Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trott

  1. I went back to that board the other night and that guy TT2048 was there with some other people. One person was able to get him to talk about what is suppose to happen in the future. He or she divulged some supposed information regarding the future. He said that the next vice president of the US would be an african american and had the last name Powell, presumably Colin Powell. And that within the coming week around July 2nd we would see a failed terrorist attempt and geological activity, in or around the states of California and New York. Someone asked him who would win the world series and he said that the Dodgers would win the world series. I personally do not buy his story, but it did sound interesting. I tried to get him to explain more about the way he supposedly got here but he just said the same thing again about some Mallett bridge and that he did not understand everything about it.
  2. I do not believe that the person was asking you to request for their permission in order to post. I do believe that they were saying in a rather nice way that your continual nonsensical posts should be toned down in frequency. I looked back at some of your first posts, they were readable and posed sensible questions. For some reason, you have decided to become irrational and have been making new topic posts every few minutes about nothing(this is not an instant message system), it is pushing other more interesting topics down and in my opinion is taking away from the board, at least it is to me because I feel that I am having to hunt for something because it is buried under posts which you are making for no apparent reason. Since you live in Florida, I do not think you are a foreigner who does not have full grasp of the English language, so I do not know what is wrong. I do not know, maybe I am the only one who is a bit bothered by this? :(
  3. Hi Penny, There is no certainty in the possibility of time travel. However, science fact does indicate that there are certain scenerios which seem to allow for time travel. In other words, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does have solutions which allow time travel. This is not to say that time travel is in fact possible, since GR does not take into account quantum mechanical affects. In order to truely know if time travel is possibly or if it will remain just a bunch of hollywood bs, one needs a theory of quantum gravity. In almost all time travel scenerios, one can not travel back beyond the point at which the time machine was made.
  4. On another note, suicide is not a way out of anything except life itself, and that does not mean just life on earth it means you end your life here, there, anywhere. I just hope that when you realize that you can not build a space craft, that you do not pull a Heaven's gate scene with you and your two other companions.
  5. Quote: "And I know of another parallel world, were the people are really messed up and they are brain damaged or insane somehow, but luckily, there is no communication between our reality and theirs." What are you talking about, we are that universe. Just kidding. But on a serious note, John Titor was not from the future. The reason I say this is based on his story with the central point being his "mission". It just did not make any logical sense for someone in the future to invest time and money into a project to send someone back in time with the knowledge that that person could not return to the same exact universe (Since John stated that travelling with a zero percent divergence in time was not possible hence he would return to an alternate universe). Of course, he only decided to acknowledge that after we pulled away at the story for awhile. [This message has been edited by Trott (edited 13 June 2001).]
  6. Rick, again I did not say anything about Hermitian operators connecting to space time, I was simply pointing rgrunt to look at the current theories of modern physics. When attempting to propose something new, first look at what is already there, second ask yourself what does this theory offer that the exisiting theory does not explain. Another thing is can my theory predict anything, and in order for it to be able to do so, you will need equations so calculations can be done.
  7. Trott


    Rick, I believe I was talking to rgrunt about what he was posting with regard to particle physics. I listed some textbooks which I felt that he might be interested in looking at. I mentioned Dirac braket notion in the sense that I did not believe that Griffith used that in his quantum book, and that for a good introduction/use of it to look at Sakuari's book. I did not say anything about Hermitian operators. But as far as particle physics and space- time go, it is not too difficult to do the derivation of Einstein's General Relativity equation from starting with a spin 2 massless particle.
  8. Point particles produce nasty singularities. That is why they are hopeful of the extended nature of strings since they are able to "smooth" out the violent nature of the space time foam. As far as electrons being surrounded by something, they are, they are surrounded by virtual particle pairs. These virtual particle pairs essentially screen the electric charge of the electron. What we measure as the electric charge, e, is actually a renormalized charge resulting from these virtual particle pairs. So, if you probe closer and closer to an electron what you will discover is that its electric charge increases the closer you get because the screening is less and less. If you are interested in this stuff, I would suggest reading some texts. I suppose, Griffiths Quantum Mechanics would be a nice introduction. Also, Griffiths Electrodynamics would be good as well. Then you might try Weinberg's field theory books. Also, Sakauri's text on Modern Quantum Mechanics could be good as well, since I am not sure if Griffiths uses Dirac bra ket notion, I know that Weinberg uses it.
  9. RE: \"the formula of live\" Anyhoo, I guess there will be a memorial service held next week?
  10. I was thinking, you know Planet of the Apes was not that bad of a time travel movie. Of course, you are not absolutely certain that it is a time travel story until the ending. The odd thing about Frequency was that the guy was able to remember the alternate time lines. I think my favorite scene in the movie is near the end, when temporal ripple passes through the house.
  11. That is a possibility, I guess. However, I would expect that humanity will either destroy itself, be destroyed by some outside force(meteor or asteriod) or find its way into the outer reaches of our solar system before our own sun enters the Red Giant phase of its existence. As far as the possiblity or impossiblity of time travel. Godel showed us that there are certain mathematical statements which can not be proved or disproved with mathematics. Time travel may in fact turn out to be one of those fantastical ideas in physics lore which cannot be proven or disproven. That is not to say that there are serious considerations for considering it unlikely based on our current knowledge of the universe. But then again, when it comes to the subject of time, we are basically without understanding. If you look in the scientific literature, you can see a changing view about time, more and more scientists are investing in attempting to understand what it is, (although it may sound odd) what its physical properties might be. This may be a result of string theory which brings into question what are the physically properties of a dimension. Anyhoo, even if humanity is incapable of building a time machine, if time travelling is indeed possible, I would imagine that such natural phenomenona would occur somewhere in the universe or even be realized by some advanced civilization elsewhere.
  12. I agree, Frequency is probably the best time travel movie so far.
  13. Noname is correct. There are two known forms of temporal paradoxes. They are the consistency paradox an example being the grandfather scenerio you speak of. The second type of paradox is the bootstrap paradox. This type of paradox is like what Noname was saying, if an oldman gives me a time machine and some time in the far future, I go back in time and give my younger self the time machine then who invented the time machine, this is a bootstrap paradox. I am sure there may in fact be other paradoxes but these are the two general classes which place the most limiting constraint in scientist's minds about whether time travel is in fact possible.
  14. anachronism means displaced out of the natural sequence of time. I suppose that could in some sense describe time travel.
  15. Some have posed the idea that the space-time manifold may in fact be a non-Hausdorf manifold. In layman's terms, it means that now may have had many different pasts and may have many different futures.
  16. What you are refering to is the time dilation effect of special relativity. In other words objects in motion experience the passage of time differently from stationary objects. It has been verified a number of times now. I am not exactly sure what you are refering to with the laser, that sentence seems to come completely out of the blue with no link to the previous statements. I do not believe anyone doubts the ability of travelling into the future, it is the past which is at question.
  17. You are incorrect. The correct formula for energy is: Energy = Square root(p*p*c*c + m*m*c*c*c*c) Where p is momentum, c is speed of light, m is rest mass. A photon is massless, but it does have momentum. In fact for a photon, E = pc. Just because something has energy does not mean it has mass, many people believe that energy in the relativistic case is simply E=mc*c but that is not true, it is in fact: Energy = Square root(p*p*c*c + m*m*c*c*c*c)
  18. I was pondering the reason why it is so many people are fascinated with time travel, particularly with travelling backwards in time. And something struck me, is the reason why people are interested in going back in time because they are unsatisified with the particular path they have chosen in life? I mean why would one really seek and look to the past. Well, one possible reason is that they are unsatisifed with their present and wish to capture the possibilities that were available to them in the past.
  19. This is not a paradox. There are two classes of paradoxes: consistency paradoxes, and bootstrap paradoxes. Consistency paradoxes are of the kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother type. And bootstrap paradoxes are the kind where your future inventor self brings a time machine back to your younger inventor self, so who originally invented the time machine.
  20. TT_0, I am not sure what you mean by unstable or stable when it comes to a singularity. I asked before if this was suppose to be a naked singularity or one which in fact has an event horizon? If it does have an event horizon, then Hawking radiation is a natural phenonmenon which you can not prevent, it is the result of virtual particle pairs form at the event horizon something which can not be prevented. Darby is correct to point out that the evaporation rate is inversely related to the surface area of the event horizon, so if you have such a small black hole it should not last long at all before it evaporates. The mass an object has presumably comes from the coupling of its particles to the Higgs field. If you were some how able to increase the coupling of a particle then you in theory you could make it more massive. Or if you were able to decrease the coupling make it less massive. Although, currently there is no concrete i.e definitive evidence of the Higgs boson's existence. There is some indication at LEP at CERN but it is disputed. We should definitely know within our lifetimes though, since the LHC will come online in 2006 with more than enough energy to find the Higgs boson if it exists.
  21. If you travelled into the future, you would simply need to approach the speed of light. This possibility is a direct result of the time dilation effect of special relativity. It has been verified experimentally with point particles accelerated to velocities close to the speed of light. You would not need the use of an Einstein-Rosen bridge to accomplish this feat. Actually, in the so called twin "paradox", which is not a real paradox, the twin who was in the accelerated frame will be the younger twin, i.e. the one that went to Pluto and back. True temporal paradoxes fall into one of two classes: Bootstrap paradoxes, and consistency paradoxes. The twin "paradox" is not a paradox but instead is a result of using an non-inertial frame, since the starship must decelerate and return to its starting point. PS. Rgrunt, I will look at what you wrote. By the way, I said I was a doctoral student in physics, which means I am in the process of obtaining my Ph.D. in physics not that I already have it. However, I can still inform you that there are problems with what you are suggesting. I will get back to you later on it.
  22. I was not offended, I did find it amusing. That is why I responded to it. Your argument as to my point was not sufficient. You suggested that an alternate you would most likely return to your world line. It just does not seem logical for one to go back in time on a mission for their world line only to return to an alternate worldline where the mission goal may or may not have bearing if completed. By the way, the Kerr ring singularity is a spacetime possessing CLOSED timelike curves. You would clearly need a naked singularity so that the chronology violating region would not be hidden behind the event horizon. This places limits on the size of the ring of the singularity, i.e. radius>Mass, using geometrized units. Perhaps, I have mistaken your backgrounds. If anyone can provide a proof to this, I will share what I know on the subject: If a spacetime contains a causality-violating time machine, but does not contain a chronology-violating time machine, then the only closed causal curves in the spacetime are closed null geodesics.
  23. Darby, I am a physics doctoral student at an american university. I do not have time to sit around and spin some elaborate web of a story of being a time traveller on multiple websites. I am much more interested in factual and experimental information than fictional story telling. I do occasional come to this site to see if anyone has the slightest glimmer as to what they are talking about. So far, I have not seen any indication of that. And for that reason, I have neglected to post the information I have concerning the subject. As far as John Titor or TT_0 is concerned, I believe that I shined a light on a hole in his story awhile back. The fact that he added that he could not complete a 0 divergent trip meant that he could not return to his timeline and hence a mission into the past to help his people was logically flawed. In fact, since I posted that, his postings have been infrequent and sparse.
  24. Excellent Carlos, I did not understand anything you said. Does that mean your language is ineffective? Does that mean you should change your language since I was not able to comprehend it. Absolutely not, it means that if I want to understand you, I must learn your language. Someone stated earlier that most of humanity does not get mathematics and that this is reason enough to develop a new language, I say it is not. People who are truly interested in understanding and mastering physics will learn the language of mathematics because it is the best tool for the job. It may take more time for others, but they will learn. Consider this, Algebra was in the past a subject which was taught at the high school level, but more and more it is being taught at the junior highschool or middle school level, it is only a matter of time before younger and younger students begin their study of more advanced areas of mathematics like calculus, topology, combinatorics, etc... Maybe at that point in the future, the majority will not fear mathematics because they got use to it at a younger age.
  25. Mathematics is the language in which physics is formulated. There is no need to come up with some other language to describe physics or the developing areas of physics. In fact, It is the language of mathematics that often leads to new physical ideas which are later tested. For example, Dirac postulated the existence of anti-matter based on mathematical reasons alone, of course it was not long before experimental evidence was discovered. Again, I see this as a mute point, there is no need for a new language. Mathematics is more than a sufficent structure to describe physics and all new areas of physics including time travel. It may be true that new areas of mathematics must be developed in order to fully explore the possibility of time travel, such work is being done with string theory which is at the cutting edge of both physics and mathematics(it is appearing more and more like the focal point between the two branches). So, I will concede that new mathematics may be needed such as quantum geometry in order to describe the quantum structure of space time and hence the real feasibility time travel but as far as developing an entire new language there is no need for it.
  • Create New...