Jump to content

John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.


Concept
 Share

Recommended Posts

John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

John Titor said himself that the multiple worlds theory (Many-worlds interpretation) was indeed correct which meant that paradoxes are impossible. With this being said, when he jumped back in time, he was in the world we know, and those events only happened in his original world.

 

So could the events that he described be due to happen, at some point. Starting with CERNs masive facility coming online, which of course is the Large Hadron Collider, the catalyst for time travel and the future described by John Titor.

 

On another note, on jumping back into his own time, he could have moved into another world, that wasn't his original or back to where he came from? :eek:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Kanigo,

 

Doesn't that violates newtons second law?

No more than any other time travel scenario. If E = mc^2 then it doesn't "matter", pun intended, what form of mass-energy is subjected to the time displacement. Sending a beam of EM radiation through time is no different than sending a time traveler through time other than the time traveler's mass-energy would be much greater than what could be beamed away in a short period of time.

 

Even without a time travel scenario strict energy conservation, in the Classical sense, is problematic. Newton's view was that time, energy and mass are global constants. In Einstein's view of Special Relativity they are not constants. It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is a constant.

 

Take the case of a space ship at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth. The ship shares a portion of the spin angular momentum of the Earth because the Earth spins and the ship is attached to same.

 

Launch the ship far into space. It has taken a portion of the Earth's net angular momentum with it. Earth's mass-energy is reduced by an infinitesimal but measurable amount.

 

In the strictly Classical sense one can say that there is nothing lost or gained globally by this event. But that assumes that global time (universal time) is simultaneous with time here on Earth. But that's not consistent with one aspect of Special Relativity that we rarely talk about - seperation in space. Seperation in space, even if the seperation is done very slowly so that v/c is virtually zero (no SR time dilation) still causes clocks to desynchronize. We no longer can say that the global mass-energy metric is Psi(e,t) - a function describing the total mass-energy at a specified global time - because there is no time that is everywhere simultaneous.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

John Titor said himself that the multiple worlds theory (Many-worlds interpretation) was indeed correct which meant that paradoxes are impossible. With this being said, when he jumped back in time, he was in the world we know, and those events only happened in his original world.

Concept,

 

Don't take Titor too literally here. He didn't show any sign that he had any more knowledge of Hugh Everett's paper than the typical New Age pop-sci Internet user.

 

After writing the paper and receiving his PhD Everett totally left the physics community and never followed up on it. Had he not written a paper that the pop-sci culture liked they would have, instead, labelled him a part of the Black Op Military Illuminati. That's right. Instead of becoming a physicist he became a software engineer for DoD working on top secret computer gaming theory, i.e war game scenarios and military computer-software development. Now in my view he was one of the good guys; but I'm not one of the New Age pop-sci crowd.

 

In any case, take a good look at what MWI actually says. If you do that then you have to conclude that Titor's "mission" was silliness. Saving his or any other world from a disaster that his world had already faced is futile within the concept of MWI. Every permutation of the events has already been played out. If we don't ever face the scenario that he said that his world faced, that's not unexpected within MWI. Our world just happens to be one of the infinite permutations that were different resolutions of the probability wave. It would be the same no matter what or who did whatever or failed to do whatever. It's gaming theory, probability, chance and random results.

 

On the other hand, MWI has never been accepted by the QM community as a whole if for no other reason than Everett's paper was presented as a generalized interpretation of standard QM that attempted to integrate GR but didn't provide the specifics as to how it works, even in Everett's mind.

 

Remember, MWI is not a theory of QM. It is an interpretation of QM. There's a big difference between the two.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Take the case of a space ship at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth. The ship shares a portion of the spin angular momentum of the Earth because the Earth spins and the ship is attached to same.

That is possibly this most important thing I have ever heard.

 

Now, many things make sense.

 

I could say Kinetic energy--and most people would understand it...But one of the most important things I have heard, in a while-none the less.

 

Without fail, thank you Darby.

 

Oh one last thing for fun, I was under the assumption that spin cannot be measured. But I do like your interpretation and it filled many holes in my understanding, that I could not state openly, even if they seem backward thinking-(to me, and maybe, you, I assume, at this level we have gone past theory on this???)

 

That statement was a descriptive quality that will be helpful in my future endeavors-even as shallow as they might seem to you-at the moment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

So anyway- I am watching the Star Trek issue, with the Medusan ambassador-and the blind Dr lady.

 

The medusan ambassador is in a box.

 

The lady DR and her jelous lover tries to kill the ambassador, the box opens and the jealous lover is driven mad.

 

Of course he goes to engineering, beats up everybody- and projects the Enterprise out of the galaxy/ at warp 9.8 to be safe from (with a slash/time warp) to be safe from the ambassador.

 

Spock, makes the statement that they have no reference or measurable anything to get back where they were.

 

At this point, this statement that Darby gave me kicks in.

 

We know the Enterprise still has "spin" to it from the galaxy it just left- in effect sitting still in space, yet moving in reference to what? It is unmeasurable.

 

Long story short-Mind meld with the medusan ambassador- who pilots the ship mysteriously ;) back into almost the exact last know position.

 

Haha! Spin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

We know the Enterprise still has "spin" to it from the galaxy it just left- in effect sitting still in space, yet moving in reference to what? It is unmeasurable.

Kanigo,

 

Just a point regarding motion. All motions aren't necessarily relative.

 

In SR the relative motions are uniform "linear translations". Unaccelerated displacements in space in a straight line with reference to some set of coordinates taken to be the rest frame.

 

Isolated systems that have angular motions, like spins and orbits, and other accelarated motions aren't necessarily described relative to some other set of coordinates (if the system is isolated there aren't any other coordinate frames to compare the motions to). The systems can be viewed as self-referencing and you have no problem describing the motions because there are forces similar to gravitation at work that can be detected, measured and used to make the description (the equivalence principle).

 

Galileo used this idea in at least one of his dialogues. Remember, relativistic dymanics was not invented by Einstein or even Newton. The principle had been around for at least a thousand years.

 

Aristotle drew on the writings of Empedocles to postulate a finite velocity for light. Galileo and others also suspected that light traveled at a finite velocity even though they knew that the velocity was huge. Galileo wrote about this in his dialogue Two New Sciences through Simplico.

 

Galileo knew that the stars seemed to turn about the Earth through 360 degrees every 24 hours. He also knew that the stars were extremely far away. He'd studied the moons of Jupiter and discovered that they didn't always reappear "at the right time" when they should have come out from behind Jupiter. It depended on the time of the year on Earth. He attributed this lag to the consequence of the speed of light and the fact that the Earth and Jupiter must orbit the sun. He knew that at one point in Earth's orbit it was closest to Jupiter and six months later it was farthest. It was at those times that the lag was greatest. A pretty good experimental proof for the finite speed of light.

 

What does this have to do with not all motions being relative in the SR sense? In SR all motions ar relative. Each frame can assume the other is either the rest or moving frame. If all motions ar relative then Galileo could assume that the Earth is the rest frame and that the stars orbit the Earth.

 

But if that was the case then even our closest star outside the Solar system, Alpha Centauri, is a problem. If we jump ahead in history to a time when we now know that Alpha Centauri is ~4.4 light years away we can see the problem. For Alpha Centauri to orbit the Earth (radius 4.4 LY) in 24 hours it would have to be traveling at about 1.15 LY/hour. Pretty good proof against the Geocentric philosophy. And pretty good proof that not all motions are relative in the SR sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

I can see a system being isolated in that case, Darby, which is why I found it so weird they mentioned the Time Warp aspect.

 

Follow me for a second, having had to go close to the speed of light to escape the system in the first place and evem if they shut off the warp drives, I was under the assumption they would still drift relative to their last location.

 

Being inside the expanding and spinning"galaxy" or solar system, to maintain position would require having to maintain a certain symmetry in motion relative to other bodies while inside that system.(In effect at being at rest, is NOT at rest-relatively speaking:) )

 

Now if it is just a galaxy as far as I can surmise, they are only speaking a threshold of some type, but the fastest method to get out of that system could be devised.

 

Wherein my point, that you would still carry a relative spin in relation to that system and getting back in may not be just about retracing your steps to get back to your relative location that you started in.

 

Now you were implying /stated that the independent system could be measured-in linear values -in this case(episode) it could not. In fact they could take no measurements- because all the information was and I quote "Unreadable and uncomprehendable"

 

Just tossing it out there for the fun of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Kanigo,

 

If we read the Star Trek theory correctly there isn't really a problem with SR. The Enterprise doesn't violate any FTL laws. Instead, the warp drive "folds" spacetime similar to a wormhole. The ship takes a short-cut across spacetime to get from A to B faster than what a photon's geodesic would be when traveling through ordinary spacetime. The Enterprise arrives earlier than the photon that started its trip from A. No FTL velocities are required. True, some weird and so far unproved physics are involved but, still, in theory it's possible.

 

But your concern about just how one navigates vast spacetime intervals with some degree of certainty is well founded. Traveling from A, an observable, to B an unobservable, isn't anything like traveling from New York to Los Angeles. Los Angeles is observable with many electronic methods from New York. However traveling from New York in 2008 to Los Angeles in 1975 is far, far outside the light cone of New York in 2008. Hitting that target isn't a matter of dialing "New York, 1975" on a digital instrument panel...if that spacetime coordinate actually exists relative to 2008. The theoretical physics is a lot more than "daunting".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Yeah, it had occurred to me later when I was sleeping, that the warp drive itself was "literally" the chink in this whole scenario.

 

In fact, it isn't linear travel-as in a beam of light would travel- in effect all that related spin on your craft would still be there-even having warped space.

 

Trippy concept, though.

 

Even though I cannot do the math/simply outside of my scope of education, I enjoy the relationships-in a more metaphysical way. Which of course, has its own merit were I to apply my time to such an endeavor.

 

Really doesn't concern anyone but me and my simply fascination with the scope of such a project.

 

Seriously thanks for sharing,Darby.

 

(I really have not much respect for some of these threads anymore, because most of em are nonsense, but they do provide an avenue to breach other subjects that would not come up otherwise, which in itself is a gift :yum:)

 

In fact gets me back--to those ultra sensitive gravity sensors that Boomer kept talking about-which of course would be required in this scenario also.

 

Hey ,I will toss this out there also under that circumstance--all that shaking and slaming that happens on the enterprise for dramatic effect, is exactly what it would be, dramatic effect, I will never look at Star Trek the same way again--they better only be shaking on impulse engines or I'm calling hoax! LOL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

In other words, gravity holds things as they are, and light because of energy (or energy) tends to "push" into the future. It is only assumed that the future was there in the first place because of physics laws, physics laws that may also be assumptions on what really is going on in this Universe. Expansion and Contraction, push and pull, ying and yang, different views of reality and the possibility of a Multi-verse. Well, off to something else.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Kanigo,

 

In fact gets me back--to those ultra sensitive gravity sensors that Boomer kept talking about-which of course would be required in this scenario also.

Yeah, Titor's Wiggle-VGL system.

 

I was a red-herrring thrown in to give some explanation for how he might navigate through spacetime. But it was sci-fi crap. His explanation was that if the Earth's gravitational field changed the gadget would lock up and come to a stop wherever it was.

 

That's nice but the Earth's gravitational field is constantly changing. There are several factors that cause the constant change but the main one's are: the Moon, the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. Other factors are plate tectonics and the Earth's iron-nickel core.

 

The motion of the Moon alone is so complex that we can't predict using math alone it's precise location WRT the Earth for more than about 30 days at a time. And it's location does affect the Earth's gravitational field. The molten core spins somewhat independently and faster than the outter crust of the Earth. That affects the gravitational field. Jupiter and Saturn play out a very complex orbital dance with the Earth that changes each of the three planet's orbits. The cycles of this dance are multiple harmonics based on 12 years (Saturn's orbital period) and 30 years (Jupiter's orbital period). The Earth's orbit wobbles and changes it's shape somewhat with many, many degrees of freedom that we don't fully understand. That changes the Earth's gravitational field. And like the Moon, we can't predict with arbitrary accuracy the precise locations of Jupiter and Saturn over periods longer than a few months.

 

Titor's initial trip to 1975 had a spacetime interval of 61 LY's. That's a bit more than the 30 day window that our orbital mechanics ability to predict the location of the Moon can offer. The moon is only 1.28 light seconds away. His gadget should have shut down because the gravitational field of Earth had varied greatly during the trip.

 

But, really, who cares what the gravitational field of the Earth is today, in 1975, 1998, 2000 or 2001 relative to time travel? It has nothing to do with navigating from A to B. That's the real red-herring. It was totally irrelevent. The drill is to know your current spacetime coordinate and determine your target spacetime coordinate. See above re. our inability to predict the 30 day Moon window vs. predicting a 76 year window.

 

This goes back to the original thoughts about our current discussion. When you leave 2036 you carry along with you the momenta of your complex motions through spacetime. Angular and linear momenta. You have to be able to very accurately determine the precise location of Earth 1975 and hope to God that there is no angle subtended by the 1975 coordinate frame relative to the 2036 coordinate frame - and there's no reason to make the assumption that they are the same.

 

At a minimum you'll carry a linear velocity of ~1609 km/hr because at the surface that's the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation. You might actually find Earth 1975 accurately but if your coordinate frames are tilted WRT each other you're going to crash into the planet at about Mach 1.2 or begin a climb at some angle at Mach 1.2. A stealthy appearance might be problematic for the ol' Corvette when it makes its sonic boom, followed soon thereafter by it's boom when it punches a large hole in the ground.

 

That velocity pales, of course, to the orbital velocity that would be carried along. That's ~108,000 km/hr. Any angular misalignment between the two coordinate frames and Titor might become a 2 ton meteor hitting Central Florida at up to 60 km/sec (this depends on the details of the misalignment - a 180 degree misalignment and it's a head-on collission between two objects traveling at 30 km/sec). Not a good thing for Celebration and Orlando. The 'Vette and Johnny would vaporize but the 700 lb. motor block and the two 200 lb black holes would make a nice splash...hopefully not downtown Orlando or Celebration.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Haha, That is hilarious you figured out that LY interval for a trip to 1975.

 

61LY, nice coordination, and as an added benefit you also figured out the braking mechanism.

 

Its not pretty, but it does get you there. ;)

 

In fact it reminds me of those "Man Made" /"reengineered" ufo stories that stated that they ended up down range- a certain distance and I also see how it came to be entered into the story line, almost word for word. Hadn't drawn those conclusions before until you pointed them out, with this example.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

I think the MWI is akin to a tree falling in the woods. If nobody is around to hear it, then it did not make a noise. Likewise, although multiple world possibilities are infinite, the ones

 

"played" out are limited.

 

Going back to change something in the future is futile only to the one who must go back and change the event. Everyone else benefits, should the change result in a positive outcome. Titor, if true, if successful, was a martyr. ...according to MWI.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

If nobody is around to hear it, then it did not make a noise.

That's not true in the sense of any known physical law. Simply because no one was present to detect the EM radiation caused by the collision of the tree and the ground doesn't mean that there was no sound. If that was the case then QM, SR, GR and Newtonian physics would be totally out the window. Yet experimental evidence proves beyond any doubt that they are all correct within the limits of their domains.

 

A tree that falls and collides with the ground most definitely makes a sound - assuming that the tree falls in a gassious atmosphere. No gas, no sound - even though there is a detectable reaction with the ground.

 

Even if the tree was planted in a vaccuous "atmosphere", when it fell to the ground there would be a sound transmitted through the matter that comprises "the ground" - even though there would be no sound transmitted through the vacuum.

 

Sound, per se. is nothing more than a reaction of molecules that are accelerated by a force imparted on them. We hear the sound simply because the force is ultimately transferred to the tympanic membrane in our ears, detected by nerve endings and retransmitted as electro-chemical impulses to our brain. There's nothing metaphysical involved in the process other than how we preceive the reaction in our brain. Whether we're there or not changes nothing about the general process.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Going back to change something in the future is futile only to the one who must go back and change the event. Everyone else benefits, should the change result in a positive outcome. Titor, if true, if successful, was a martyr. ...according to MWI.

First, there's no evidence that Titor was a martyr. He'd have to "die for the cause" for that to be the case and we have no evidence that he did that.

 

Second, MWI says nothing of a sort. MWI says that rather than the wave form collapsing to a single outcome in a single world, it doesn't collapse at all. Every possible outcome contained in the state vector, which is theoretically infinite, is played out in individual alternate realities. In other words, the outcome is completely beyond any deterministic intervention. The world that you perceive is simply a random effect. You perceive what you perceive because you're just one of an infinite number of "yous" who happens to be in the alternate reality where the outcome you perceive is being played out. You have absolutely no control over the outcome no matter what you do. Any action that you take just causes another series of infinite branching effects.

 

In Titor's case that means that if he wanted to prevent "A" then there are an infinite number of worlds where he was sucessful and an infinite number of worlds where he was unsuccessful. The effect in each of those infinite number of worlds was to cause further infinite branch worlds where every possible permutation of the effect was played out - and the individual results resulted in further infinite permutating worlds, and on, and on, and on...infinitely.

 

According to this QM interpretation (it's not really a theory, it's an interpretation of QM) there's neither a benefit nor a detriment to the receivers of the action. It's just a random outcome determined by a flip of an infinite sided coin that places the alternate "yous" in an infinite number of alternate realities. That's MWI.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

The act of a tree falling only falls if someone or something (ex. video camera, taper recorder, etc.) senses it. Otherwise, there is no proof that the current state of existence of a previously fallen tree transferred its states from standing to falling in anything other than an instantaneous change of state. In other words, the tree was standing in one instant and was lying down in the very next instant with no intermediate states.

 

In order for the above statement to be logical, you must understand that the physical world is wholly made up of material based energy (matter, atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, lepons, bisons, etc.). While on the otherhand, our reality is based in perception, or thought-based energies. These two subsets of dimensional existence interact through what is commonly referred to as "time or timeline". The two subsets are symbiotic in nature and without the perception of the tree falling, in motion, through time, then it does not fall. The tree simply exists in two different states one moment to teh next. Part of the reason why while all infinite possibilities exist, only ones interconnected with perception actually happen. in otherwords, there is only one time line and one universe until the first time travel happens to split off one parallel universe.

 

In regards to the possibility of Titor. What is the difference between dieing and realizing that your entire world and existence as you know it is gone forever? Imagine your best friend, girlfriend, wife, kids all do not exist or not know who you are. Your memories becoming faint with time, as there is nothing anymore to reinforce them. Think about foe a moment in your own life..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Paladius,

 

The act of a tree falling only falls if someone or something (ex. video camera, taper recorder, etc.) senses it. Otherwise, there is no proof that the current state of existence of a previously fallen tree transferred its states from standing to falling in anything other than an instantaneous change of state. In other words, the tree was standing in one instant and was lying down in the very next instant with no intermediate states.

 

In order for the above statement to be logical, you must understand that the physical world is wholly made up of material based energy (matter, atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, lepons, bisons, etc.). While on the otherhand, our reality is based in perception, or thought-based energies. These two subsets of dimensional existence interact through what is commonly referred to as "time or timeline". The two subsets are symbiotic in nature and without the perception of the tree falling, in motion, through time, then it does not fall. The tree simply exists in two different states one moment to teh next.

I'll give you one thing...your language is elegant. So elegant that it may take some people in and allow them to believe you. But I am afraid you've made an error.

 

Our perception is, first of all, not a "dimensional existence". Moreover, our perception is not a wholly separate and disjoined subset of reality as compared to the energetic subset of the tree. In fact, if you drew a Venn diagram of the totality of reality, the energetic subset, and the perceptive subset, you would see that the perceptive subset is wholly contained within the energetic subset. This is a fact because:

 

1) Our body and brain, upon which our perception executes as a system function, is based on energetics.

 

2) The perception is merely a model representation of the larger energetic subset of the universe around it.

 

This representative model has a big problem: It is necessarily discontinuous. Necessarily so because a single mind cannot perceive all of the energetics in the universe around it to be able to make a continuous model. Hence, if the mind and its sensory apparatus was not present in the space-time manifold where/when the tree actually did fall, it cannot represent that in its model and this then creates the discontinuity.

 

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the energetic nature of reality is continuous on the macroscopic scale (such as a tree falling in the woods). It is only on the quantum scale, as Darby has often pointed out, that events appear discontinuous. The odds of all the atoms of the tree experiencing simultaneous discontinuous quantum events which resulted in the tree going from standing to lying down in a quantum-femtosecond....are so high as to be infinite. Beyond this, for all we know the quantum discontinuity which quantum theory describes (it is still a theory) could just be another case of our sensory apparati being limited in such a way that they report a discontinuity that is not really there.

 

But nice try... did I match your elegant wording? ;) You'll probably say no. :)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

So when did Schrodinger's cat die?

 

And how did a cat become a tree?

 

Ahh-- the human mind is a wonderful tool.

Exactly. And if I am reading between your lines correctly, you are hinting that Schrodinger's cat is a Gedankenexperiment... a thought experiment. Schroedinger concocted this Gedankenexperiment as a means to help people understand what he was proposing about reality at the quantum level. I do not believe he, nor any serious scientist since his time, has taken the tale of Schroedinger's cat (pun intended) as being a factual, macroscopic example of the collapse of the wave function.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: John Titor. Why it didn't come true.. yet.

 

Yet in scale and scope, of a time-line. we can assume that the tree is fallen, while it is still standing, it is a measure of potential, to fall.

 

We can precipitate a circumstance, that will cause the falling of the tree/or cat, yet the Larger the scale of measurement, over time, we have a reference, that we still know the tree WILL FALL.

 

That is why I enjoyed, your meta-data, conversation so much, Ray.

 

Again, we do not have to measure gravity to know its there.

 

Or the fact the cat is already dead.

 

Once again, stated so clearly, It is a matter of perception, thank you Carlos.

 

But that would imply, that Carlos was watching-after he tried to kill the cat-- LOL

 

Sheer silliness. What possessed, Bohm to rewind the cat,when the cat would die again?

 

nobody cared about the poor tree.:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...