Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Okay, all I mean is a dimension where everything has at least the amount of energy that a photon has. I know, I know, photons are pure kinetic energy with zero rest mass. How can there be a universe of pure kinetic energy? The answer is that it's a universe that's in constant motion relative to this one. The way I look at it, this universe, although it is in constant motion, is in a particular state of rest. I'm saying that because of the relativistic properties of light. So this universe, this dimension, is constrained in motion because of the energy gap. I guess the bottom line is, create enough energy to exceed the velocity of light in vaccuo and you can propel yourself into a whole new universe (dimension).
  2. Do you mean that the particles don't have two collide? Could you explain why entropy is direction-specific? I can't see it. In fact, I see uncertanty increasing with time whether you consider the past or the future. Doesn't increasing uncertainty imply increasing entropy?
  3. Absolutely. That's the problem, how to get enough energy. I disagree with your second paragraph. I think it's self-centered of us to believe that a universe with physical laws unlike our own could not survive and support life. Maybe it couldn't support our lives, but that doesn't mean we can't enter it. All I think it means is that we would have a hard time recognizing what's there. It would take some really advanced computer programs to figure things out. I don't believe you would die if you exceeded the light constant, not with the correct shielding anyway. A shield would be necessary not to protect you from other matter, but to prevent you from exploding during acceleration. Finally, I'm not talking about exceeding the velocity of light in some other dimension. I'm talking about hopefully entering a dimension that is at rest wrt light as it moves in a vacuum in this dimension. Why is it impossible, using current technology, to reach 100% of the light constant in this dimension? And why does light seem to travel away from you at the same speed regardless of your own velocity? The reason is that this dimension is not at rest wrt light in a vacuum in this dimension. You might not think it makes any sense, because how can you reach, let alone exceed, the light constant in this dimension if it's not possible to do in this dimension. That's where we need to pull energy from yet another dimension. But we're only borrowing it. It won't destroy the other dimension because in this dimension energy is neither created nor destroyed but returns to the origin. I realize that we are able to accelerate subatomic particles to very near the universal light velocity, but never actually achieve it. Why is that? Is it because it's just not possibe, or is it because there's not enough energy in the universe to do it.
  4. I'm thinking faster-than-light-travel is the primary answer, but that would only scratch the surface. The reason I think it requires superluminal velocity is simple. What is the fastest moving thing in this dimension, the thing which nothing moves faster than, the thing which moves at the same speed relative to you regardless of how fast you're moving? Light. Now light has a velocity of 186,000 mph in this dimension, but it may have different velocities in other dimensions. However, we can only interact, we are only matter, in a dimension where the velocity of light is 186,000 mph. Therefore to be able to interact with matter from another dimension, we have to enter into a new frame of reference. I think that by exceeding the velocity of light in this dimension, we can enter into a new frame in which we are stationary wrt it and light in the new dimension has a constant velocity of 186,000 mph. The reason this only scratches the surface is that following the above process would have us merely experiencing a timeline unlike that of this dimension. We still need to find a way to travel to a specific location in the new dimension, which corresponds to a different period in this one. We also have to discover a way to return to, or at least interact with, this dimension; however I have a hunch that doing that may be far less complicated.
  5. Right, I understand that. I guess my phrasing wasn't clear. I'm not talking about a time traveler altering the past by interfering with it. I'm talking about events in the present having the same effect on the past as they do the future. We know that entropy increases with time, but is it actually direction-specific?
  6. How can spacetime have mass? Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. Time does not consist of any matter, that much is clear. Time may be matter in another dimension, but not in this one.
  7. Can the past actually be affected by events in the present? If the present can be affected by events in the past, it seems reasonable to think that the converse would be true as well. After all, from a time traveler's perspective, the past is the future. Feedback?
  8. Re: Schrodinger's cat So you're saying that multiple realities will not cause a mass conservation problem as long as minute violations of the law are allowed? That makes sense. It's possible that the different dimensions are so separated (in a relative sense) that what is only a microscopic anomaly in one translates to a large anomaly in another. For example, a virtual particle in one dimension may translate to this dimension as a large amount of mass and, while the vp may exist only for a fraction of a fraction in that dimension, it exists for a much longer time in this one. That could explaim where the 'missing' mass of the universe is. It's a nice theory.
  9. Re: Schrodinger's cat That's a good stance to take. But if the wavefunction never collapses, what determines the observed outcome of experiments like Schrodinger's Cat or the first atomic bomb exploding at Los Alamos?
  10. Re: Schrodinger's cat Ok, fair enough. Here is another, and far more important, question. Calabi-Yau states that the universe is folded into 11 dimensions. That's the current figure, anyway. Now if the universe contains 11 dimensions, does that limit every number of possible worlds to 11; or, as Everett said, are there indeed an infinite number of worlds, each as legitimate as any other. In other words, are there only 11 worlds in which the cat is either alive or dead? Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that that is the case. There are only two possibilities: a live cat and a dead one. There cannot be the same number of each if there are only 11 dimensions (i.e. 11 different ways of seeing the cat). One state must win over the other by at least one, and it would be that state which is observed. We only observe the wavefunction's collapse. Let's go ahead and say Everett was correct, there are an infinite number of dimensions and infinitely many observations possible. Taking the fact that we only observe one thing, we have to conclude that what we observe has the greatest number of upturns. It's like flipping a coin and having more heads than tails, or better yet like flipping many coins many times and always getting more heads than tails. But if you're always getting more of one than the other, that implies a finite number of worlds. In that case, who's right; Calabi-Yau or Everett?
  11. Re: Schrodinger's cat But what collapses the wave function? Saying that time travel is possible because a temporal divergence exists prior to wave function collapse is not saying anything at all.
  • Create New...