Jump to content

Time-travel Paradoxes!


Paul
 Share

Recommended Posts

DA Viper,

as you said earlier..."Actually, in science, "Multiverse" theory is something that has NEVER been proven. For lack of evidence. It crops up from time to time as a way to explain certain SEEMING paradoxes like the EPR double slit experiment with polarized light. But then, just because it can be used to explain something doesn't mean it is so.

 

Tiny invisible rubber bands could explain gravity if it weren't for the fact that it simply isn't true.

 

Multiverse Theory is not automatically true because it "explains" some things. Lot's of things explain "some" things. Most of them are NOT true.

 

So help me here. Where did multiverse come from as a theory? Where is the observable evidence of it's existence and the experiments to back it up that can be duplicated with certainty and repitition?

 

Like the speed of light for example. Or Time Dilation which is so easy to demonstrate now it's considered commonplace. (It occurs on every single filght of the Space Shuttle.) At least science is TRYING to prove "Frame Dragging" which IS an experiment under way.

 

But "Multiverse"? Who can demonstrate this with integrity?"

_____________________________________________

---------------------------------------------

Perhaps the following might lend some additional clues, as to "shed some light on the subject."

 

When engaging upon a string quartet of talented musicians, there are only two types of designations,

 

*Those who participate.

*Those who observe.

 

_____________________________________________

---------------------------------------------

NOTE:> The following posts were extracted from "Autodynamics" *Egroups Forum.

< http://www.egroups.com/group/autodynamics>

 

Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It on Its Way

 

In today's New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com

(You have to register at the site to read the article).

 

From: Bill Slawson

Date: Sun Jan 21, 2001 12:02pm

Subject: AutoDynamics ?

 

Douglas Scott 01/21/01

[email protected]

 

From: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001230.html

 

During the last coupla years, I have been looking at SAA, AutoDynamics in general, and the formulations of Ricardo Carezani. Sometime in 1999, I began thinking about the possible degradation of photonic energy by the theoretical picograviton. The "tired photon" hypotheses, to explain the smooth redshift variation with respect to distance/time, have a number of (surmountable) problems. But, the generally accepted solution for this smooth variation, (namely: BigBang), also has many problems.

 

If you would, could you supply me with your short list, in links or references, describing why you may or may not support this tired photon thinking?

 

Anisotropy of CMB:

In the image of the above link, I can see that there is a calico feature to the CMB. The dark patches are limited by the resolution of the scale. I wonder how far off the scale are the depths of the dark patches? Is there data available to recalibrate the image to a different, (lower), central "zero value"? Further, if one were to gather multiple images of the same patch of sky, would the calico pattern remain strictly identical? Over what period of time? The careful comparison of differing images could reveal the changes as being instrumental artifacts or actual sky change.

 

I wildly wonder if there may be a nominal "rest state" for photonic radiation? If, after a looong journey through "space", the photonic energies are "wound down" by being bent hither and thither through the gravitational wedges of the intergalactic medium - - then, is the result that the background has a rather even "look" to it? Is this "even" appearance some kind of undulating dispersion of photonic energies around and about the nominal "rest state" average value? Or can the true "rest state" be an equilibrium point whereby photonic energies are hardly affected and mostly unaffected by the "picograviton density fluctuations"?

 

Everything is natural

 

Bill Slawson

1621 Grand

Spencer, IA

51301-3433

712-262-1111

[email protected]

 

© Copyright 2000 usual rights, usual rates

 

Slight reference:

AutoDynamics: http://www.flic.net/~saa/

 

The boundary of the "observable" universe may be only limited by the distance it takes for "most" photonic radiation to wind down to the equilibrium rest state of the microwave background radiation energy. If we can develop "graviton" apertures and detection instruments, the "observable" horizon could be extended way far.

 

- - p n Jones

 

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greetings everyone. I’ve been a way for a while so I apologize for not getting back to these questions sooner.

 

((First, where does your interest in the (our) U.S. Constitution stem from? Why do you think it is so vital for us to read and understand it?))

 

After the war, the United States had split into five separate regions based on the various factors and military objectives they each had. There was a great deal of anger directed toward the Federal government and a revival of states rights was becoming paramount. However, in their attempt to create an economic form of government, the political and military leaders at the time decided to hold one last Constitutional Congress in order to present a psychological cohesion from the old system. During this Congress, the leaders discovered and decided that coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.

 

((Second, do you not like your "new" Constitution? Or feel that it is not as effective as the original?))

 

From my viewpoint, it’s very effective. I am a very strong believer in local or state’s rights.

 

((Third, you keep saying that you will be going back to your worldline soon, how soon will this be?))

 

There are certain windows I must wait for in order to leave. There will be two this year. The first one opens this spring.

 

((Is it physically possible for you to get back to THIS time line once you leave?))

 

Not with the unit I have.

 

((If all 7 Billion of us here each had our own time machine do you think that would we would end up trashing the rest of the local worldlines?))

 

Since everything is already happening and possible on different worldlines, the answer is yes….and no.

 

((Correct me if I'm wrong here but I see you as a Libertarian who expounds on the need for humanity to get back to certain basics. Like the issues defined by the Constitution and your comments earlier on firearms tend to make me believe you are a Gun Rights activist.))

 

I suppose from your vantage point that’s a fair assessment. I would call myself more of a centrist. Although I understand the “gun rights” issue here, I cannot relate to it all and it is a common point of argument with my mother. I keep saying her tune will change in about ten years and she’ll be cleaning shotguns in her sleep but it doesn’t help. If it makes you feel any better, I never shot anyone who wasn’t trying to kill me.

 

((could you give us your thoughts on how us "less enlightened" ones here in this worldline of the here/now can solve the technical problems of time travel so that we may be able to enjoy the same first hand knowledge you have that gives you these social insights?))

 

When you say “us”, what do you mean? Do you mean “you”? Where would you go if you had my machine? How do you think the rest of the world would react to the U.S. having a time machine and they didn’t? To tell you the truth, I more worried about the computer system than I am the distrotion unit.

 

((You said that you traveled back in time from 2036 to 1975 with a ~1-2% divergence. You also mentioned that in your time frame a 0% divergence is sort of a myth, i.e technologically improbable.))

 

Yes, a “ZD” is thought to be impossible. However, consider that an exact entry point “may” not be necessary to get home. The important factor is the path, not the destination. Under multiple world theory, there are an infinite number of “homes” that I could return to that don’t have me there. The divergence for that window is somewhere near .002377%.

 

((Someone correct me where I'm wrong here but as I understand it, these Parallel Universes or Alternative Timelines are "created" by events in our own, (timelines) or even in others.))

 

Parallel universes exist independently of each other and only interact to avoid the collapse of the wave function for any given particle that you are looking at. I like to imagine it as a series of parallel lines crossed by a sine wave. Each point on the sine wave where a line crosses it represents an alternate outcome. The multiple “yous” on each worldline record a different result for the activity of the event.

 

((Actually, in science, "Multiverse" theory is something that has NEVER been proven. For lack of evidence. It crops up from time to time as a way to explain certain SEEMING paradoxes like the EPR double slit experiment with polarized light. But then, just because it can be used to explain something doesn't mean it is so.))

 

I agree with you that an explanation doesn’t make it so. However you can build a model to describe physical behavior. Even if the model is not complete, its “truth” can be measured by how well it predicts the behavior it describes.

 

((So help me here. Where did multiverse come from as a theory? Where is the observable evidence of it's existence and the experiments to back it up that can be duplicated with certainty and repitition?))

 

I believe the closest non-related evidence for multiple universes right now comes from the physics (derived from special relativity) of rotating (Kerr) black holes. If you examine a typical Penrose map, science agrees that you can travel to “other universes” through these cosmic oddities. They can’t be different places in our own universe because you would have to violate the speed of light limit to get there.

 

Since the existence of multiple universes is a reality from my viewpoint, please allow me to disclose an idea we toss around a bit in 2036. Since all possibilities, outcomes and events are occurring and exist simultaneously, it would mean there are multiple universes out there where “you” are living a day behind and a day ahead of the “you” on this universe.

 

There are some who believe that memory is some sort of information transfer or communication with the “yous” in the past, across worldlines or universes. Although this is seemingly quite ridiculous, if you think that could be true, than physics tells us that the same information transfer from our future selves on other worldlines is not only possible but certain. Could it be that fantasy or “what if” scenarios are actually future memory from an alternate “us” on a future worldline?

 

According to physics, there is no reason why this cannot be true although I probably fall a little closer to DiViper’s feelings about this as he does on multiple universes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rgrunt:

 

By all means please understand that I likewise respect YOUR views. Whether i agree with all of them or not. I was just rambling on about my musings on religion and would not intend to offend anyone.

 

I like your "conservation" law analogy.

 

Peace.

 

Borgus:

 

Yup. I'd say we're pretty close here. The "Frame Dragging" experiment being readied by NASA goes directly to this "gravity relativity to time" issues. Particularly as it pertains to a spinning body, in this case the Earth itself.

 

From what I understand so far on this, the gravitational effect on time would have the opposite (or possibly counteracting) effect of Time Dilation. For instance, the Space Shuttle's clocks run slower, but the Shuttle's position of being less influenced by gravity than an Earth bound object SHOULD make the shuttle's clocks run FASTER! Somehow, the Time Dilation effect is "winning" it's battle with gravity's (or the diminished amount of it) counteractive effect.

 

I don't fully understand it yet, but then I'm not sure anyone FULLY understands it. Otherwise it could be explaind precisely and predictably. So far, it can't.

 

I'm eager to see what develops.

 

Time02112:

 

Yes I'm familiar with the sites and the work in that area and certainly do not claim to be an expert in any of this. But...

 

I'm not sure what your references have to do with "multiverse" theory. Could we be comparing apples and oranges here?

 

Thanx for the informative tips toward them tho.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

 

Maybe we ought to get a "Paradoxes Continued..." thread going.

 

It looks like the message board software is starting to honk up over the length of this one.

 

The last post I made never showed up tho the board said it WAS posted. The one before that posted twice tho I didn't do that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...