• Time Travel
    204 replies, posted
I'd say we can go back not forward, or forward but not back, one of the two.
[QUOTE=billeh!;22390605]Well Novikov also states that time travel backwards is entirely impossible. Either that, or Novikov could go hand-in-hand with MW.[/QUOTE] Eh? No? As far as I understand Novikov is the solution to the grandfather paradox, or any paradox, which assumes free time travel. In fact the example on Wikipedia is of a ball travelling back in time to strike itself out of course so it won't hit the wormhole that goes back in time. [editline]05:20PM[/editline] Also, anyone who can seriously consider Many Worlds is a retard. It's a meaningless assumption.
[QUOTE=BmB;22392806] Also, anyone who can seriously consider Many Worlds is a retard. It's a meaningless assumption.[/QUOTE] Do you have any credentials to go with that rather brash statement? It's a fully fledged interpretation supported by many great scientists, including Brain Greene and Stephan Hawking - who referred to Many Worlds as being 'inherently correct' ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation[/url]). Of course its not finished and more evidence needs to be gathered, but the same is true of every interpretation out there. No other interpretation of QM explains the potential paradoxes that arise from general relativity and quantum mechanics with as much ease and grace as Many Worlds. The nearest contender is Copenhagen, which Many Worlds was pretty much built on. I'm not by any means saying that it [I]is[/I] the correct interpretation, just that with the evidence gathered so far dismissing it as a fallacy is a pretty ignorant thing to do.
Perception of reality doesn't make sense in a world that's put together in such a manner. Asking whether Many Worlds is true is like asking if the world exists. The answer is simple.
[QUOTE=BmB;22393225]Perception of reality doesn't make sense in a world that's put together in such a manner. Asking whether Many Worlds is true is like asking if the world exists. The answer is simple.[/QUOTE] Whatever logic you are using, I don't get it. The world [I]does[/I] exist.. so are you saying Many Worlds [I]does[/I] exist? Where did you reach this conclusion? '...doesn't make sense in a world that's put together in such a manner.' - Are you talking about our reality? Or the suggested multiple realities of Many Worlds? Most of QM is based on ideas we find counter-intuitive in our day to day lives. I see no difference between making allowances for this counter-intuitiveness for QM and for MW. Interpreting QM at this level is for the moment more about philosophy then fact - even for things like the Copenhagen interpretation. The framework of QM is sound, that we know for sure (well as sure as we can be). What the framework implies about reality, and what may exist beyond what has so far been observed is what is being debated among these interpretations. And the theory building up at the moment seems to be favoring MW.
The question is simple; does the world exist? Answer: I observe it, to observe it I must exist, therefore something exists. Same for many worlds; is many worlds true? Answer: I observe reality as singular, parallel universes don't make sense. Or put another way, how can you coherently perceive a reality that splits into a billion fractions every millisecond? For that matter, where does the energy come from?
[QUOTE=Silverthing;22371792]Could you kill your self if you went back in time, because if you killed your self you would be dead and couldn't kill your self, you'd be dead. :o <-- Off topic kinda I know[/QUOTE] That would create a paradox, you went back in time and did something to stop yourself from going back in time thus stopping you from stopping yourself meaning that you can go back in time to stop yourself....*carries on forever*
You can't observe Andromeda without some special equipment (i.e. a telescope), so are you saying that Andromeda didn't exist up until Galileo invented the telescope?! We may invent a time machine (as in the OP) which allows us to go back to a particular point and then travel through an alternate time line - this we could perceive and hence would prove the interpretation. The interpretation isn't saying you perceive ALL possible realities, but rather one, and that alternate versions of yourself perceive all others. As for conservation of energy - seeing as Quantum theory has proved that all of physics is time symmetric (entropy aside) I see no reason to doubt that this is also the case for Many Worlds. At each split, the timeline doesn't just split into the future, but into the past as well, creating both alternative futures and alternative past's. This would be in keeping with conservation of energy.
[QUOTE=BmB;22393803]The question is simple; does the world exist? Answer: I observe it, to observe it I must exist, therefore something exists. Same for many worlds; is many worlds true? Answer: I observe reality as singular, parallel universes don't make sense. Or put another way, how can you coherently perceive a reality that splits into a billion fractions every millisecond? For that matter, where does the energy come from?[/QUOTE] What annoys me about TV shows explaing alternate realities is that they say that the universe would split at our choices more likely is that it would split at the billions upon billions (practically infinite) of subatomic undetectable changes that happen all around us and all over the universe, meaning that if there are parallel universes then there are an infinite number of those that have identical earths.
[QUOTE=unseendamageUK;22394068]What annoys me about TV shows explaing alternate realities is that they say that the universe would split at our choices more likely is that it would split at the billions upon billions (practically infinite) of subatomic undetectable changes that happen all around us and all over the universe, meaning that if there are parallel universes then there are an infinite number of those that have identical earths.[/QUOTE] Popular science often misconstrues what actual science is saying. Many Worlds suggests that the universe splits into every possible outcome with every single quantum interaction (often referred to as a measurement or an observation - this is why people get confused, as they assume it means [I]human observation[/I], whereas in reality it just means any particle interacting with any other particle and transferring information).
[QUOTE=Kade;22394127]Popular science often misconstrues what actual science is saying. Many Worlds suggests that the universe splits into every possible outcome with every single quantum interaction (often referred to as a measurement or an observation - this is why people get confused, as they assume it means [I]human observation[/I], whereas in reality it just means any particle interacting with any other particle and transferring information).[/QUOTE] It now makes me laugh to think about shows were they are trying to find there own reality when in face the exact reality they came from is lost in a infinite sea of other realites. Anyway i got to go cause i have a costume party
[QUOTE=unseendamageUK;22394166]It now makes me laugh to think about shows were they are trying to find there own reality when in face the exact reality they came from is lost in a infinite sea of other realites. Anyway i got to go cause i have a costume party[/QUOTE] Yeah I know what you mean, Dr Who has tons of that. Have fun!
Kade you need to start saying things that actually means something or any discussion will be pointless. I am not a physicist and I have no idea wtf you are on about anymore. But to try and answer your question, no I am not saying that. How would you even get that idea? And; if you posit that a new universe is created every time an interaction happens, where does the energy come from? I'm not talking conservation of energy here, I'm talking if there's a parallel universe it will have the same amount of energy as the universe it is parallel to. Where does this come from? Without that energy no universe can be created. Where are these universes? In what dimension do they exist? How do they split? How is this space traversed? What is the fabric of the multiverse? All I see here is pointless conceptual mud that doesn't achieve anything and that is impossible to think about.
[QUOTE=BmB;22394593]Kade you need to start saying things that actually means something or any discussion will be pointless. I am not a physicist and I have no idea wtf you are on about anymore. But to try and answer your question, no I am not saying that. How would you even get that idea? And; if you posit that a new universe is created every time an interaction happens, where does the energy come from? I'm not talking conservation of energy here, I'm talking if there's a parallel universe it will have the same amount of energy as the universe it is parallel to. Where does this come from? Without that energy no universe can be created. Where are these universes? In what dimension do they exist? What is the fabric of the multiverse? All I see here is pointless conceptual mud that doesn't achieve anything and that is impossible to think about.[/QUOTE] The things I'm saying DO mean something - you just don't seem to be understanding them. If there are words I'm using, such as decoherence, that you don't understand just wiki them. And 'where did I get that idea'? Because that's what you said in your post. I've already answered half the stuff on this list. For more, just read the damn wiki. I'm not your bloody mother. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation[/url]
Wikipedia is useless. It's so verbose it's practically incomprehensible. Again, I didn't say anything of the sort. It's a simple philosophical concept. And I'm assuming here that any split is along some dimensional axis where there is equivalence between particles, and conversely certain objects between certain of the multiverses. If these particles and more importantly objects are in fact one and the same across the multiversal boundaries then I must simultaneously exist in all times in all forms in all places always. This is not a universe in which there is any comprehensible perception at all, let alone any kind of discernible flow of time.
[QUOTE=BmB;22394773]This is not a universe in which there is any comprehensible perception at all, let alone any kind of discernible flow of time.[/QUOTE] From the perspective of someone within one of the realities, things would be just like they are for us right now. Time would flow forwards from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy and you would exist in [I]this[/I] reality as you are, surrounded by other things which also are the way you see them now. From an external perspective, of course the idea is impossible to imagine, its just like trying to picture shapes in 4D or 5D. But just because its not intuitive, it doesn't mean its an impossible idea. Quantum Mechanics is a clear example of this, and that's been proven time and time again. If there were a single reason to discount Many Worlds, or any observational evidence against it at all, then I'm sure the scientific community would have announced it and rejected the idea, just like Geocentrism and the Luminiferous Aether were rejected. As of yet this hasn't happened, and to the contrary, evidence has begun to arise which instead supports many worlds. This is why it is one of the leading interpretations of QM at the moment. Note this list: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics[/url] Believe me, countless professional scientists have tried to pick holes in the Many Worlds interpretation over the decades, and it still persists. Do you really think you can pull it apart with a basic knowledge of physics on an internet forum? I wouldn't call Wikipedia useless either. It's a bit blunt when it comes to explaining complex physics I agree, but that's mainly down to the fact that people reading complex physics generally have a grasp for that kinda thing. I prefer it not to be dumbed down. Kinda forces you to learn something then.
No really, even reading things I do have a grasp of the articles are so structureless and painfully neutral and needlessly wordy I don't get much out of it. It's just not well written most of the time. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] We need to remember even the future is a mental construct here. The only observable reality is the present. A timeline at all is a purely speculative thing. We know the future will come but it isn't something real until it gets here. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Along comes a theory that says everything exists in all times in all forms in all places simultaneously forever. This doesn't coincide with one of the most basic and fundamental truths about our world. I don't care about anything beyond that. Again, it's like saying the world exists. You can keep on arguing and theorising and creating constructs and models and making careers and sciences and have credentials and experience and be the smartest person in the world. It still exists and as a basic truth anything that says otherwise is concocted by a retard. A retard with 180+ IQ, 3 phd's and 25 years of experience maybe, but a retard nonetheless.
[QUOTE=BmB;22395959]No really, even reading things I do have a grasp of the articles are so structureless and painfully neutral and needlessly wordy I don't get much out of it. It's just not well written most of the time. [editline]08:06PM[/editline] We need to remember even the future is a mental construct here. The only observable reality is the present. A timeline at all is a purely speculative thing. We know the future will come but it isn't something real until it gets here. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Along comes a theory that says everything exists in all times in all forms in all places simultaneously forever. [/QUOTE] By that logic, the past is purely a mental construct too, and so doesn't exist (due to everything being time symetric, as seen in: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry[/url] ). Does this mean it hasn't ever existed? And who's to say your version of [I]time[/I] and [I]present[/I] is valid? General relativity has show that time has [B]no simultaneity[/B]. We can both stand here and say we are here at the same time (in agreement) , and see something over there happening at the same time, but as soon as one of us begins to move our relative time slices will differ, and so we would disagree on things happening at the same time. This isn't just an optical illusion, things really will happen at different times for us due to our relative velocities (see this: [url]www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/classes)./spacetime.pdf[/url] ) [quote] This doesn't coincide with one of the most basic and fundamental truths about our world. I don't care about anything beyond that. [/quote] The [B][I]whole[/I][/B] of quantum theory goes against the 'basic truths' of our world - such as particles existing in more then one state at the same time. Yet this accepted as fact now, even by yourself. [quote] You can keep on arguing and theorising and creating constructs and models and making careers and sciences and have credentials and experience and be the smartest person in the world. It still exists and as a basic truth anything that says otherwise is concocted by a retard. A retard with 180+ IQ, 3 phd's and 25 years of experience maybe, but a retard nonetheless. [/quote] Of course all of science is made of theoretical constructs. Its not supposed to replace reality, but rather be an accurate description of reality and how it works. Something which QM has been amazingly successful at doing. Also you seem to think that anyone who comes up with a wrong idea now and again is a retard? What the feck is that about? Einstein was wrong about not needing his cosmological constant, does that make him a retard? Even though he's been amazingly accurate about pretty much everything else hes done? The people working on Many Worlds aren't just solely focusing on it, they are all able physicists in their own fields all focusing on teaching, research or any number of other fields related to physics, mathematics or otherwise. A person's IQ isn't inextricably linked to how many times they fuck up. Its a measure of how logical they are. You can be the most logical person in the world, but if the basis of all your research is built upon an oversight or flaw of some kind then all of your conclusions are going to be incorrect. This doesn't reflect said persons intelligence in any way. And this is often the problem with physics. We have evolved to cope with things at the macroscopic level where quantum rules do not apply. Now we are probing territory where evolution would not have benefited from adapting to - and we are finding it perplexing. Your pretty ignorant and insulting for someone who has confessed that they don't actually understand much of this. Before dishing out the word retard you might want to think about the glaring [I]logical[/I] mistake you are making. That [I]is[/I] related to IQ.
And the past really doesn't exist. Only as the idea that the present is a consequence of the past. Again, if Quantum Theory goes against a basic truth of the world Quantum Theory is retarded. Sorry for throwing that word around but it really is the only term I can think of that is strong enough to show just how serious I am about the precedence a basic truth takes to a derived one. That's not to say it can't be weird, observations are observations, but to propose that this weirdness is not intuitively comprehensible, as a result of the fact that it exists as the basis of the logic of the macro world, is ludicrous; insane even.
If you honestly think quantum theory is retarded then you might as well get off your computer right now, baring in mind it is using [B]transistors[/B], which contain semiconductor materials, which themselves work under the principal of quantum tunneling. Quantum theory has been the most successful theory ever devised by man. And it goes against all 'basic truths'. You've just got to realise that your perception of the world is the only thing that is defining these 'basic truths' for you. Human perception of reality is inefficient and distorted at best. There are many things we can't perceive which do exist outside the spectrum of our senses. If you ask me its pretty egotistical to assume that all reality should only conform to your own perceptions it.
We have yet to establish that quantum theory violates any basic truths about the world other than your dubious word for it. After all, as I said, observations are observations, and there clearly exists some (rather comprehensive I gather) correlation between the model and the reality. I must say one of the things that annoy me the most about so called realists, objectivists and scientists is that they reject intuition and instinct as valid modes of thought. It may seem illogical on the surface, but if you dig down a little you will see that intuition is often an order of magnitude more logical, smart and efficient than any other construct in existence. The real power of our mind doesn't come from conscious logic, but feeling. If it is not intuitively comprehensible you won't have a chance in a million years understanding it consciously. [editline]10:24PM[/editline] In fact, let me just remind you that all of maths ever is derived from macro logic as perceived by our "frail" sensory system. And yet clearly something supposedly unintuitive like QM is heavily based in stuff like statistics which is derived from an intuitive understanding of macro relations. We understand your so called "anti-truths" with the same flawed machinery we understand any other truth with. The context is the same. To put it otherwise, intuition is the only real way to understand anything. If it is not intuitively comprehensible we might as well just stop doing science right now because it's completely outside of our capability, no matter what we do. Luckily due to the nature of the world such a thing, I consider impossible.
[QUOTE=BmB;22398799]We have yet to establish that quantum theory violates any basic truths about the world other than your dubious word for it. After all, as I said, observations are observations, and there clearly exists some (rather comprehensive I gather) correlation between the model and the reality. I must say one of the things that annoy me the most about so called realists, objectivists and scientists is that they reject intuition and instinct as valid modes of thought. It may seem illogical on the surface, but if you dig down a little you will see that intuition is often an order of magnitude more logical, smart and efficient than any other construct in existence. The real power of our mind doesn't come from conscious logic, but feeling. If it is not intuitively comprehensible you won't have a chance in a million years understanding it consciously. [editline]10:24PM[/editline] In fact, let me just remind you that all of maths ever is derived from macro logic as perceived by our "frail" sensory system. And yet clearly something supposedly unintuitive like QM is heavily based in stuff like statistics which is derived from an intuitive understanding of macro relations. We understand your so called "anti-truths" with the same flawed machinery we understand any other truth with. The context is the same. To put it otherwise, intuition is the only real way to understand anything. If it is not intuitively comprehensible we might as well just stop doing science right now because it's completely outside of our capability, no matter what we do. Luckily due to the nature of the world such a thing, I consider impossible.[/QUOTE] Urgh, there are soo many mistakes and fallacies in what you just said that I can't even be bothered to correct you anymore.
inb4 shitstorm oh wait
i saw this on bbc or something.. the program was interesting but there are a lot of unanswered questions of how the machine will really work and if it will effect the human after use.
[QUOTE=Kade;22400916]Urgh, there are soo many mistakes and fallacies in what you just said that I can't even be bothered to correct you anymore.[/QUOTE] Entertain me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.