Time travel impossible? Your HT thoughts....

[Sahakiel]

<<

<< The main reason I believe anti-matter is matter going backwards is the matter-anti-matter reactions. A positron and an electron combine to form pure energy. I think that if anti-matter is matter traveling backwards, then the annihilation of matter and anti-matter into energy is merely the result of the same matter meeting itself, except one is going backwards. >>


Makes no sense. >>



Which part of the above makes no sense? It makes perfect sense to me. Take, say, a highway to represent space as you know it. Traffic moves forward one way, backwards the other. The direction of movement represents the flow of time. Now, take your highway, and turn it into an oval racetrack. The two turns represents changes in the movement of time. Imagine a particle represented by a car moving in a clockwise direction. One side of the track is 'forward' and the opposite side is 'backward'. This is how I view the life of matter; in a somewhat crude fashion.



<< For this to be true, anti-matter should have been formed at the 'end of time', and not after the formation of the universe. >>


At the end of time if you were going with the timeline of matter. For anti-matter, the 'end of time' was the beginning of the universe.
Besides, anti-matter and matter are constantly formed in the universe. Take any given cubic foot of space and with sensitive enough equipment, you'll find matter and anti-matter formation and destruction. It is not necessary for all anti-matter to exist from the 'end of time' all the way to now just to prove my idea. It's not even necessary for a speck of matter to have existed from big bang to now to prove big bang theory.



<< Such a Gold universe makes very little sense, and might even be disproven if the amount of matter in the universe is large enough to prevent a 'big crunch', i.e. the universe collapsing on itself. >>


A large amount of matter in the universe would lead to a 'big crunch' due to gravitational forces. I think you were saying if there was too little matter.
Once again, you're thinking in terms of your current reality. If there were enough matter in the universe to result in a 'big crunch' that would be in line with what I believe. The 'big crunch' would be the anti-matter from of 'big bang' going in the other direction in time.

 

[jmitchell]

Impossible. Travelling back in time would require that every atom, particle, electron, blah blah be in positioned exactly where it was then, in other words, there may be a carbon atom in my leg, which used to be in a well in new mexico in 1974. If someone were to 'travel' back to 1974, it would require that that particular carbon atom be back in new mexico again. Now apply that theory to every single particle in the entire universe, and you see, very easily the problem. That carbon atom does not exist here in my leg, and in new mexico at the same time, allowing somone to 'go back in time' to see it. Time is constant, and always forward moving. Even if some kid genious created a device, which could take a 3 dimensional snapshot of the physical layout of the entire universe, with details down to the smallest partice, gluon or whatever the shiz is, AND a device which could rearrange everything in the universe to a previously recorded state (lets say 1990), the world would appear to be as it was in 1990, but time would have still passed in a forward direction, and the year would still be 2002. Impossible.

 

[AnthraX101]

Here's the problem, Sahakiel.

You can't just make up your own way as to how the universe works. Its all fine and dandy for you, maybe, but many a better man then us have spent a lot of time disproving your theory.

And as for CZroe, you are refering to timelines. That is an extention of the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of the universe. Debunked a while back, now we have string theory! *details acurate as of the time of posting, not guaranteed to be acurate 30 seconds from now*

Armani

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< The main reason I believe anti-matter is matter going backwards is the matter-anti-matter reactions. A positron and an electron combine to form pure energy. I think that if anti-matter is matter traveling backwards, then the annihilation of matter and anti-matter into energy is merely the result of the same matter meeting itself, except one is going backwards. >>


Makes no sense. >>



Which part of the above makes no sense? It makes perfect sense to me. Take, say, a highway to represent space as you know it. Traffic moves forward one way, backwards the other. The direction of movement represents the flow of time. Now, take your highway, and turn it into an oval racetrack. The two turns represents changes in the movement of time. Imagine a particle represented by a car moving in a clockwise direction. One side of the track is 'forward' and the opposite side is 'backward'. This is how I view the life of matter; in a somewhat crude fashion. >>


" Here's the problem, Sahakiel.

You can't just make up your own way as to how the universe works. Its all fine and dandy for you, maybe, but many a better man then us have spent a lot of time disproving your theory."

In other words, your 'theory' contradicts the more popular theories.



<<

<< For this to be true, anti-matter should have been formed at the 'end of time', and not after the formation of the universe. >>


At the end of time if you were going with the timeline of matter. For anti-matter, the 'end of time' was the beginning of the universe. >>

...which is not the case, since anti-matter was produced during the formation of the universe.


<< Besides, anti-matter and matter are constantly formed in the universe. Take any given cubic foot of space and with sensitive enough equipment, you'll find matter and anti-matter formation and destruction. >>

Yes, the virtual particles I talked about earlier.


<< It is not necessary for all anti-matter to exist from the 'end of time' all the way to now just to prove my idea. It's not even necessary for a speck of matter to have existed from big bang to now to prove big bang theory. >>

*sigh*

"Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed." Sounds familiar? All energy and matter contained in this universe was there from the beginning and there won't be any added.

In other words, there won't suddenly be a large amount of 'anti-matter' created at the 'end of time' (if there is such a thing), since that would violate the conservation of energy.



<<

<< Such a Gold universe makes very little sense, and might even be disproven if the amount of matter in the universe is large enough to prevent a 'big crunch', i.e. the universe collapsing on itself. >>


A large amount of matter in the universe would lead to a 'big crunch' due to gravitational forces. I think you were saying if there was too little matter. >>

Nope, with sufficient mass, the 'kinetic' force will be large enough to defeat gravity and prevent a 'big crunch'. Physics 101


<< Once again, you're thinking in terms of your current reality. If there were enough matter in the universe to result in a 'big crunch' that would be in line with what I believe. The 'big crunch' would be the anti-matter from of 'big bang' going in the other direction in time. >>


Again, a Gold universe is highly improbable. It has been debunked so many times already that I don't see any reason to even consider it at this moment.

 

[Elledan]

<< And as for CZroe, you are refering to timelines. That is an extention of the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of the universe. Debunked a while back, now we have string theory! *details acurate as of the time of posting, not guaranteed to be acurate 30 seconds from now* >>


You gotta love theoretical physics

 

[Sahakiel]

<< You can't just make up your own way as to how the universe works. Its all fine and dandy for you, maybe, but many a better man then us have spent a lot of time disproving your theory." >>


The forum awaits. I have yet to see a post which contradicts my theory. Heck, I have yet to read a post from someone who's even understood my idea.



<< In other words, your 'theory' contradicts the more popular theories. >>


From what I know of other theories from Newton to Einstein to Planck and so forth to string, there has yet to be a contradiction from a conceptual point of view. There may be a mathematical contradiction, but seeing as how I'm far from understanding that aspect of string theory and you're saying I've just violated it, perhaps you'd like to post the equation.



<< "Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed." Sounds familiar? All energy and matter contained in this universe was there from the beginning and there won't be any added.

In other words, there won't suddenly be a large amount of 'anti-matter' created at the 'end of time' (if there is such a thing), since that would violate the conservation of energy. >>


I made no mention of destroying matter or energy. I mentioned production of matter and anti-matter. aka. Conversion from energy. If you think I'm saying matter or anti-matter get produced out of nothing, I think you should stop grabbing for every tendril of semi-truth you see and debunking it. You're not really understanding what I'm trying to explain.
Let's say we have a graph of two dimensions. X is space. T is time. Then, my little racecar analogy would lay down along the T axis. Increasing T is moving forward in time, decreasing T is moving backwards. Now, note that if the racetrack is laid down along the T axis, and you move around in an arbitrary direction (let's say clockwise) then you traverse all over space uninhibited. However, if you were to follow two points, one moving forward in time only (increasing T) and one moving backwards only (decreasing T) the only two points you'd ever meet are where the track crosses the T axis. What I'm saying is those two intercepts are where matter and anti-matter are produced. If you move beyond the track, increase T past it, you get energy from the collision. Same if you decreased T beyond the scope of the track.
Am I being clear, or did you miss my point again?



<< Nope, with sufficient mass, the 'kinetic' force will be large enough to defeat gravity and prevent a 'big crunch'. Physics 101 >>


Seeing as how gravity is technically unlimited by distance and only by speed, I don't see how given an intially incredibly large kinetic energy anything with mass wouldn't eventually be stopped by gravitational forces.

 

[hanybanoub]

If time travel is possible, then one obvious question arrises:

Why hasn't someone from the future come to us already?

 

[Elledan]

<< Am I being clear, or did you miss my point again? >>


Nope, I understand what you're saying, but I see some issues with it:

First of all, anti-matter isn't anything special. It has just the opposite properties of what we call 'matter'. Much like clockwise DNA chains vs. non-clockwise DNA chains. They can both do the same thing, yet are different from each other.

Second, you seem to assume that time is a) fluent, that there is a timeline along which everything moves and b) that the universe is not event-symmetric: "A heap of events".

Another problem is that if you're correct with this theory, then at what we perceive as the beginning of time, there should be only anti-matter in the universe. Then matter would be produced, and anti-matter would... disappear? So that eventually only matter would fill the universe.





<< << Nope, with sufficient mass, the 'kinetic' force will be large enough to defeat gravity and prevent a 'big crunch'. Physics 101 <http://forums.anandtech.com/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif> >>


Seeing as how gravity is technically unlimited by distance and only by speed, I don't see how given an intially incredibly large kinetic energy anything with mass wouldn't eventually be stopped by gravitational forces. >>


With enough mass, the universe will have sufficient 'kinetic' energy to escape its own gravity. Once all matter in the universe is removed far enough from each other, gravity will be too weak to pull all mass in the universe together. A 'free fall' ending in a 'big crunch' will have been avoided.

And gravity IS limited by distance. If you move a satellite away from a planet, the influence of the gravity on the satellite will decrease.

 

[Agent004]

I got put my 2 pence into this



<< The future, while uncertain, is set in stone. >>



If it's uncertain, then it's not set in stone.

 

[Degenerate]

My 1 Cent:

Even if you did travel through time, there would be other places in the universe with different times. So the universe would be quite messy.

 

[Sahakiel]

<<

<< Am I being clear, or did you miss my point again? >>


Nope, I understand what you're saying, but I see some issues with it:



<< First of all, anti-matter isn't anything special. It has just the opposite properties of what we call 'matter'. Much like clockwise DNA chains vs. non-clockwise DNA chains. They can both do the same thing, yet are different from each other. >>

>>


Actually, counter-clockwise DNA chains would have to have different chemical structures than clockwise DNA chains. I haven't heard of any isotopes for base pairs which would allow counter-clockwise DNA chains.



<< Second, you seem to assume that time is a) fluent, that there is a timeline along which everything moves and b) that the universe is not event-symmetric: "A heap of events". >>


a: Time is another dimension. You can move along it much the same as you can move along the spatial dimensions. Einstein or someone else who used his relativity theoroms was able to prove that everything in the universe moves along at constant velocity. Light, matter, anti-matter, gravity, whatever, all move along spacetime at the same speed. The only difference being that the speed is split up amongst the different dimensions. i.e. light moves along at only the spatial dimensions, you and I have part of our velocity in the time dimension. Much as with an x-y graph, you can move in x-only, y-only, or x and y-only, but your ((x^2 + y^2)^0.5)/t is always the same.
b: I am assuming you're saying that I'm not taking into account cause and effect. That one event leads to another. If that is so, then I suggest you read my earlier posts.



<< Another problem is that if you're correct with this theory, then at what we perceive as the beginning of time, there should be only anti-matter in the universe. Then matter would be produced, and anti-matter would... disappear? So that eventually only matter would fill the universe. >>


I think I'm just being generally unclear. According to big bang, in the beginning of what we perceive as time, there was only energy. As the universe began to expand under the influence of such high temperature, it began to cool down until eventually, matter as we know it begins its early development. My idea would be that anti-matter also coalesces. For each electron and proton created from the primordial energy bath, a positron and an anti-proton are created and so forth for every spec of matter. Last I heard, even quarks have their opposites.



<< And gravity IS limited by distance. If you move a satellite away from a planet, the influence of the gravity on the satellite will decrease. >>


Decrease, but never becomes zero. And it propagates at the speed of light, so technically, I guess only light would be able to be totally free from the influence of gravity.



<< << The future, while uncertain, is set in stone. >>
If it's uncertain, then it's not set in stone >>


Uncertain as in you or I can never really determine exactly what will happen. Heisenberg principle.
Set in stone as in no matter what you do, you can never change what is not meant to be changed. Cause and effect.

[EDIT]Fixed quotes

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

very simple time travel is happenning constantly at a very small scale. the faster something moves through space, the faster it moves through time. a person standing on top of a skyscraper is moving through time faster than someone on the ground. but this happens at such a minute scale that we cant even detect it.

another example is space shuttles. when they land on earth, their clocks are ahead of ours since they were going so fast. its only a few seconds or something like that, but if you scale that up, the faster and faster you go, the more of a difference there is. as far as traveling backwards, i've heard one theory but i'm not a physics whiz so i wont waste any more time typing

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< Am I being clear, or did you miss my point again? >>


Nope, I understand what you're saying, but I see some issues with it:



<< First of all, anti-matter isn't anything special. It has just the opposite properties of what we call 'matter'. Much like clockwise DNA chains vs. non-clockwise DNA chains. They can both do the same thing, yet are different from each other. >>

>>


Actually, counter-clockwise DNA chains would have to have different chemical structures than clockwise DNA chains. I haven't heard of any isotopes for base pairs which would allow counter-clockwise DNA chains. >>

True, but in their functioning they would be the same. Anti-matter is very different from matter, yet 'works' the same way.



<<

<< Second, you seem to assume that time is a) fluent, that there is a timeline along which everything moves and b) that the universe is not event-symmetric: "A heap of events". >>


a: Time is another dimension. >>

You mean it's a fact now and not a mere theory?


<< You can move along it much the same as you can move along the spatial dimensions. >>

Incorrect. You can decide which direction (x, y and z) you want to go to, yet you can not decide how you want to move 'in time'.


<< Einstein or someone else who used his relativity theoroms was able to prove that everything in the universe moves along at constant velocity. >>

Only constant compared to certain points of reference. Nothing, absolutely nothing is non-relative. Even time is relative.


<< Light, matter, anti-matter, gravity, whatever, all move along spacetime at the same speed. The only difference being that the speed is split up amongst the different dimensions. i.e. light moves along at only the spatial dimensions, you and I have part of our velocity in the time dimension. Much as with an x-y graph, you can move in x-only, y-only, or x and y-only, but your ((x^2 + y^2)^0.5)/t is always the same.
b: I am assuming you're saying that I'm not taking into account cause and effect. That one event leads to another. If that is so, then I suggest you read my earlier posts. >>


Actually, that was not what I meant. I was not talking about causality, but event-symmetry, with which you're obviously not familiar. Basically it comes down to that there is an (near) infinite number of events, which are then 'connected', and form what can be called a 'timeline'. Since the universe is event-symmetric in this explanation, the removal and insertion of parts of a timeline at random will have no effect on the rest of the timeline, which will remain totally unaffected.



<<

<< Another problem is that if you're correct with this theory, then at what we perceive as the beginning of time, there should be only anti-matter in the universe. Then matter would be produced, and anti-matter would... disappear? So that eventually only matter would fill the universe. >>


I think I'm just being generally unclear. According to big bang, in the beginning of what we perceive as time, there was only energy. As the universe began to expand under the influence of such high temperature, it began to cool down until eventually, matter as we know it begins its early development. My idea would be that anti-matter also coalesces. For each electron and proton created from the primordial energy bath, a positron and an anti-proton are created and so forth for every spec of matter. Last I heard, even quarks have their opposites.



<< And gravity IS limited by distance. If you move a satellite away from a planet, the influence of the gravity on the satellite will decrease. >>


Decrease, but never becomes zero. >>

Perhaps, but in that case it would become so insignificant that it wouldn't even have any effect on a single particle. It appears that gravity, once removed far enough from a body, can not be measured at all.


<< And it propagates at the speed of light, so technically, I guess only light would be able to be totally free from the influence of gravity. >>


Nope, even light, although a single photon has no mass, is affected by gravity. So-called gravity wells, caused by planets and other large bodies, have been shown to attract photons.

No disrespect intended, but your understanding of gravity appears to be lacking.



<<

<< << The future, while uncertain, is set in stone. >>
If it's uncertain, then it's not set in stone >>


Uncertain as in you or I can never really determine exactly what will happen. Heisenberg principle.
Set in stone as in no matter what you do, you can never change what is not meant to be changed. Cause and effect. >>


What if everything which can happen, will happen? Which is the 'real' future? With a near infinite number of 'timelines', there is nothing 'set in stone', since everything happens.

Also, how can you be so certain that everything is predetermined? Are you one of those Classical Physics zealots who refuse to accept the validity of Theoretical Physics/Quantum Mechanics?

 

[AnthraX101]

<< very simple time travel is happenning constantly at a very small scale. the faster something moves through space, the faster it moves through time. a person standing on top of a skyscraper is moving through time faster than someone on the ground. but this happens at such a minute scale that we cant even detect it.

another example is space shuttles. when they land on earth, their clocks are ahead of ours since they were going so fast. its only a few seconds or something like that, but if you scale that up, the faster and faster you go, the more of a difference there is. as far as traveling backwards, i've heard one theory but i'm not a physics whiz so i wont waste any more time typing >>



Slower! We are always moving slower through time with an increase in speed.

Sahakiel, I still don't like your theory. See Occam's Razor.

Armani

 

[KyleGagnet]

I think time travel is theoretically possible, but not probable. I read a very good book by Ben Bova called Spaceflight and Other Improbabilities where Bova discussed many things such as aliens and time travel. I don't remember exactly what he said about it so I won't try to convey his ideas. However, I do suggest this book to anyone who is remotely interested in this sort of thing. It is a very good read.

 

[bizmark]

Hmmm I think I'm going with Sahakiel's argument in this.

Basically what I think he's saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that anti-matter was created at the end of what we know as time and propagates backward in our time (but forward in its time) to our beginning of time, at which point the anti-matter will be annihiliated in its time, but this would be perceived by us as antimatter being created in our time. I personally find this idea pretty elegant, and I can't come up with anything off the top of my head that would suggest that it's impossible. The problem of there not being 50/50 matter/antimatter doesn't "matter" either, haha. Seeing as there's more matter than antimatter in the universe now, it would seem that as we go forward, the amount of matter increases relative to the amount of antimatter. Conversely, if we went backwards in our time (forwards in anti-matter time), the amount of anti-matter would increase relative to the amount of matter.



<< << And it propagates at the speed of light, so technically, I guess only light would be able to be totally free from the influence of gravity. >>
Nope, even light, although a single photon has no mass, is affected by gravity. So-called gravity wells, caused by planets and other large bodies, have been shown to attract photons. >>



I think what he meant was that gravity can only propagate at the speed of light. (Which I don't necessarily agree with, as all discussions that I've ever seen have basically assumed gravity which is both instantaneous and infinitely-reaching. Maybe I just haven't taken high enough level physics, and maybe we haven't been able to perform experiments far enough apart from other much greater gravitational influences and with good enough timing to be able to tell.) But anyway, if we assume that gravity propagates at the speed of light, then the light travelling away from the gravity would 'out-run' the gravity. Everybody knows that light can be BENT by gravity, but can it be pulled back if it's initially travelling away from it? If so, this would imply instantaneity of gravity, or at least that it travels faster than light. Which would disprove Einstein if I'm remembering correctly. But that's all really not relevant.



<< For this to be true, anti-matter should have been formed at the 'end of time', and not after the formation of the universe. >>



Is the end of time not after the formation of the universe?



<< Such a Gold universe makes very little sense, and might even be disproven if the amount of matter in the universe is large enough to prevent a 'big crunch', i.e. the universe collapsing on itself. >>





<< Which theories specifically are you refering to? Newton's theory of relativity seemed to work over and over until people tried to apply it to light. Then we found that it doesn't apply to light. Relative velocity makes no difference with light, the speed of light remains constant. This still doesn't seem logical to me, but it's generally accepted; look at Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Now try to apply Einstein's theory to time...Oh, wait; we can't. That's because we currently don't have the technology to do so. Just like they didn't have the technology to apply Newton's theory to light in the 17th-19th century. Maybe it's possible to gather empirical evidence on time travel, with the right technology. >>



Saurk's point is worth remembering. Just because everything that we see now matches up with what we'd expect with our current theories, doesn't mean that there isn't some BIGGER theory which would incorporate everything that we see here and explain it just as well, while also explaining other stuff that we can't explain now. Anything that we say about the status of the universe can't be expected to ring true forever. Even if it were 'proven' somehow that the universe can't shrink back on itself, that doesn't mean that there isn't some OTHER phenomenon out there that we don't yet know about that will cause it to shrink. And, furthermore, we can't logically rule out Sahakeil's idea even if it were 'proven' that the universe doesn't end in a 'big crunch'. Who says that anti-matter has to be created in its own Big Bang? May be it starts out as a Big Dispersion, scattered throughout the universe. Or actually it would have to randomly drop in at different times, coinciding with our perceived loss of antimatter, culminating in our Big Bang, at which point the two types of matter balance out. Of course, then we lose some of the elegance of Sahakeil's theory because of the lack of symmetry (ie. a big bang/crunch at both ends). Or actually maybe it makes the symmetry that much better, underscoring the fundamental differences between matter and antimatter. But then our universe (or at least our time) would end by some means other than a crunch, which obviously we can't conceive of right now. Actually I guess it would play out until there was no more antimatter. That would be the end of time. Maybe the relationship between matter and antimatter actually CAUSES time, and when there's none of one (either matter or antimatter) then time stands still. Thence anti-time starts when the first particle of anti-matter appears somewhere.

Really, if you find yourself capable of believing in a Big Bang in which every bit of matter in the universe occurs out of nowhere, then I don't really see a problem with accepting that antimatter would randomly 'appear' in scattered spots throughout the universe in Anti-Time (we'd perceive it as disappearing).

edit: to change a confusing statement. All of these anti's and forwards and backwards.... gets to be a problem

 

[Sahakiel]

OT:This is getting to be one massive quotation headache.



<< True, but in their functioning they would be the same. Anti-matter is very different from matter, yet 'works' the same way. >>


The functioning of chemicals is highly dependend on structure. If anti-base pairs (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) resulted in a counter-clockwise DNA structure, then the means of unzipping and creating amino acids would also use anti-enzymes, anti-mRNA, and whatever else caused me to get my ass out of biology ASAP. The end result will be a different protein, unless you change the process of formation at which point we're no longer dealing with DNA as we know it now.



<<

<< a: Time is another dimension. >>

You mean it's a fact now and not a mere theory? >>


Why, yes. It's been well established ever since way before you were born. It was either Einstein or someone who took his relativity theories and ran with it (pretty sure it was Einstein himself). Before the start of World War II (as you may have noticed, I don't remember dates well. Main reason I quit history) and not long after he cemented the photoelectric effect; far before I was born and most likely you, as well.
And since when has anything ever been 'fact' and not theory? A theory is merely an idea which has, so far, held up to rigorous testing. Scientific method at its best.



<<

<< You can move along it much the same as you can move along the spatial dimensions. >>


Incorrect. You can decide which direction (x, y and z) you want to go to, yet you can not decide how you want to move 'in time'. >>


You may be able to move at will through space and only 'forward' in time, but you're still moving, nonetheless.
And for those who're going to think of relativistic speeds, yes, you can slow the rate you move through time.



<<

<< Einstein or someone else who used his relativity theoroms was able to prove that everything in the universe moves along at constant velocity. >>

Only constant compared to certain points of reference. Nothing, absolutely nothing is non-relative. Even time is relative. >>


Nope. Constant. Frames of reference as you are using them are useful in applying towards spacetime dilation only with NO acceleration involved. See above on "time is a dimension" for your explanation.
On a side note, Einstein's second theory of relativity proved that gravity bent spacetime to where any frame of reference that is changed by acceleration is given equal validity with other frames of reference.
Ex: Two people passing each other in space at relativistic speeds will see results consistent with what you're trying to explain above. However, once one turns around and tries to catch up with the other, the rules you're implying get thrown out the window.



<< Basically it comes down to that there is an (near) infinite number of events, which are then 'connected', and form what can be called a 'timeline'. >>


Sounds like causality to me. Please elaborate.



<< Perhaps, but in that case it would become so insignificant that it wouldn't even have any effect on a single particle. It appears that gravity, once removed far enough from a body, can not be measured at all. >>


If that were true, the same would apply for apply Heisenberg to a baseball. So insignifcant it shouldn't even factor into the equation.
Approximating calculations can only get you so far. One of the problems with early string theory was the primitive (by today's standards) approximations needed to even begin to comprehend the results of the mathematics (reason I quit physics).



<< Nope, even light, although a single photon has no mass, is affected by gravity. So-called gravity wells, caused by planets and other large bodies, have been shown to attract photons. >>


More specifically, gravitational lenses and black holes have the most pronounced effect on photons. Next time there's a solar eclipse, see for yourself (that's how the theory was proven in the first place). Gravity well is just another term for what was classically called "gravity." In fact, the term came about from Einstein's second theory of relativity.



<< No disrespect intended, but your understanding of gravity appears to be lacking. >>


Gravity, in case you slept through that lecture, is the bending of spacetime and the bend itself propogates at the speed of light. Take a point +1 x-unit removed from origin and emit light from there in the +x direction. Plop down some mass at the origin. Gravity will propogate at speed of light. Now, at frame of reference set with the origin, the gravity will never catch up. In case you're wondering, your frame of reference is you sitting at the origin. You'll have to start moving to begin to even hope for the gravity to start catching up to the light wave, at which point I'll leave the calculations to somebody who actually enjoys that sort of thing.
No disrespect intended, but I am beginning to think your understanding of gravity appears to be lacking as well.



<< What if everything which can happen, will happen? Which is the 'real' future? With a near infinite number of 'timelines', there is nothing 'set in stone', since everything happens. >>


See AnthraX101's explanation above on the many world's theory.
On a side note, one of the better indicators of a physics theory being invalid or no longer applicable is when a calculation comes out to infinity.



<< Also, how can you be so certain that everything is predetermined? Are you one of those Classical Physics zealots who refuse to accept the validity of Theoretical Physics/Quantum Mechanics? >>


If I was, did you think I would've thrown in Heisenburg's, which single-handedly created quantum mechanics?
BTW, theoretical physics is merely the latest development of physics theory. Please don't deign to allude it to quantum mechanics, which is merely one step towards the grand Unified Field Theory. It has pretty much ran out of steam and the best prospect for a replacement is string theory. It is no longer the "hot new physics field" of latter half of the century.

AnthraX101: Could you tell me where to find "Occam's Razor"? I'm not familiar with that.

 

[Sahakiel]

<< Basically what I think he's saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that anti-matter was created at the end of what we know as time and propagates backward in our time (but forward in its time) to our beginning of time, at which point the anti-matter will be annihiliated in its time, but this would be perceived by us as antimatter being created in our time. I personally find this idea pretty elegant, and I can't come up with anything off the top of my head that would suggest that it's impossible. The problem of there not being 50/50 matter/antimatter doesn't "matter" either, haha. Seeing as there's more matter than antimatter in the universe now, it would seem that as we go forward, the amount of matter increases relative to the amount of antimatter. Conversely, if we went backwards in our time (forwards in anti-matter time), the amount of anti-matter would increase relative to the amount of matter. >>



Close, but not quite. Matter doesn't have to be 'matter' throughout the whole 'timeline.' Matter as we know it is merely another form of energy. It can be created from energy or annihilated into energy and/or live out its existence as energy at any 'time.' Anti-matter can be produced in particle accelerators. In fact, the discovery of anti-matter came about when an equation (I forget exactly which) resulted in a particle with negative mass. This was largely ignored until powerful enough accelerators produced anti-matter, at which point someone put two and two together.



<< The problem of there not being 50/50 matter/antimatter doesn't "matter" either, haha. >>



Heh. Cosmologists have figured out that based on the visible activity of the universe, there's quite a bit of "dark matter" in the universe. Matter with mass that isn't visible with the naked eye, or the light hasn't reached us, yet. Perhaps the "missing" anti-matter is concentrated elsewhere much like our world as we know it is full of matter and anti-matter is only isolated in particle accelerators.

Of course, the extra mass could be from something other than actual matter or anti-matter. Could be a dilation due to some unknown field effect.

Or, we have a hella lot more black holes that are a lot bigger than anyone dreamed.

 

[bizmark]

<< Close, but not quite. Matter doesn't have to be 'matter' throughout the whole 'timeline.' Matter as we know it is merely another form of energy. It can be created from energy or annihilated into energy and/or live out its existence as energy at any 'time.' Anti-matter can be produced in particle accelerators. >>



I wasn't ruling out that matter and anti-matter would both be created and/or destroyed (well, converted to/from energy) during this 'time'. What I meant was that as a general trend, the amount of anti-matter decreases in our time (and increases in anti-time). There can be deviations when anti-matter is created in our time, but the long-term trend continues.



<< << You can move along it much the same as you can move along the spatial dimensions. >>
Incorrect. You can decide which direction (x, y and z) you want to go to, yet you can not decide how you want to move 'in time'. >>



Well, sometimes you can decide what direction you want to go. If you're falling from 10,000 feet above the earth, you really have no choice in your z-movement. Unless, that is, you have a flying apparatus of some sort. So maybe we should look at time as a sort of gravity that we haven't figured out how to counter-act yet.



<< << True, but in their functioning they would be the same. Anti-matter is very different from matter, yet 'works' the same way. >>
The functioning of chemicals is highly dependend on structure. If anti-base pairs (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) resulted in a counter-clockwise DNA structure, then the means of unzipping and creating amino acids would also use anti-enzymes, anti-mRNA, and whatever else caused me to get my ass out of biology ASAP. The end result will be a different protein, unless you change the process of formation at which point we're no longer dealing with DNA as we know it now. >>



Sure, complex chemical structures that are created with the opposite handedness don't interact the same way as 'normal' (right-handed? Man it's been a while since I took bio) chemical structures that are otherwise completely the same. E.g. if we take a sugar molecule and build it with the opposite handedness (I think that aspartame or some similar non-digestible sugar substitute is essentially this), it will not interact with 'normal' structures in our bodies that act to take apart 'normal' sugar and use it for energy. But, do we know that in a world of anti-matter, they wouldn't act the same? I think that they would. In fact, I think that in an opposite-handed universe (i.e. still our normal matter but with everything being opposite-handed) the same 'opposite' structures would all interact together in the same way. E.g. if we had opposite enzymes in our bodies, they would fit properly with the opposite sugar molecules. So I think that the same thing would hold in an anti-matter universe (and who knows which handedness an anti-matter universe has?).

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Just a question..

Our Galaxy is moving at an incredible rate (or is it that our galaxy is staying still and everything else is moving very fast - same thing?) what effect does this have, in relation to time dilation, to events we see in other galaxies/stars?

If our Galaxy was traveling at the speed of light, could it be possible that we are going back in time - i.e time travel in a grand scale?

 

[Elledan]

<< Really, if you find yourself capable of believing in a Big Bang in which every bit of matter in the universe occurs out of nowhere, then I don't really see a problem with accepting that antimatter would randomly 'appear' in scattered spots throughout the universe in Anti-Time (we'd perceive it as disappearing). >>


I don't 'believe' in the big bang. Sure, something happened, as becomes clear when we notice that all matter in the universe is moving away from each other, but exactly what happened, we don't know. Big bang, white hole... it can be anything.

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.

Since it appears that there is more than enough mass in the universe (see dark matter), it seems highly unlikely that the universe will end with a 'big crunch', since it can escape its own gravity. This means that the universe will not end. It will cool down, dying stars will transform into black holes, which will slowly but surely attract all matter (and anti-matter) in the universe, ultimately there will only be one or more giant black holes left
What follows? It has been suggested that these black holes might transform into white holes, which would then cause the formation of new universes ('big bang').

Also, Sahakiel, according to Occam's Razor, the theory for which the least assumptions must be made is to be preferred over a theory which requires more assumptions. See Einstein vs. aether theory.

 

[Elledan]

<< Just a question..

Our Galaxy is moving at an incredible rate (or is it that our galaxy is staying still and everything else is moving very fast - same thing?) what effect does this have, in relation to time dilation, to events we see in other galaxies/stars?

If our Galaxy was traveling at the speed of light, could it be possible that we are going back in time - i.e time travel in a grand scale? >>

It would require too much energy for any object to approach the speed of light, but if it were possible, we would observe that 'time' went much faster in these galaxies. We would not be traveling backwards in time, but only at a much slower rate.

 

[Elledan]

<< << Basically it comes down to that there is an (near) infinite number of events, which are then 'connected', and form what can be called a 'timeline'. >>


Sounds like causality to me. Please elaborate. >>


It has nothing to do with causality. Point is that these events are neutral, they can be inserted anywhere, anytime in a timeline, one could turn a whole timeline around, and the person 'in it' wouldn't notice anything.

 

[Agent004]

<< See AnthraX101's explanation above on the many world's theory. >>



Well, that just means there are many (infinite, but not pretermine) possiblities. Further if you so strongly believe in the chaotic theory, then it conflicts with you own theory. Choatic theory simply means the outcome/effect can't be predict , given the fact that the smallest change can accumulate significant change. If it's pretermined, then all outcomes can be predicted, taking in the smallest changes.

It seems you shoot yourself in the leg with this one..



<< Uncertain as in you or I can never really determine exactly what will happen. Heisenberg principle.
Set in stone as in no matter what you do, you can never change what is not meant to be changed. Cause and effect. >>



Then according to Heisenberg principle, you do not know (nor can be predetermined ) the effects/outcomes of a cause, therefore the probability of changing what is not 'meant' to be changed exists.

Otherwise according to Cause and effect, you effectively limiting the effects/outcomes, ie a certain action will only lead to a certain (set of ) effects/outcomes, then it's no longer chaotic (it's predetermined, finite and predictable ). It's predictable, ie, Heisenberg principle is no longer valid.


BTW, for those who don't know, the universe is expanding faster and faster as time goes by, so there won't be a big crunch. Further, this implies there isn't enough mass for the big crunch to happen, ie, there is more 'free' energy which are not in the form of matter

Also, can gravity be viewed as a form of energy?

 

[Elledan]

<< Also, can gravity be viewed as a form of energy? >>

Probably just matter (gravitons).



<< BTW, for those who don't know, the universe is expanding faster and faster as time goes by, so there won't be a big crunch . Further, this implies there isn't enough mass for the big crunch to happen, ie, there is more 'free' energy which are not in the form of matter >>


Uhm, whether or not a 'big crunch' would occur depends on the amount of mass in the universe. With insufficient mass, gravity would quickly decrease the 'velocity' of matter, which would then 'fall back'.
If what you are saying would be correct, then the discovery of dark matter would mean that a big crunch will occur, while the opposite is true.