Jump to content

Conservation of Mass VS Time Travel


Designer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Conservation of Mass VS Time Travel.

 

Time travel fails the conservation of

 

mass(energy) theory. Below here is the

 

test that will make it fail.

 

Here is the test.

 

1. Stand in front of the time machine for

 

six hours.

 

2. Go in the time machine for a 1 minute

 

trip back 1 hours.

 

3. Get out of the time machine and invite

 

other self into the time machine.

 

4. repeat 2. and 3. six times.

 

5. At the end reverse everything before the

 

hour is up or else another paradox will

 

occur in which people will spontaneously

 

disappear out of the time machine. Since

 

they would never be there to pick up in the

 

first place if you know what I mean. This

 

is another problem with this scenario.

 

So now you see the problem with this conservation

 

of mass problem in which all you are standing

 

in front of the time machines to be picked

 

up and now there are 6 of you for a short period

 

of time.

 

Everything in this scenario does not make sense

 

since you can't make mass out of nothing by

 

creating people.

 

So as you can see this is one of my problems

 

with time travel. Now I am losing faith with

 

my time travel religion. Can some one help

 

me out of this problem.

 

Note the branching universe idea does not cut

 

it since we do it 6 times.

 

My main question is when does the universe create

 

a separate you. Is it after one hour, one day,

 

one year or 40 year.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But doesn't time travel 'violate' the Law of Conservation of Mass any which way you cut it? The traveler appears from nowhere (mass gain) and departs to somewhere (mass loss).

 

But if this can happen, there is no "Law" of conservation of mass. On the other hand, in this case it might be said that the mass really wasn't destroyed, but simply transferred elsewhere where it is undetectable.

 

BUT...: if it goes out of existence while it is elsewhere there is no way that could be known, (except by God) which makes it an empiric observation. There is really no way this so-called law (mass-energy conservation) can actually be validated. But it is a good rule of thumb. PB

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PackerBacker

 

If you can make people out of thin

 

air then time travel can make a

 

lot of money.

 

Re due the experiment by replacing

 

it with money. Start out with

 

one thousand dollar by the end

 

of the trip you get 6 thousand

 

dollar. That a lot of money for

 

6 hours of work isn't it. LOL

 

The only problem is the serial

 

number will be the same. LOL.

 

:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time travel fails the conservation of

 

mass(energy) theory.

Only in the Classical limit. In General Relativity conservation of mass-energy is not necessarily a global law in the same sense of Classical physics.

 

Even if you look at it Classically the paradox can be somwewhat whisked away. If I look at the world as a 4-D set of coordinates, x, y, z & t I can move a lump of mass from Point A to Point B, each having different spatial coordinates and we have no problem with a seeming paradox. If I move it far enough away, say several light years, and don't tell you that I've done it you won't complain that your local frame of reference is now "missing" mass-energy. An observer several light years distant isn't going to complain that mass-energy suddenly appeared in his frame thus violating some conservation law. That's pretty straight forward.

 

Now we convert the coordinate frame from normal 3-D Cartesian coordinates with a time axis to 4-D Minkowskian coordinates.- x1, x2, x3, x4. The spatial and time coordinates are all the same. Now move the mass-energy from Point A to Point B where only one axis, which happens to be the time coordinate, changes. Same result. The mass left one 4-D coordinate and ended up at another 4-D coordinate. No paradox. One location lost mass-energy and another gained the same amount of mass-energy. Net zero - mass-energy was conserved. It's just a rotation of the frame so that the mass-energy moves along a different axis.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby

 

I guess what you are saying is

 

if I move back in time there

 

will be no money(person) out

 

there since it is already

 

in the time machine.

 

So the money(person) outside

 

of the time machine will

 

disappear since it has already

 

move on the 4D time axis to

 

where the money(person) is in

 

the time machine.

 

:confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Designer:

 

The only problem is the serial

 

number will be the same. LOL.

!

 

No problem. Gold doesn't have a serial number ;)

 

P.S. I have a story in the fiction (HDRkid) section called "Freddy the Time Traveler(1)."

 

Suppose you are seen off on by your pals on a trip ten years in the future. The trip seems to take only a few minutes. When you get there there they are--a little older and worse for wear. Their question for you is "What have you been doing for the last ten years?" They've lived through ten years day after day. They recall waving buh-bye as you disappear, and exactly ten years later, saying hi as you pop back into existence. Where have you been?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby

 

You said there would be light that

 

is far away of the object and

 

through time travel an object that

 

is up close.

 

My point is this the object that is

 

far away is a mirage(not there) so

 

if you touch it it would not be there

 

since it is old light. But the close

 

object is real and touchable thus

 

conservation of energy.

 

But if you go in the time machine to

 

that far away point money is a mirage

 

and would not be there physically

 

right since the old light has move off and

 

the image of it there is now new light

 

from the object not being there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guess what you are saying is

 

if I move back in time there

 

will be no money(person) out

 

there since it is already

 

in the time machine.

 

So the money(person) outside

 

of the time machine will

 

disappear since it has already

 

move on the 4D time axis to

 

where the money(person) is in

 

the time machine.

No, not exactly. What I'm saying is that we move "stuff" around all day long, from one place to another, and we don't see that as violating any conservation law. We somewhat arbitrarily defind the bounds of our "closed system" (our house, our yard, work space, etc.). When we move massive objects around inside the closed system we say that the total mass-energy didn't change. The mass-energy was simply placed at another location within the bounds of the system as we have arbitrarily defined it. If we move the mass outside the bounds of our arbitrarily defined system we still don't see any paradox. The car was in the driveway this morning. We defined our closed system as our yard, located in California. Someone drives the car to Nova Scotia, far outside the bounds of our closed system. No problem. We just redefine our closed system as the North American continent and we are satisfied that the mass-energy of our car is conserved. This morning it was in our driveway. At some point in the future it is in Canada. Take a video of the event. Run it backwards. The car, in the future is in Nova Scotia and moves in space-time toward the past and ends up in the driveway in California. No apparent paradox.

 

If we define the closed system as to include a time axis, making it 4-D, then moving mass-energy through time, forward or backwards, doesn't change the total mass-energy inside the system. We just moved it from "here" to "there", acknowledging that we moved it along both the time axis and the spatial axes, except that along the time axis we are moving toward the past rather than toward the future (-t rather than +t). The car (the molecules, atoms and particles) doesn't care what direction in time it's moving.

 

Admittedly, the examples that I've used today and yesterday are very simplistic and more metaphysical than physical. There are more complex situations where the closed system can't be so loosely defined. There are thermodynamic events (irreversible events) that can't be undone by simply running the film backwards. It would be a paradox that can't be quite so easily explained away, as I've done above, if we see broken cups "unbreak" and form the shards into a complete unblemished cup. Running the film backwards doesn't explain that one.

 

And Packerbacker got it right about gold. Subatomic particles don't have serial numbers. All protons look just like every other proton (same for the other particle classes). Even if you move the "stuff" through time you really can't say that it was the same stuff (exactly the same molecules, atoms and particles) that left Point A and arrived at Point B. Sure, it probably is for the most part but there's no experiment that you can run to proove it other than to conclude that statistically the probability is X that Y% of the stuff at Point B is the same stuff that was originally at Point A.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole cop out of this thing

 

is the John Titor explanation.

 

He would say that if you go back

 

in time the gold would not be there

 

because of temporal divergence, in

 

essence you would be on another time

 

line or world line. My problem with

 

this is who decides which time line

 

to put you on with a temporal

 

divergence in effect? :confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole cop out of this thing

 

is the John Titor explanation.

 

He would say that if you go back

 

in time the gold would not be there

 

because of temporal divergence, in

 

essence you would be on another time

 

line or world line. My problem with

 

this is who decides which time line

 

to put you on with a temporal

 

divergence in effect?

I hear you on that one. I suppose that the best answer to your question is that the sci-fi writer gets to decide which "time line" you landed on. It's called literary license. If the writer has a stumbling block in the plot that needs a fix, s/he invents one. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as you can see this is one of my problems

 

with time travel. Now I am losing faith with

 

my time travel religion. Can some one help

 

me out of this problem.

 

Note the branching universe idea does not cut

 

it since we do it 6 times.

 

My main question is when does the universe create

 

a separate you. Is it after one hour, one day,

 

one year or 40 year.

 

Life is a choice we made to learn truth.

Well first of all time travel itself should not be a religion. It is a way to view the future or the past and to change the future or the past or create problems such as paradoxs which ever is the case. When does the universe create a seperate you. Well that depends on your beliefs of alternate realities or alternate universes. My guess is everyone has another you right now in another dimension but there is only one you. And when you die sooner or later you will be born again because all you really are is information being represented by energy sub-atomicly. So, sooner or later the conditions will be right in this universe, or another universe, or even another dimension for your rebirth. How long take to happen? My guess is not long at all to a very long time depending on what the actual physics really are for time, space, and other dimensions of reality. You see not all that is actually known for sure at this time but we do know that other universes and maybe alternate universes in other dimensions may exist. I don,t think our universe would be here right now if conditions did not exist for other universes to exist too. So the potential for all of us to re-live our lives again and even do that differently than we did the first time around is there to think about and explore.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby

 

If you put gold on the outside

 

of the time machine for 6 hours.

 

And at the time of 6 hours you

 

go into the time machine and

 

after every hour take the gold

 

ending up with 6 time the

 

original amount of gold.

 

You really had a good idea by

 

making a boundary system. But

 

if the boundary is within the

 

6 hours for your system then

 

the gold should not be outside

 

of the time machine due to the

 

conservation of energy/mass.

 

If I am wrong about my conclusion

 

tell me about it and wether there

 

would be gold out of the time

 

machine or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put gold on the outside

 

of the time machine for 6 hours.

 

And at the time of 6 hours you

 

go into the time machine and

 

after every hour take the gold

 

ending up with 6 time the

 

original amount of gold.

This is one of the not so easily explained away paradoxes - the situation where the gold and the time machine replicate infinitely and where the time machine invents itself. It's an inconsistent paradox.

 

The quantum mechanics of the situation seem to prevent this paradox on several levels - blue sheets, wormhole collapse, Pauli's exclusion principle, etc. But no one really knows for sure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Time travel does not violate the law of conservation of Mass. No mass is created or destroyed it's just moved from place to place along the time line, much the same as teleportation would move an object from place to place along the a physical plane.

 

Time travel does ofcourse mess with the bucket theory, as it changes the total mass occupied by the universe at any given point of time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically what you are

 

saying when he time travels

 

back in time with the gold

 

there will be no gold outside

 

the time machine.

Designer,

 

I'm still not sure what you're getting at but there is a paradox as I've indicated above (and I'm thinking that you too are concerned about a paradoxical situation).

 

Assume that a time traveler starts and finishes in the same universe. The assumption might or might not be valid because we really don't know the answer - but let's go with the assumption for now:

 

You have two really trick machines. The first machine has the ability to extract every molecule of gold from the entire planet, right down to the core, and reassemble it as a huge block of refined 24 k gold. It reassembles the gold inside the cargo bay of your rather large time machine.

 

You transport the gold into the past and drop it off.

 

Next you return to the future but your target frame is before you extracted the gold. You now have all the unrefined gold still in the ground as well as the large block of gold that you originally transported to the past. You then have your refining machine extract all the gold again which would also include the gold block. Transport it back to the same time as when you first dropped the block off in the past. It's still there. You drop off the new block which is twice the mass of the first block. You now have the gold in the ground, one block with a mass equal to the gold in the ground and another block with twice the mass of the gold in the ground - together its four times the total mass that originally existed.

 

The paradox: Where did all of the "extra" gold come form? Considering that you dropped off both blocks in the past, when you first returned to the future why didn't you see two gold blocks instead of just one? If when you returned the first time and did see two blocks, as should be logically the case, what would happen if you simply stopped the experiment there and never made the second trip? Where did the second block of gold come from? How did you, in that case, manage to violate the cause-effect relationship by eliminating the cause altogether?

 

How you managed to violate conservation of mass-energy might end up being the least important question.

 

The experiment, if we accept the assumptions, indicates that you can create infinite mass from a finite mass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Designer,

 

In the example that I gave above you really don't need two machines. All you need is one gold coin. The example holds. In the experiment replace "all of the gold on the planet" with "one gold coin". The implied effect is that you can end up with an infinite number of gold coins that are mystically created from "nothing" and without an underlying cause.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know the answer to this.

 

But if there was time travel they should

 

be the richest people in the world if

 

they perform this trick(GOLD). LOL

 

All I am saying depending on the result of

 

this then will determine wether time travel

 

is possible or impossible?

 

In conclusion I believe mass move along with

 

time. After every tick mass move along the

 

time axis and all previous tick there is

 

nothing left or else there will be a build up

 

of mass over small periods of time.

 

But the problem with this ideas if you go

 

back in time nothing really should exist;

 

just space. LOL. Thus time travel impossible.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that really get

 

me is if mass exist over the

 

whole time line then you must

 

create mass constantly to

 

manifest the future. It

 

gets a little crazy. Where

 

does the energy exist to

 

do this constant creation

 

of matter for the future.

 

This is a question that is

 

really hard to answer :confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both situation don't work

 

If you go back in time and there

 

is no gold there then who took

 

the gold? GOD.

 

And if the gold is there then mass

 

must be constantly being created

 

and that a lot for every day going

 

into the future.

 

Everyone will say to solve this

 

problem there has to be divergence

 

and that is what John Titor would say.

 

But that would make an intelligent

 

universe to prevent you from getting

 

more gold.

 

I am beginning to loose my faith

 

in time travel. :confused:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving mass in any number of dimensions is not paradoxical. A simple mathematical example would state that the integral of mass over all of 4-D space is unchanged, though the mass at a given coordinate may change. Suppose m(x,y,z,t) is a scalar field describing all the mass in space and time, and | is the integral operator.

 

||||m(x,y,z,t)dx dy dz dt = M (constant)

 

The static interpretation of the universe states that m(x,y,z,t) never changes. Thus, it is only the focus of consciousness at a particular time that creates the illusion of movement.

 

The dynamic interpretation states that m(x,y,z,t) can change. In this case one must define something analogous to Gauss' law for magnetism, except for mass, in order to say that there are no massive monopoles. That is, mass is always moving either in space or in time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know the answer to this.

 

But if there was time travel they should

 

be the richest people in the world if

 

they perform this trick(GOLD). LOL

Actually, you wouldn't be rich at all. In theory you could have more gold than there is iron. Iront, being less plentiful, might be more valuable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But doesn't time travel 'violate' the Law of Conservation of Mass any which way you cut it? The traveler appears from nowhere (mass gain) and departs to somewhere (mass loss).

I'd agree on some lvls from the mind's eye yes it does. 'But it's all perception right?

 

Does a subatomic particle manifesting violate these laws as well?

 

Where in 'time' was the law that governed nothing just prior to observation?

 

Instead of thinking of it as 'time travel', would it not be the manipulation of time itself?

 

If you could manipulate time effectively, would you rather immediately 'travel' in it,

 

or witness it standing still?

 

Some people think of themsevles moving while everything is static. It makes me think of a pulse that can't be explained.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...