Time travel impossible? Your HT thoughts....

[geek167]

I dun know.....

But if you went back in time there would be two of you. And this would contradict the law of conservation, that no matter or energy is ever destroyed or created. Then the universe would explode and a paradox would occur and you'd die.

Just my wierd chemistry thinking.....

 

[Sahakiel]

OT:Bah, I think it's time to reduce quotes.

wbwither: My theory would basically state that the amount of matter in the universe is always equalt to the amount of anti-matter in the universe, no matter which time-perspective you see. Both are created and destroyed at the same point in time to and from energy. You cannot create one without the other.

It would be interesting to find that simple atoms can be created from anti-matter. i.e. a positron circling an anti-proton.

Elladan: My idea has but one simple theory: anti-matter is matter moving backwards in time. Everything else is derived from that statement or its application to other statements or situations.

Inserting events into timeline is cause, the new timeline is the result.



<< Problem with Sahakiel's thesis is that because of the conservation of energy, no more matter can be created than there is available in a closed system (the universe in this case). This means that normal matter must be converted into anti-matter, after which the universe will collapse. See Gold Universe. >>



Um.. you're missing my point about matter and anti-matter relationship. This is what, the sixth time you've missed?
I did not say matter is created out of nothing. I did not say you can take matter and convert it to anti-matter in, say, a lab. Matter as we perceive it is converted from energy along with anti-matter. You cannot create an electron from energy without creating a positron as well.
Nowhere did I say matter is converted to anti-matter sequentially along the timeline. I am trying to get you to view the co-existence of matter and anti-matter which you are steadfastly refusing. You are trying to make me say that matter moves 'forward' along the time dimension, then suddenly becomes anti-matter but still moves forward. I posted two rather long posts trying to explain that matter annihilates in contact with anti-matter and becomes energy when you trace its existence along one direction of the time axis. The conversion of matter to energy at a point in time is the point in time where the anti-matter is converted from energy and travels back in time to make contact with matter and be itself annihilated into energy.
Forgive my crudeness, but it seems to me that you're just whimsically ignoring whatever you don't like and arguing points spawned from your imagination. Basically, get out of your head that everything flows along in time in only one direction, and you will begin to see my viewpoint. Your refusal to view the backwards flow of time is causing you to reject every bone I throw in your direction.

Agent004: Chaos theory states that simple rules are the basis for complex behavior. Changing one of those rules results in vastly different results down the line. This idea is the basis of behavior-control algorithms used in artificial intelligence. Instead of pre-programming responses to situations, the idea is that pre-programming simple responses to certain stimuli result in the appropriate response. Instead of calculating stress and load along a two segmented arm and assigning a specific response, you can have each joint react to the load independently, the result being the same as if you'd pre-programmed the response, but requiring far less code. In most cases, the result is closer to what was intended than a pre-programmed complex response.
All outcomes of the universe cannot be predicted, due to Heisenberg's little law. But, that does not stop the future from being set in stone.
Heisenberg merely stated that you can never know the exact position AND velocity of a particle at any given time. In trying to determine the position of a particle, you have changed the velocity and vice versa.

Cat in the box: You do not know if the cat is alive until you open the box and you can never really make sure it's always alive without keeping the box open. That does not prevent the cat from living out its life in the box, whether the box is open (you're determine position or velocity) or the box is closed (doing neither). If the box is closed, the cat will live out its life, albeit different from if the box were open, or open once in awhile. But, if you were to repeat this situation over and over again given the exact same initial conditions, then the end result will always be the same. i.e. repetition with box open, same results. repetition with box closed, same results. repetition with boxed open at set times only, same results.

End note: Truth is relative. Newton's theory of relativity has holes in it. Einstein filled those holes with special relativity, only to create some more. He filled those with general relativity, but still left more holes. Quantum mechanics filled some of those only to have its own holes filled more or less with general relativity. Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity could deal with black holes. Adding a fifth dimension to spacetime united Maxwell and Enstein's theory. Increasing to ten dimensions created the first five string theories. Adding an eleventh dimension created the sixth string theory and united it with the previous five. Last I checked, the four fundamental forces, electromagnetism, gravity, strong, and weak forces were reduced to two, and there's tendrils of thought reducing that to one.
Basically, what I'm saying, is what we say is true doesn't necessarily pan out, so stop with the railing (borderline flaming) kill all "you're wrong, I'm right" and continue with the discussion, please. *points two posts above to statement of universe expansion*

 

[Elledan]

<< << Problem with Sahakiel's thesis is that because of the conservation of energy, no more matter can be created than there is available in a closed system (the universe in this case). This means that normal matter must be converted into anti-matter, after which the universe will collapse. See Gold Universe. >>



Um.. you're missing my point about matter and anti-matter relationship. This is what, the sixth time you've missed? >>

I'm sorry, but I'm really trying to understand your point.


<< I did not say matter is created out of nothing. I did not say you can take matter and convert it to anti-matter in, say, a lab. Matter as we perceive it is converted from energy along with anti-matter. You cannot create an electron from energy without creating a positron as well.
Nowhere did I say matter is converted to anti-matter sequentially along the timeline. I am trying to get you to view the co-existence of matter and anti-matter which you are steadfastly refusing. You are trying to make me say that matter moves 'forward' along the time dimension, then suddenly becomes anti-matter but still moves forward. I posted two rather long posts trying to explain that matter annihilates in contact with anti-matter and becomes energy when you trace its existence along one direction of the time axis. The conversion of matter to energy at a point in time is the point in time where the anti-matter is converted from energy and travels back in time to make contact with matter and be itself annihilated into energy.
Forgive my crudeness, but it seems to me that you're just whimsically ignoring whatever you don't like and arguing points spawned from your imagination. Basically, get out of your head that everything flows along in time in only one direction, and you will begin to see my viewpoint. Your refusal to view the backwards flow of time is causing you to reject every bone I throw in your direction. >>


But your whole thesis is based on the assumption that anti-matter is moving backwards in time. How are you going to prove this? What is 'backwards' in time?

The most widely accepted theory is that matter and anti-matter are merely two possible configurations of matter, which were created during the formation of the big bang. Now you say that anti-matter was formed at the 'end of time', the other 'side' of linear time. I must have missed the reports which showed that a) there is indeed an 'end of time', and b) that linear time can move in two directions at once.

Basically what you're saying is that anti-matter is created in a seperate timeline which interferes with 'our' timeline.

The alternative theory is that matter and anti-matter move the same way 'in time'. Now which observations can not be explained using this theory? Where is the need for your thesis?

 

[Agent004]

<< All outcomes of the universe cannot be predicted, due to Heisenberg's little law. But, that does not stop the future from being set in stone.
Heisenberg merely stated that you can never know the exact position AND velocity of a particle at any given time. In trying to determine the position of a particle, you have changed the velocity and vice versa.
>>



If the future is set in stone, so the future movement (position) and the velocity is defined precisely. Otherwise you do not say it's set in stone.

Also Heisenberg's little law implies that the future is not set in stone. <-------shouldn't need to say this, given your level of understanding. You don't seems to think further about its implications.



<< Basically, what I'm saying, is what we say is true doesn't necessarily pan out, so stop with the railing (borderline flaming) kill all "you're wrong, I'm right" and continue with the discussion, please. *points two posts above to statement of universe expansion* >>



How can you on one hand, saying ' kill all you're wrong, I'm right' when you on the other hand, implying that you are right and we are all wrong.

Man you do love shooting yourself in the legs again


About the Cat in a Box example, how do you even know it's a cat, let alone an animal. There may not be anything at all, or a little freaky alien jumps out . <--------------- this has relavents to your argument, so think about it.

 

[bizmark]

<< wbwither: My theory would basically state that the amount of matter in the universe is always equalt to the amount of anti-matter in the universe, no matter which time-perspective you see. Both are created and destroyed at the same point in time to and from energy. You cannot create one without the other. >>



As far as we know, you can't. If, as it seems today, there is a larger amount of matter in the universe than anti-matter, then this is obviously not true. As I said before, if you can accept the entire universe coming out of nothing, then you shouldn't rule out immediately that little parts of it could randomly appear, spread out through space. Who says that our universe is a closed system?



<< But your whole thesis is based on the assumption that anti-matter is moving backwards in time. How are you going to prove this? What is 'backwards' in time? >>



Would it need to be proved? Is it possible for this to be proved? Who knows. But is it so hard to conceive of something that is forced along the time-dimension in exactly the opposite direction and at the same speed that we are? If it could be anything, it'd be anti-matter.



<< I must have missed the reports which showed that a) there is indeed an 'end of time', and b) that linear time can move in two directions at once.
Basically what you're saying is that anti-matter is created in a seperate timeline which interferes with 'our' timeline. >>



Just because something hasn't been proven (or is in fact unprovable) doesn't mean that it's impossible. And the interaction isn't interference, per se, as much as it is simply a backwards reflection of our timeline. It's like rotating around the Y-axis until the X-axis is backwards. The numbers and the relationship between X and Y stay exactly the same, but we're only looking at it the other way.

We perceive anti-matter in our time. Say we observe it in a lab, created (along with its paired matter particle), with the loss of X energy from the system, at time t=0. We then see the anti-particle (and the matter particle) destroyed, with the production of X energy, at t=1. Now, moving backward in time, we'd perceive the exact same thing events but construe them in different ways. At time t=1, we'd see the loss of X energy and the production of the matter-antimatter pair, and then at time t=0, we'd perceive the matter and anti-matter annihilating and releasing X energy. The exact same events are perceived two different ways. What is perceived as annihilation in forward time is perceived as creation in backwards time, and vice-versa. The same laws of physics hold both ways. It's the same timeline, but just a different way of looking at it.



<< The alternative theory is that matter and anti-matter move the same way 'in time'. Now which observations can not be explained using this theory? Where is the need for your thesis? >>



Heheh you've got a good point here. But there's no harm in broadening our conceptions of the universe as it possibly could exist, right?



<< Also Heisenberg's little law implies that the future is not set in stone. >>



Not really. Just because we can't observe every particle perfectly, doesn't mean that these particles didn't come from somewhere and that they didn't have a set velocity and direction. And also our observation came from somewhere too, e.g. a photon shooting out of a light bulb. If everything comes from something else, a chain of causalities is set up with something necessarily at the beginning to set everything in motion. If you knew the position and velocity of every particle at the beginning of time (or at any time thereafter, for that matter), and you had the computational power to model all of the interactions which govern these particles, then you'd be able to predict the future indefinitely.

To quote myself from this thread, what I think it comes down to is, do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that there exist phenomena in the universe which are not explainable by logical processes, whether they be chaos-theory, probabilistic, or deterministic? If so, then this is not a closed system, and we may as well throw science out the window (although I did espouse a non-closed universe at the beginning of this post... ). If not, then everything can be predicted given a perfect knowledge of the present, i.e. the future is set in stone despite our inability to ever have the power to predict it.

 

[Elledan]

<< We perceive anti-matter in our time. Say we observe it in a lab, created (along with its paired matter particle), with the loss of X energy from the system, at time t=0. We then see the anti-particle (and the matter particle) destroyed, with the production of X energy, at t=1. Now, moving backward in time, we'd perceive the exact same thing events but construe them in different ways. At time t=1, we'd see the loss of X energy and the production of the matter-antimatter pair, and then at time t=0, we'd perceive the matter and anti-matter annihilating and releasing X energy. The exact same events are perceived two different ways. What is perceived as annihilation in forward time is perceived as creation in backwards time, and vice-versa. The same laws of physics hold both ways. It's the same timeline, but just a different way of looking at it. >>


No, that would be two 'timelines' interfering. From what we can observe, time 'moves' only in one direction.

BTW, do you, and Sahakiel, know what a Gold universe is?

 

[Agent004]

I really love the fact that some people managed to answer their own questions (me included)



<< Just because we can't observe every particle perfectly, doesn't mean that these particles didn't come from somewhere and that they didn't have a set velocity and direction. >>





<< do you believe in miracles? Do you believe that there exist phenomena in the universe which are not explainable by logical processes, whether they be chaos-theory, probabilistic, or deterministic? If so, then this is not a closed system, and we may as well throw science out the window (although I did espouse a non-closed universe at the beginning of this post... ). If not, then everything can be predicted given a perfect knowledge of the present, i.e. the future is set in stone despite our inability to ever have the power to predict it. >>



To answer your question, no I do not believe in miracle, in the same line of thinking of first quote from you. Just because we don't have sufficient science knowledge doesn't mean it's not science nor logical.

Similarly, just because we (could, extremely unlikely) have perfect knowled at the present (more like a specific time frame ) doesn't necessary given us all the infomation about the future (predicting with perfect knowledge at present does not necessarily gives the perfect knowledge about the future ('later' time frame).

How could anyone rule out that with perfect knowldge at present, we do not come the same conclusion that the future is not set in stone(I know you can argue the opposite, but it's not really my point).

 

[Sahakiel]

Elledan: The only way to prove an idea has been to draw conclusions and predictions based on the idea and experimentally verify the results. i.e. calculate the distance from a table a marble with a certain velocity would hit the ground, then do an experiment and see if the result matches calculation. So far, it seems to me we don't have the technology to prove or disprove my idea. We can only throw each other ideas and analyses to see if there is a contradiction. Then, we'd have to see if the contradiction has to do with conclusions drawn from my idea or it is the idea that is making the contradiction in the first place. I have yet to see the latter, so I believe.

I did not say anti-matter is formed at the end of time. I said anti-matter is formed at the same time matter is formed. I also said anti-matter and matter are reduced to energy (if you could call it a reduction) at the same time. I think it's a pretty well-established idea.
I then proposed that anti-matter is matter flowing in the opposite direction of matter. What we perceive as forward in time is based on matter. What we perceive as backwards would merely be the opposite. If we were to view this from the perspective of anti-matter, then what we now see as matter would be anti-matter and what we now see as anti-matter would be matter. Anti-matter is not created in a seperate timeline that interferes with ours. It is created in the same timeline and interacts with 'normal matter' as easily and naturally as matter does with other matter. Both sides of a highway are the same highway, only traffic is going one way on one side and the other way on the other side. Cars are still able to cross over to the other side and experience driving against traffic. We're on one side of the highway, right now, so we see the world as it moves with the traffic flowing in that one direction. Matter and anti-matter occupy and interact in the same regions of spacetime, only they travel in different directions. That's my idea in a nutshell. The implications of an interpretation of this idea seems to be what is currently being argued.

As for Gold universe, I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that at some point in time, the universe stops expanding, then reverses itself and time as well. Broken cups mending themselves and stuff like that. My idea has a key difference with the Gold universe. His idea states that time reverses upon itself at some moment in time. Problem is, that would require a seperate time. What I'm trying to say is it would be like you have two copies of the same reel of film so you play one, then play the other copy in reverse. You're watching this in the original flow of time, and are not subject to the reversal. My idea is that you have two reels of film and you are watching both of them, only one reel is being played in reverse. If you were to watch the reverse reel correctly, the other reel would be the one played in reverse. In the first case, you're following the flow of time of matter. In the second case, you're following the flow of time of anti-matter in the same manner you would follow the flow of time of matter.



<< If the future is set in stone, so the future movement (position) and the velocity is defined precisely. Otherwise you do not say it's set in stone.

Also Heisenberg's little law implies that the future is not set in stone. <-------shouldn't need to say this, given your level of understanding. You don't seems to think further about its implications. >>


Heisenberg stated you cannot observe definite position and velocity at the same moment in time. He did not mention what happens if you don't observe. The basis of quantum mechanics is the probability of outcome. A beam of light streaming through two narrow slits exhibits a wave-like pattern on the far side due to the photons taking all routes possible to pass through the slits. aka, straight through, curved, to andromeda and back, and so on. That does not mean if you repeat the experiment with the exact same initial conditions you're not going to get the same results.
Tunneling is based on the same idea. Given an energy barrier that is not infinite, a particle will have a small chance of tunneling through the energy barrier on the other side. Some scientists believe this is due to the universe having some sort of "borrow and return" system to energy. It's the same idea with the creation of matter and anti-matter.



<< How can you on one hand, saying ' kill all you're wrong, I'm right' when you on the other hand, implying that you are right and we are all wrong.

Man you do love shooting yourself in the legs again >>


There is a reason it takes me almost a half hour to post each time. I actually rattle ideas in my head before I draw conclusions. After I get tired of the particular post, I throw it up and go do something else.
I'm not trying to imply you're all wrong and I'm right. I'm trying my best to get you to understand my viewpoint. From the previous posts it seems to me you're not understanding what I'm trying to explain. As soon as you do understand, I can stop rampaging and you can begin poking holes. I do not appreciate the wanton debunking on ideas before they are even understood. That is why I resented the remark that the universe's expansion is accelerating. There are still strong arguments in favor of increasing, decreasing, and static universal size. Lurking in the background is also the idea that the universe has no end and merely wraps around itself in space much like a beach ball. The presentation of the universe accelerating in size as fact in the post above strikes me as the wrong manner to present ideas.
I have been trying carefully to present my ideas not as fact, but as marbles bouncing around in my head. I've posted several times trying to get others to understand what my idea is and, it seems to me, I'm failing quite miserably. Perhaps you're asking me to take a different tack and stating my ideas as fact and your ideas as myth would come across with more force so I could hammer my idea into your head until I think that you understand what my viewpoint is. If that's true, just say it straight out so I can stop thinking you're one purpose in life is to introduce random takes on random ideas from random people to throw my idea out the window without bothering to see what I see. Perception is reality (what you see is what you believe) and what I see is what I believe to be true until I can be shown otherwise. I'm trying to show you that window of my reality, but from the reactions I'm getting it's as if you pull out a gun and shoot me in the head before I can even drag it over to you. All I want is for you to see what I see before you start telling me it's an illusion.



<< About the Cat in a Box example, how do you even know it's a cat, let alone an animal. There may not be anything at all, or a little freaky alien jumps out . <--------------- this has relavents to your argument, so think about it. >>


If the box is open at all times, you will observe the cat. If the box was never open, you can draw no conclusions. In fact, you can't even calculate the probability of any results. That does not mean what is or isn't inside the box won't continue without you.
If I gave you a closed box and told you there was a bomb in there would you believe me? Even if I knew I'd placed nothing inside in the first place?
What if I gave you a closed box, told you there was a bomb, and actually had put a bomb in there? What could you do to prevent it from blowing up? Opening the box? Taking a look? Searching for a wire and snipping it?
Now imagine I gave you a closed box with a bomb in it and told you it was a Christmas gift (don't open, yet) How would you know it's a bomb? What would prevent the bomb from exploding?
Then imagine I gave you a closed box with a bomb in it, but in such a way you never knew the box existed. Will the bomb still explode, or will it do nothing cause nobody knows anything about it?
Now imagine the bomb a fundamental particle, the box a region of space so small you can't detect it and me the universe (yeah, it's egotistical). Me telling you what's in the box is the same as you trying to detect it with whatever equipment you have on hand. Apply the above ideas, and I think you should see what I'm getting at.

 

[Agent004]

<< There is a reason it takes me almost a half hour to post each time. I actually rattle ideas in my head before I draw conclusions. After I get tired of the particular post, I throw it up and go do something else.
I'm not trying to imply you're all wrong and I'm right. I'm trying my best to get you to understand my viewpoint. From the previous posts it seems to me you're not understanding what I'm trying to explain. As soon as you do understand, I can stop rampaging and you can begin poking holes. I do not appreciate the wanton debunking on ideas before they are even understood. That is why I resented the remark that the universe's expansion is accelerating. There are still strong arguments in favor of increasing, decreasing, and static universal size. Lurking in the background is also the idea that the universe has no end and merely wraps around itself in space much like a beach ball. The presentation of the universe accelerating in size as fact in the post above strikes me as the wrong manner to present ideas.
I have been trying carefully to present my ideas not as fact, but as marbles bouncing around in my head. I've posted several times trying to get others to understand what my idea is and, it seems to me, I'm failing quite miserably. Perhaps you're asking me to take a different tack and stating my ideas as fact and your ideas as myth would come across with more force so I could hammer my idea into your head until I think that you understand what my viewpoint is. If that's true, just say it straight out so I can stop thinking you're one purpose in life is to introduce random takes on random ideas from random people to throw my idea out the window without bothering to see what I see. Perception is reality (what you see is what you believe) and what I see is what I believe to be true until I can be shown otherwise. I'm trying to show you that window of my reality, but from the reactions I'm getting it's as if you pull out a gun and shoot me in the head before I can even drag it over to you. All I want is for you to see what I see before you start telling me it's an illusion. >>



Then all you have to do is not adding in the borderline flaming statement Through your post, I am too trying understand your vision, otherwise why should I even bothered with it.



<< Now imagine the bomb a fundamental particle, the box a region of space so small you can't detect it and me the universe (yeah, it's egotistical). Me telling you what's in the box is the same as you trying to detect it with whatever equipment you have on hand. Apply the above ideas, and I think you should see what I'm getting at. >>



okey, I am going to be extremely picky about this one Suppose I pick an equipement uses proton for detection (like I said whether this is realistic in life is another, but we are dealing with theoritical stuff, so... ) and say you put a lead particle inside the box and I don't know it.

Here is the funny part, when I take a scan using the equipement, there is a chance the detector shows the 'thing' inside (if there is, but for the scenario, there is ) is actual a gold particle. Reason? I deliberately pick the equipement so that its radiation fo proton is powerful enough to knock out some protons so that it changed from lead to gold.

Like I said, I picked an extreme case.

Also it doesn't really help your statement is quite 'generic', I too can give you a box and regardless what's in it, I can say it is or contains energy.

 

[Sahakiel]

<< Suppose I pick an equipement uses proton for detection (like I said whether this is realistic in life is another, but we are dealing with theoritical stuff, so... ) and say you put a lead particle inside the box and I don't know it.

Here is the funny part, when I take a scan using the equipement, there is a chance the detector shows the 'thing' inside (if there is, but for the scenario, there is ) is actual a gold particle. Reason? I deliberately pick the equipement so that its radiation fo proton is powerful enough to knock out some protons so that it changed from lead to gold.

Like I said, I picked an extreme case.

Also it doesn't really help your statement is quite 'generic', I too can give you a box and regardless what's in it, I can say it is or contains energy. >>


This is how I see it. Your act of scanning is a form of detection. In trying to detect what is going on inside the box, you have changed the results. When the protons from your equipment hit the atom, they change its position and velocity. The chance that you'll scan and come up with gold is due directly from your proton scanner. If you could exercise a perfect control over initial conditions (same exact position and velocity of everything from the box to the protons used to scan to the pattern you use down to the exact same timing) of the experiment that results in a gold atom instead of lead, then you would find that the same nth proton used for the scan results in gold.
This is a repeatable result and the basis of the scientific method. But, in real life, there is no way we can exercise that level of control. One basic, but very important assumption has been that the laws of physics hold true at every point in spacetime. Problem is, not every point in spacetime is exactly the same at every moment in time. So, if you try to repeat an experiment in Antarctica ten minutes later at the North Pole, you are assuming that spacetime for both locations when you initiate the experiment are exactly the same even though they are not.
If you add in just one small change to the whole box idea (say, we add background radiation) then the results will be different than before, but still equal to each other. Any changes brought about in real life experimentally are due to many other influences that number so many that we are reduced to calculating the probability that something will occur. This is why the cat in the box analogy is, in a way, a lot more complex than when it was first presented years ago. Many assumptions are made and many influences are built into the original analogy that was, in turn, presented to me by my prof. But, if we throw out assumptions and influences and try to simplify things, then the results become easier to understand.
When I said that I believed the future is uncertain, but set in stone, what I meant is that there are so many factors to consider, so many influences to take into account no matter how small, that we will never be able to fully calculate to 100% accuracy what the future holds. That is the result of chaos theory, of the small, simple, but rather numerous influences which prevent us from having the power to comprehend it all. However, given the exact same initial conditions, the results will always be the same. That is why the future is set in stone, because it is derived from the initial conditions we call the present. I believe if you could somehow step outside spacetime and somehow rewind the universe to the same point in time then play it, the sequence of events would play out the same time each time.

 

[bizmark]

Sorry to be O/T but I've gotta exit this conversation. I've got too much other work to do to spend my time wracking my brain talking about this stuff. It's been intriguing, and I'll continue to lurk and watch. Sorry.

However, there's still one thing that's really bugging me:



<< No, that would be two 'timelines' interfering. From what we can observe, time 'moves' only in one direction. >>



I don't see how taking the same chain of events as they happen over time, such that every moment in time is inextricably linked to (and in fact identical to) one and only one moment in anti-time, and every moment in anti-time is inextricably linked to (and identical to) one and only one moment in time, can identify two different timelines. It's the exact same sequence of events (this would actually be my definition of a timeline) but in perfectly reversed order. The only difference is in the notation. I don't see how you can maintain that these are two separate timelines. Please explain this to me.

 

[ShadowWolf]

Ok, lemme shake this up a bit:

Let's get rid of this stupid TIME thing. Time is an abstract thing our minds use to create a point of reference to another point in the space we call "LIFE." The point from yesterday to today only exists because we will it to exist. A better representation of TIME in and of itself is distance. Let's say, that point A is the point where the BIG BANG or whatever occured. Because the universe is traveling away from that point and we know that it's traveling at a specific rate, we can thus assume that matter ( ie particles & what-not ) will be at a specific place at a specific distance from the point A, ie -> B. Due to the position at point B, we can thus calcluate the point C and know precisely WHAT will happen. Note that this doesn't take in to account stupid things like thoughts, feelings, etc... Using point B and Point C, we could calculate a shorter distance, point D, from point A. Under my theory here, we could theoretically MANIPULATE time to recreate what has been, but of course, we cannot actually TRAVEL through time.

The calculations themselves, though, cannot be done accurately at this point in time for farther distances because the interactions between particles cannot be taken into account. However, the interactions of particles for previous distances can be known and thus taken into account and thus allow you to only manipulate previous points in time.

This thoery also explains why, perhaps, people can sometimes predict the future. If the flow of distance is the same, sometimes you can discern the pattern for short or potentially long periods of time and thus be able to predict the future. Also, realize that the concepts of FREE WILL, THOUGHT, and other morals we're pointlessly taught do not really exist. We're a sum of our learning, etc.. and do not actually produce any will or thought ourselves ( effectively, we're just a really really powerful computer ).

BUT, everything we'll do is NOT set in stone. Because reactions between particles and other reactions DO occur, the future as we know it, or the distance is ever-changing -- ala the chaos theory, but on a much smaller magnitude.

In order for this theory to be true, though, another theory of mine must also be true: That the situation at hand must be appropriate for the desired effect. I'll get into that later on

But perhaps this is something for you to argue and look at with me

 

[Elledan]

Sahakiel,

But what is 'direction' when talking about 'time'?



<< As for Gold universe, I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that at some point in time, the universe stops expanding, then reverses itself and time as well. Broken cups mending themselves and stuff like that. My idea has a key difference with the Gold universe. His idea states that time reverses upon itself at some moment in time. Problem is, that would require a seperate time. What I'm trying to say is it would be like you have two copies of the same reel of film so you play one, then play the other copy in reverse. You're watching this in the original flow of time, and are not subject to the reversal. My idea is that you have two reels of film and you are watching both of them, only one reel is being played in reverse. If you were to watch the reverse reel correctly, the other reel would be the one played in reverse. In the first case, you're following the flow of time of matter. In the second case, you're following the flow of time of anti-matter in the same manner you would follow the flow of time of matter. >>


Actually, with a Gold universe, it's not like the universe will be running 'in reverse'. It'll be a completely different timeline, but which, unlike the first one, doesn't end with a cooling down of the universe and the disappearance of matter into black holes, but with a 'big crunch'.

Your thesis too has two different timelines interfering.

 

[Sahakiel]

<< But what is 'direction' when talking about 'time'? >>



I think if you need to ask that, then you can't assert there's two different timelines interfering. Then again, I'm having trouble seeing the two timeline approach.

The 'direction' of time is generally accepted as "forward" when entropy is increasing, which I think is the first half of the Gold universe theory. This is as arbitrary as an electron having negative charge or the flow of electricity from cathode to anode. We could have just as easily called it "backwards" and we could be living our lives moving "back" in time and sitting here discussing whether we can move "forward" in time. It is also just as easy to have defined the flow of time in the East or West direction.

I think the main problem we're having is I can't see two timelines with my idea and you can't see one timeline. You're telling me it's two timelines sewn together much like braids of rope twisting around a central core of wire. Let's say the wire's just there so the braids don't fall apart, or we could throw out the wire and just use glue. I'm gonna keep the wire just so I can refer to the center easily.
At any rate, I'm saying the rope itself is the timeline and there are multiple threads, each one representing a quantity of energy in one form or another. You can get lots of the braids to coil within themselves to form super-braids that continue to coil around the central wire. This would be the formation of matter and anti-matter from energy.
Scanning the rope along in one direction is "forward in time." Scanning in the other is "backwards." Much the same as you can follow a rope one way or the other and still see the same thing you can follow the "timeline" one way or the other and still see the same thing. You can also start your braiding at one end or the other arbitrarily and the end result will be the same rope configuration. Heck, if you wanted to take my idea to its furthest extreme, somewhere in the universe, there is intelligent life made up of anti-matter that're wondering whether beings such as us could exist. That would be quite a shocker, though.

Another analogy: (Can you tell I just love to throw these out everywhere?)
Take a sentence in English and paint it onto one side of a glass wall. We'll call the glass wall our "universe timeline" and the sentence "events." Reading the sentence from left to right is the English way and we can call that "forward" in time. Now, take two English sentences and paint one on one side and one on the other side. Both are read in opposite directions and you can see both of them, but depending on which side of the wall you're standing, you can only make sense of one of them. If my idea is correct, us studying anti-matter would be like us trying read the words on the other side in the same manner we read the words on our side. It can be done; just have to change the way we think.

 

[Agent004]

<< If you add in just one small change to the whole box idea (say, we add background radiation) then the results will be different than before, but still equal to each other. >>



What's equal, energy levels, the number of particles? Be specifc



<< However, given the exact same initial conditions, the results will always be the same. >>




You said that yourself that is unobtainable. Put this into my example of the proton detector, the detector may or may not detect the particle as lead, or as gold (because even using the same power protons, you may not be able knock out the protons in the lead particle, sometime more sometime less, it's a random event)

Many experiments todays are carried out identically (in some experiments, 'exactly' can be said) , so that the results are valid. Yet the end result all differs, why?




<< That is why the future is set in stone, because it is derived from the initial conditions we call the present >>



ShadowWolf explaind the same idea better than I do



<< everything we'll do is NOT set in stone. Because reactions between particles and other reactions DO occur, the future as we know it, or the distance is ever-changing -- ala the chaos theory, but on a much smaller magnitude. >>



If you (Sahakiel) are right, then may I ask how is the past derived ( say, at the 'start' of time )?

Derived from the future ? (if ths is right, then the time we know it is actually a loop, ending point joined at starting point, never overlapping )


Also I understant exactly why Elledan say he view it as two time lines. Using your 'highway' example



<< Both sides of a highway are the same highway, only traffic is going one way on one side and the other way on the other side. Cars are still able to cross over to the other side and experience driving against traffic. We're on one side of the highway, right now, so we see the world as it moves with the traffic flowing in that one direction. Matter and anti-matter occupy and interact in the same regions of spacetime, only they travel in different directions >>



By the same analogy, the traffic ( time, anti-time ) are separatable, just like we have the same traffic highway for cars. Also the route ( or routes, 1 in each direction ) on the highway is (are) also separatable, independent.

Or if 'anti time' is created from the timeline as 'time' then they will destroy another when running in oppostion, or the same direction. so what we have? No time ?

 

[Elledan]

<< Scanning the rope along in one direction is "forward in time." Scanning in the other is "backwards." Much the same as you can follow a rope one way or the other and still see the same thing you can follow the "timeline" one way or the other and still see the same thing. You can also start your braiding at one end or the other arbitrarily and the end result will be the same rope configuration. >>

The whole idea of a 'timeline' is that after each event, there is an infinite number of possible events to choose from. This means that one can only follow a timeline in one direction.


<< Heck, if you wanted to take my idea to its furthest extreme, somewhere in the universe, there is intelligent life made up of anti-matter that're wondering whether beings such as us could exist. That would be quite a shocker, though. >>

This 'extreme' of yours is possible without your thesis. According to current theories, there are parts of the universe which contain solely anti-matter. There will be whole solarsystems build up out of anti-matter, and possibly planets with life on them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: where do the current theories fail, and why would your thesis be a better theory?

 

[Sahakiel]

OT: This is getting to be way too long a thread.

Agent004: Doesn't matter. If the results of two experiments are exactly the same, it means the number of particles, the amount of matter, the placement of matter, the amount of energy, so forth and so on, are exactly the same.

Take the highway analogy and combine both sides to produce traffic moving in the same lane but in opposite directions. Guess I forgot that step. Creation, annihilation, interaction all on one superhighway.



<< You said that yourself that is unobtainable. >>


I said that we could not DETECT or CONTROL the initial conditions down to exactly what they are. I did not say it was not possible to BE exactly the same. I tried to introduce the fictional control so that you would imagine what having the EXACT SAME initial conditions would be.



<< Many experiments todays are carried out identically (in some experiments, 'exactly' can be said) , so that the results are valid. Yet the end result all differs, why? >>


I was sure I'd addressed this, but apparently you either skipped over that part or ignored it. I get the feeling you're skipping. In fact, it's typed out right there in my second to last post.
No experiment ever carried out has used the _EXACT_ same initial conditions. There has ALWAYS been ERROR in EVERY experiment. Think back to your high school or whenever you started doing experiments in class. WHY has there always been an error analysis segment? Because we, being humans and with such limited technology, CANNOT repeat experiments with EXACTLY the same initial conditions and CANNOT repeat experiments with EXACTLY the same procedure even with the SAME equipment and people.



<< may I ask how is the past derived ( say, at the 'start' of time )? >>


The loop idea may not be as far-fetched as you think. I also addressed this is one of my earlier posts. Are you sure you're not ignoring me? Or is it just that this thread is getting so long we begin to forget what we wrote?

Elledan:


<< The whole idea of a 'timeline' is that after each event, there is an infinite number of possible events to choose from. This means that one can only follow a timeline in one direction >>


I think that's my problem, because the way I see it, each event can have only one outcome. Think of chemistry. Put hydrogen and oxygen in a box, ignite it with a set amount of energy, and you get water; after a large explosion, of course. One event, one outcome. I have serious trouble viewing the idea that after each event, there is an infinite number of events to choose from. To me, each event produces a result that initiates the next event, and so forth. Much like that little toy with six or so marbles suspended in the middle. You raise the last marble on one side, let it go, and it swings down to strike the rest, resulting in the last one on the other side going flying off. That would be viewed as a series of six or so events.



<< This 'extreme' of yours is possible without your thesis >>


What I implied was those beings are living their lives moving "backwards" in time and wondering if beings moving "forward" (like us) can exist. What you're referring to relates only the spatial dimensions with matter and anti-matter. My idea taken to that extreme would relate matter and anti-matter in the time dimension.

 

[Sahakiel]

One more thing:
Whether or not my idea is necessary to produce new results is, in my opinion, not necessary. Ideas are ideas, whether or not their results are already covered by other, well-established, theories is irrelevant. You might as well ask what the point of knowing the creation of the universe. Ideas and theories are welcome in the annals of science. Some ideas are written down and published, but never really do anything. Others are immediately hailed as the coming of a new age (see transistor) and some are thrown back onto the bookshelf only to resurface several years later as the key to a new theory. Therefore, I don't see why an idea being useless shouldn't be discussed (see useless arguments for the drunk and disorderly).

 

[Elledan]

<< << The whole idea of a 'timeline' is that after each event, there is an infinite number of possible events to choose from. This means that one can only follow a timeline in one direction >>


I think that's my problem, because the way I see it, each event can have only one outcome. >>

You're thinking of causality again, not of events in the sense of theoretical physics.


<< Think of chemistry. Put hydrogen and oxygen in a box, ignite it with a set amount of energy, and you get water; after a large explosion, of course. One event, one outcome. I have serious trouble viewing the idea that after each event, there is an infinite number of events to choose from. >>

A simple example: you've got a bunch of books lying in front of you. Now you can choose only one of these books. Which one do you choose? Or perhaps you do not choose a book, but turn on your PC, or the TV, or you go outside for a walk.


<< To me, each event produces a result that initiates the next event, and so forth. >>

Classical Mechanics


<< Much like that little toy with six or so marbles suspended in the middle. You raise the last marble on one side, let it go, and it swings down to strike the rest, resulting in the last one on the other side going flying off. That would be viewed as a series of six or so events. >>

Again, you're thinking of the wrong type of events.





<< << This 'extreme' of yours is possible without your thesis >>


What I implied was those beings are living their lives moving "backwards" in time and wondering if beings moving "forward" (like us) can exist. What you're referring to relates only the spatial dimensions with matter and anti-matter. My idea taken to that extreme would relate matter and anti-matter in the time dimension. >>

Sorry, it still sounds like a Gold universe.

 

[Agent004]

<< Take the highway analogy and combine both sides to produce traffic moving in the same lane but in opposite directions. Guess I forgot that step. Creation, annihilation, interaction all on one superhighway. >>



So what happens when time and anti time annihilate each other, we have no time ?




<< I was sure I'd addressed this, but apparently you either skipped over that part or ignored it. I get the feeling you're skipping. In fact, it's typed out right there in my second to last post.
No experiment ever carried out has used the _EXACT_ same initial conditions. There has ALWAYS been ERROR in EVERY experiment. Think back to your high school or whenever you started doing experiments in class. WHY has there always been an error analysis segment? Because we, being humans and with such limited technology, CANNOT repeat experiments with EXACTLY the same initial conditions and CANNOT repeat experiments with EXACTLY the same procedure even with the SAME equipment and people. >>



no I did not. I really don't like that fact that you keep locking out possiblities, as there is as much chance that the outcomes will be same or different (in many ways, don't ask what ways, you probably seen and done enough to know it ), even giving exact initial conditions (hypothitically speaking, we managed to do it somehow). Also just because it's currently scientifically and rightfully to say or assume, under the exact condition, the result will be the same. This does not necessarily gurantees (in your case, since you are so certain about it ) the actual result(s), as the actual result may be different tell us something total different, allow us to discover that new concepts, further understanding. In such primitive stage, it's just unreasonable (same as in one of your 'rant' post, saying people doesn't accept or undertstand your vision. So it's okey to said other people are so and so, but can' t be said the same for yourself? ). I am certain not locking out possibilites, as I am merely trying let you see that thing are not also so certain, even though I do sound like one(you can called me one all you like, I can live with that )

For example, not experiment related. For mathematicians, we have a formula for solving the unknown for polynomial of degree 2. We said hooray, then someone else discovered the formula for solving degree 3, we celebrated. Another one found the formula for degree 4, then all the mathematician think, it's going to be the same, someone is bound to discover a formula for degree 5. Guess what (no prizes for getting it right )? They couldn't and someone ( I think it's Euler, correct me if I am wrong ) proved it can't be done for degree 5 or higher.



You are definitely represent youself as one of the mathematician assumed with so much confidents (you should be, it's only 'right' at that time ), surely you do (or rather did ) not consider other possiblities.





<< The loop idea may not be as far-fetched as you think. I also addressed this is one of my earlier posts. Are you sure you're not ignoring me? Or is it just that this thread is getting so long we begin to forget what we wrote? >>



No I don't think it's far fetched that's why I said that. In fact if time travel was possible, then I think that the timeline is a loop is a necessary (read as necessary, not the same as essential ) condition.

You still haven't answered my question, how is the past derived ( say, at the 'start' of time )?

Edit: typos and additional info.

 

[Sahakiel]

<< You're thinking of causality again, not of events in the sense of theoretical physics. >>


Question becomes, which theory is currently termed theoretical physics? Not Newton, that's for sure. You may argue relativity or quantum mechanics, but I think it's string theory. Theoretical physics is just a catchall for physics theory which has not been cemented into law. Then again, some laws have been altered at much later time when it was found they couldn't be applied to everything everywhere at anytime. example: Newton's law of relativity altered by Einstein. Twice. The result is still incomplete because it can't deal with extremely microscopic phenomena nor can it deal with black holes.
Basically, you want to use theoretical physics, at least refer to which theory. I'm having trouble reading your mind.



<< A simple example: you've got a bunch of books lying in front of you. Now you can choose only one of these books. Which one do you choose? Or perhaps you do not choose a book, but turn on your PC, or the TV, or you go outside for a walk. >>


Now start thinking about what makes you decide what you do finally decide to do. It's not the roll of dice. Well, never mind, you could use dice.
What I'm trying to say is human decisions are based on factors which influence our decisions. Why do I decide to take a walk? I feel like it. Why do I feel like it? I hate biology, can't venture that far, but I'm sure someone can, and then someone else can go even farther. I think that should clarify my point.



<<

<< To me, each event produces a result that initiates the next event, and so forth. >>

Classical Mechanics >>


Never been disproved to the point of invalidity.



<<

<< Much like that little toy with six or so marbles suspended in the middle. You raise the last marble on one side, let it go, and it swings down to strike the rest, resulting in the last one on the other side going flying off. That would be viewed as a series of six or so events. >>

Again, you're thinking of the wrong type of events. >>


You're welcome to explain.



<< Sorry, it still sounds like a Gold universe. >>


Then I guess we interpret Gold's theory differently.



<< So what happens when time and anti time annihilate each other, we have no time? >>


Didn't say time and anti-time annihilate each other. Heck, I didn't even coin the term, wbwither did. I think what he was trying to say is anti-time is moving along time "backwards" and viewing it as "forwards" because that's the way we view time. We see time as moving forward and never backward.



<< no I did not. I really don't like that fact that you keep locking out possiblities >>


I don't lock out possibilites. I actually do think about every point you bring up before I spew my thoughts.



<< giving exact initial conditions (hypothitically speaking, we managed to do it somehow). >>


ahh, see, I'm saying that we've never managed to get exact same initial conditions. There are far too many variables to control and far too few means to control them. I have yet to come across an experiment or physics paper that has 100% ironclad proof that the initial conditions can be controlled 100%. Seriously, if you find one, send it my way, I'm really curious to see it.



<< They couldn't and someone proved it can't be done for degree 5 or higher.

You are definitely represent youself as one of the mathematician assumed with so much confidents (you should be, it's only 'right' at that time ), surely you do (or rather did ) not consider other possiblities. >>


I consider all possibilities that I can think of or are presented to me. If I see nothing to obstruct an assumption, I assume it to be true.
Think of the whole alien phenomena. There is no concrete (to me) evidence that aliens do not exist, therefore I cannot rule out the possibility that aliens do exist and/or are visiting. I believe they're not, and I have my reasons, but since no argument I've seen or heard has irrevocably proved it wrong, I can't rule out the possibility.
I have seen nothing nor heard anything that could rule out my idea, so I present it as if it were true. Until the idea is proved false beyond any shadow of doubt, I see no reason to doubt its validity. What I'm doing (or thinking I'm doing) is re-interpreting old ideas under a new light.
What I present in the long posts above is a new way of looking at anti-matter. The implications of it derived from the original idea seem to be the main topic of discussion. This seems to be the best way of proving or disproving an idea. The thesis can also be used to shed light on other ideas or to see what used to be in a new light. That is the history of physics. There are very few theories and ideas which are so ironclad and true they have not been modified at one time or another. Newton's got modified (heck, he pretty much said it wasn't complete in the first place), Maxwell's got modified, Einstein's, Planck's, Schrodinger, all the names you know. I think Heisenberg's law isn't modified from its original form, but I could be wrong.
Mathematics also has a history of changing viewpoints, though it's theoroms are, to say the least, far, far more difficult to disprove than physics. In fact, I think they're downright nearly impossible. Still, I think the different fields of mathematics prove that what we believe now may change later on. Geometry, algebra, calculus, probability theory, all provide different ways of looking at numbers. Who knows, maybe one day a mathematician will find that you _can_, in fact, find a formula for degree five using a new field of math or a new way of looking at an old field. Then again, the first guy could've been dead-on right. We can also borrow an idea from physics and try to explain mathematics with a single, unified theory (have fun trying that ) Point is, nobody knows anything is true or false until it is proven false. At that point, the proof of it being false is then subject to being proved false itself. It's a never-ending series, unless you can find someway to loop it, but I think that'd be one massive headache.

Question: what's the difference between necessary and essential? I personally use them interchangeably.
As for your question of time, I think if one views time itself as a dimension with much the same idea as space, then the question of the beginning of time is relative. I do believe that's what Einstein did; treat time as a dimension on equal footing as space. You would first have to define the "start of time", say, an event, then use that as the origin of your plot. If we took your idea of time being looped, then we'd apply the same mathematics as if space were looped. If we said the big bang was the start of time, then what you're asking would be what happens when time is negative? It would be the same as if we said at the time of the big bang, space was a point. 0 length on x, y, and z axes. Unfortunately, that begins to exceed my understanding. To be honest, I can't really tell you. My understanding of what would happen is far too limited to draw any conclusions.
I think just pure energy need not have concept of time. Heck, I don't think it even needs a concept of space. If you think light is pure energy, remember that light has a form: photons. Gravity has a theoretical form: gravitons, derived from string theory. I forget what EM has (baryons? dunno), but pure energy has trouble being defined, let alone giving a form. Anti-matter - matter reactions form pure energy and particles are formed from energy. I think energy is the universal speed limit proposed by Einstein. He proposed the speed of light is the only speed of anything through spacetime. You begin to wonder, why aren't I moving at the speed of light, then? Well, he said the speed of light is the only speed, but it's split up amongst the different dimensions. Example: x-y plots with units, say, meters. It's just like saying you can only move 300 meters per unit time. But, you can move 300 in any direction on the x-y plane. 300 x, 300 y, 30x and 10 y, and so forth. Now, if you add a third dimension, time, then you begin to see what Einstein meant by universal speed limit. Light has all its speed in the spatial dimensions. Matter (you and I) have it split up amongst the spatial dimensions as well as time. Therefore, energy can do without time or without space, but not without both.

 

[NaGarin]

First of all id like to say that this is a really interesting topic. At first thought it seems fairly simple, but when you think about it some more you discover that it is actually very, very, very complex and the more you think about it the worse it gets, the more, you discover, is linked with what you thought earlier and you get deaper and deaper into what actually lies behind the first thoughts you had. OK ive confused myself now but let me share what i think right now at this stage, within the hour of thinking about it i will probably have another way to see it.

How do you define the time that has passed? How can you mark time? Its not like a book with numbered pages where you can say, "lets go back to page 4". Lets say you would like to travel back to the era of the Roman empire. You cant just say you would like to travel to january 1, year 1, 1pm because mankind made up that "time" and so how would the world, or however you would like to describe it, know when that is. We created time and date as we know it. Furthermore, if one person would actually be able to go back in time, where would the rest of us go? Would we just disappear from the earth and everything that is, be set back to how it was then? Would the people and animals that have died come back to life?, the trees that have fallen, stand anew?, the buildings that have been destroyed, restore themselfs?
In my opinion there is no such thing as time, only the present, what was once the present and what is yet to be the present. Time is only something mankind invented to be able to describe the present that has been, is and will be.

There is no future withouth the present just as there would be no present withough the past.


Ok im lost but i hope im making any sense, its up to you to decide. Me, im going back to the "drawing board" and dig deaper into this.

 

[RussianSoldier]

I didn't read through all the posts, but I look at human time travel this way:

If [human] time travel was possible, wouldn't we have been visited by tourists from the future?

 

[ShadowWolf]

It sounds like Sahakiel's Question is something more similar to my explination of time being a distance and us using Distance from Point of Origin rather than trying to use an non-existant reference point like Time. Remember: Time only exists because living people need it to.

 

[Elledan]

<< << A simple example: you've got a bunch of books lying in front of you. Now you can choose only one of these books. Which one do you choose? Or perhaps you do not choose a book, but turn on your PC, or the TV, or you go outside for a walk. >>


Now start thinking about what makes you decide what you do finally decide to do. It's not the roll of dice. Well, never mind, you could use dice.
What I'm trying to say is human decisions are based on factors which influence our decisions. Why do I decide to take a walk? I feel like it. Why do I feel like it? I hate biology, can't venture that far, but I'm sure someone can, and then someone else can go even farther. I think that should clarify my point. >>


I said it was a simple example.





<< <<

<< To me, each event produces a result that initiates the next event, and so forth. >>

Classical Mechanics >>


Never been disproved to the point of invalidity. >>

Black body radiation, virtual particles... ?

Classical Mechanics can not explain everything. It's incomplete.



[/i] >>

<<

<< Much like that little toy with six or so marbles suspended in the middle. You raise the last marble on one side, let it go, and it swings down to strike the rest, resulting in the last one on the other side going flying off. That would be viewed as a series of six or so events. >>

Again, you're thinking of the wrong type of events. >>


You're welcome to explain.[/i] >>

Look up event-symmetric universe.

Even better yet, download this book: http://www.weburbia.com/press/. It'll explain it to you in detail.





<< << Sorry, it still sounds like a Gold universe. >>


Then I guess we interpret Gold's theory differently. >>

No, it's you who makes your thesis sound like some incarnation of a Gold universe. Try not to.