes are those for which the change in entropy is zero.

Since entropy is the only physical quantity we currently know about that seems to always result in a greater than or equal to zero result when the total "system" is considered, it seems to be a plausible explanation for the unidirectionality of "the arrow of time." The recent discovery of the Higg's Boson may offer other explanations for that...

[YesNo]

I am beginning to see the difference. Thanks for the explanation.

"Spontaneous processes" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process ) would not be reversible because there is increased entropy involved.

A "reversible process" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_process_(thermodynamics) ) is a "quasistatic process" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasistatic_processes ). Here is one quote from the reversible article:


Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible.

Although I don't understand the "infinite amount of time" part, it looks like reversible processes generally don't exist.

[Nick Capozzoli]

What would a spontaneous physical process with zero total entropy change be? Perhaps the earth's motion around the sun? I assume a reversible physical process would have to have zero total entropy change.

Using the Gibbs Free Energy equation (deltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS) along with the requirement that a spontaneous process requires that deltaG be negative, we require that deltaH be negative, since TdeltaS is zero if deltaS is zero.

The earth's rotation around the sun is a spontaneous process, but it is not reversible. The motion of the earth-sun system is driven by gravity. The orbital motion of the earth around the sun has been going on for a very long time, and it might seem to some sort of perpetual motion machine, but it isn't. deltaS is a positive quantity for this process.