And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
What if TIme Travel is possible?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Travel in time along the thermodynamic arrow of time (i.e. forward) is happening all the time... travel to a previous event is not. This is inextricably linked with the notion of FTL communication or travel, and would mean that causality does not hold; cause and effect would be decoupled. As our universe is clearly driven by the chain of cause preceeding effect, it would appear that at least in the regions we can observe, the geometry of spacetime doesn't allow for time travel into the past.And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
nikeshoebox
[QUOTE="nikeshoebox"]Travel in time along the thermodynamic arrow of time (i.e. forward) is happening all the time... travel to a previous event is not. This is inextricably linked with the notion of FTL communication or travel, and would mean that causality does not hold; cause and effect would be decoupled. As our universe is clearly driven by the chain of cause preceeding effect, it would appear that at least in the regions we can observe, the geometry of spacetime doesn't allow for time travel into the past.But you're saying it may be possible to travel to the future? And you know what I mean, don't say we're traveling to the future right now.And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="nikeshoebox"]Travel in time along the thermodynamic arrow of time (i.e. forward) is happening all the time... travel to a previous event is not. This is inextricably linked with the notion of FTL communication or travel, and would mean that causality does not hold; cause and effect would be decoupled. As our universe is clearly driven by the chain of cause preceeding effect, it would appear that at least in the regions we can observe, the geometry of spacetime doesn't allow for time travel into the past. but...but....Dr. Michio Kaku says it could be!And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
Frame_Dragger
There would be people from the future coming to our time if we were ever to make time traveling machines, plus what chaoscougar said is true.shadowchronicle
Time travel could just be available to a select few in government and a rule would be not to tell anyone from the past you are from the future
And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
Travel in time along the thermodynamic arrow of time (i.e. forward) is happening all the time... travel to a previous event is not. This is inextricably linked with the notion of FTL communication or travel, and would mean that causality does not hold; cause and effect would be decoupled. As our universe is clearly driven by the chain of cause preceeding effect, it would appear that at least in the regions we can observe, the geometry of spacetime doesn't allow for time travel into the past. but...but....Dr. Michio Kaku says it could be! It's possible if the geometry of spacetime were curved in a way that it appears NOT to be. In other words, on paper you can easily formulate geometries in which it's possible, closed time-like curves exist, and more... that doesn't match observations of THIS universe however. ...And yes, I realize you're being sarcastic re: Kaku, but since some people other than you take him entirely too seriously, my response wasn't just, "Oh shut up Kaku!"[QUOTE="shadowchronicle"]There would be people from the future coming to our time if we were ever to make time traveling machines, plus what chaoscougar said is true.nikeshoebox
Time travel could just be available to a select few in government and a rule would be not to tell anyone from the past you are from the future
Right... because a hotel burglarly was too much to hide for more than a year, but time travel which leaves an infinite set of opportunities for leaks at any time is a perfect secret. :roll:[QUOTE="shadowchronicle"]There would be people from the future coming to our time if we were ever to make time traveling machines, plus what chaoscougar said is true.nikeshoebox
Time travel could just be available to a select few in government and a rule would be not to tell anyone from the past you are from the future
Then it would prove to be that humans can make time machines and eventually someone will make it a public invention which other people can use. I still stand by that they will never make a timemachine.:x
[QUOTE="nikeshoebox"][QUOTE="shadowchronicle"]There would be people from the future coming to our time if we were ever to make time traveling machines, plus what chaoscougar said is true.shadowchronicle
Time travel could just be available to a select few in government and a rule would be not to tell anyone from the past you are from the future
Then it would prove to be that humans can make time machines and eventually someone will make it a public invention which other people can use. I still stand by that they will never make a timemachine.:xBut if someone does invent a time machine and doesn't want it getting out then they will go into the past to make sure your parents never procreate, and then we will never have any memory of you making this statement in the first place. In other words, if you're wrong there's no possibility of us ever knowing, which basically equates to there being no possibility of you ever being proven wrong, ergo this is not a logically testable statement you are making.
terence mckenna theorized that a time machine will be created in 2012. pygmahia5He also thought he'd die suddenly on the road, and instead he died slowly from a brain tumor.
And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
nikeshoebox
And that's the thing we would never know. Most Physics professors you ask will say time travel is possible. Just not for another 10,000 years give or take =P
[QUOTE="nikeshoebox"]
And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
And that's the thing we would never know. Most Physics professors you ask will say time travel is possible. Just not for another 10,000 years give or take =P
Pro-tip: you'll want to avoid taking classes from those professors.
You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. FrostyPhantasmYou're kidding about the last part, right?
Time traveling to the future is as easy as traveling fast.
[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. Frame_DraggerYou're kidding about the last part, right? no, no he isnt, our entire history could change in a flash thanks to someone 10,000 years in the future going back 2,000 years ago, and you expect everything to be ok after that?
You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. FrostyPhantasmThis sounds like one of the movies in science I watched where they talk about suns exploding and they'll be like "... and the earth has exploded three times in the past bajillion years, in 2024 there will be a gammaray the size of chuck norris hitting your planet" /epic voice
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. -DirtySanchez-You're kidding about the last part, right? no, no he isnt, our entire history could change in a flash thanks to someone 10,000 years in the future going back 2,000 years ago, and you expect everything to be ok after that? The point isn't that a paradox would be destructive, it's that paradox is an indication that the theory is flawed, and such travel/actions are impossible. That ignores the addition of various proposed chronological principles which preserve consistancy or prevent travel beyond the geometry of spacetime itself.
[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"][QUOTE="nikeshoebox"]
And somone already came back to our time to prevent something like an Y2k:shock:
Frame_Dragger
And that's the thing we would never know. Most Physics professors you ask will say time travel is possible. Just not for another 10,000 years give or take =P
Pro-tip: you'll want to avoid taking classes from those professors.Do you have any idea how Space/time works???? With enough energy time travel is more than possible. You can only travel back as far as when the machine was first turned on though. Anyway Einstien's, Kaku's, Hawking's, Fermi's Opinion on time travel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yours
[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. Frame_DraggerYou're kidding about the last part, right? No? Even major physicists have thought that the reason the speed of light is the way it is is to stop paradoxes from happening. The fabric of reality wouldn't be able to handle it, if time travel was invented, at some point in the timeline, someone would have come back and changed something, well then at that point it would have been changed and never happened, therefore that person would have no reason to go back in time, or wouldn't have existed in the first place.
[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're kidding about the last part, right?Frame_Draggerno, no he isnt, our entire history could change in a flash thanks to someone 10,000 years in the future going back 2,000 years ago, and you expect everything to be ok after that? The point isn't that a paradox would be destructive, it's that paradox is an indication that the theory is flawed, and such travel/actions are impossible. That ignores the addition of various proposed chronological principles which preserve consistancy or prevent travel beyond the geometry of spacetime itself. well ok forget the whole paradox phrase, the pure fact that our entire history, thoughts, memories, even appearance would change in the blink of an eye thanks to someone going back in time, and you think there would be no bad to come from that?
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. FrostyPhantasmYou're kidding about the last part, right? No? Even major physicists have thought that the reason the speed of light is the way it is is to stop paradoxes from happening. The fabric of reality wouldn't be able to handle it, if time travel was invented, at some point in the timeline, someone would have come back and changed something, well then at that point it would have been changed and never happened, therefore that person would have no reason to go back in time, or wouldn't have existed in the first place. What major physicist was that? There's nothing about the nature of space and time, except for the particular geometry of THIS universe which prohibits time travel into the past, paradox, CTC's, and the like. It might cause our heads to explode, but the universe would be fine. The issue is that paradoxes, effect preceeding cause, and the like are NOT what we observe, uniformly, to be the case. As I said earlier, it's a simple matter to formulate geometries in which paradox is the norm, and far stranger things. It's not so much that what we see is special and protected, as it is that it's apparantly consistant for about 14 billion+ years, and unlikely to change anytime soon.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] no, no he isnt, our entire history could change in a flash thanks to someone 10,000 years in the future going back 2,000 years ago, and you expect everything to be ok after that?-DirtySanchez-The point isn't that a paradox would be destructive, it's that paradox is an indication that the theory is flawed, and such travel/actions are impossible. That ignores the addition of various proposed chronological principles which preserve consistancy or prevent travel beyond the geometry of spacetime itself. well ok forget the whole paradox phrase, the pure fact that our entire history, thoughts, memories, even appearance would change in the blink of an eye thanks to someone going back in time, and you think there would be no bad to come from that? It's a moot point; you can't do that, so the effects on a human being aren't of any consequence. The nature of causality and the laws of physics in the universe as we observe it dictate that such a dilemma isn't something we'll encounter.
[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're kidding about the last part, right?Frame_DraggerNo? Even major physicists have thought that the reason the speed of light is the way it is is to stop paradoxes from happening. The fabric of reality wouldn't be able to handle it, if time travel was invented, at some point in the timeline, someone would have come back and changed something, well then at that point it would have been changed and never happened, therefore that person would have no reason to go back in time, or wouldn't have existed in the first place. What major physicist was that? There's nothing about the nature of space and time, except for the particular geometry of THIS universe which prohibits time travel into the past, paradox, CTC's, and the like. It might cause our heads to explode, but the universe would be fine. The issue is that paradoxes, effect preceeding cause, and the like are NOT what we observe, uniformly, to be the case.
As I said earlier, it's a simple matter to formulate geometries in which paradox is the norm, and far stranger things. It's not so much that what we see is special and protected, as it is that it's apparantly consistant for about 14 billion+ years, and unlikely to change anytime soon.
First off saying space and time shows you know nothing about physics (It's space/time btw their the same thing) the universe is 13.75 billion years old or 13.75x10 to the power of 9 not 14 billion years old or 14x10 to the power of 9. And it just sounds like your scratching the surface when it comes to time travel paradox's. Keep it up, we all have to start somewhere =)
What major physicist was that? There's nothing about the nature of space and time, except for the particular geometry of THIS universe which prohibits time travel into the past, paradox, CTC's, and the like. It might cause our heads to explode, but the universe would be fine. The issue is that paradoxes, effect preceeding cause, and the like are NOT what we observe, uniformly, to be the case.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"] No? Even major physicists have thought that the reason the speed of light is the way it is is to stop paradoxes from happening. The fabric of reality wouldn't be able to handle it, if time travel was invented, at some point in the timeline, someone would have come back and changed something, well then at that point it would have been changed and never happened, therefore that person would have no reason to go back in time, or wouldn't have existed in the first place. vtoshkatur
As I said earlier, it's a simple matter to formulate geometries in which paradox is the norm, and far stranger things. It's not so much that what we see is special and protected, as it is that it's apparantly consistant for about 14 billion+ years, and unlikely to change anytime soon.
First of saying space and time shows you know nothing about physics (It's space/time btw their the same thing) the universe is 13.75 billion years old not 14. And it just sounds like your scratching the surface when it comes to time travel paradox's. Keep it up, we all have to start somewhere =)
*sigh* Saying "Space and Time" is no more an issue than saying Electrity and Magnetism. In fact, unlike EM, Space and Time, while inextricably part of the same "fabric", are NOT the same. You can have space without time after all. Still, it's cute that you say these things and then assume you're in a position to judge my knowledge of physics. So do tell, what do you think I'm leaving out in regards to paradox?[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're kidding about the last part, right?Frame_DraggerNo? Even major physicists have thought that the reason the speed of light is the way it is is to stop paradoxes from happening. The fabric of reality wouldn't be able to handle it, if time travel was invented, at some point in the timeline, someone would have come back and changed something, well then at that point it would have been changed and never happened, therefore that person would have no reason to go back in time, or wouldn't have existed in the first place. What major physicist was that? There's nothing about the nature of space and time, except for the particular geometry of THIS universe which prohibits time travel into the past, paradox, CTC's, and the like. It might cause our heads to explode, but the universe would be fine. The issue is that paradoxes, effect preceeding cause, and the like are NOT what we observe, uniformly, to be the case.
As I said earlier, it's a simple matter to formulate geometries in which paradox is the norm, and far stranger things. It's not so much that what we see is special and protected, as it is that it's apparantly consistant for about 14 billion+ years, and unlikely to change anytime soon.
Stephen Hawking. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/stephen-hawkings-time-travel-kit-.html I'd link that and quote you to the specific part but gamespot destroys any attempt with url and other assorted errors. so i'll cherry pick. "http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/stephen-hawkings-time-travel-kit-.html "Paradoxes are fun to think about. The most famous one is usually called the Grandfather paradox. I have a new, simpler version I call the Mad Scientist paradox. "I don't like the way scientists in movies are often described as mad, but in this case, it's true. This chap is determined to create a paradox, even if it costs him his life. Imagine, somehow, he's built a wormhole, a time tunnel that stretches just one minute into the past. "Through the wormhole, the scientist can see himself as he was one minute ago. But what if our scientist uses the wormhole to shoot his earlier self? He's now dead. So who fired the shot? It's a paradox. It just doesn't make sense. It's the sort of situation that gives cosmologists nightmares. "This kind of time machine would violate a fundamental rule that governs the entire universe - that causes happen before effects, and never the other way around. I believe things can't make themselves impossible. If they could then there'd be nothing to stop the whole universe from descending into chaos. So I think something will always happen that prevents the paradox. Somehow there must be a reason why our scientist will never find himself in a situation where he could shoot himself. And in this case, I'm sorry to say, the wormhole itself is the problem. "In the end, I think a wormhole like this one can't exist. And the reason for that is feedback. If you've ever been to a rock gig, you'll probably recognise this screeching noise. It's feedback. What causes it is simple. Sound enters the microphone. It's transmitted along the wires, made louder by the amplifier, and comes out at the speakers. But if too much of the sound from the speakers goes back into the mic it goes around and around in a loop getting louder each time. If no one stops it, feedback can destroy the sound system. "The same thing will happen with a wormhole, only with radiation instead of sound. As soon as the wormhole expands, natural radiation will enter it, and end up in a loop. The feedback will become so strong it destroys the wormhole. So although tiny wormholes do exist, and it may be possible to inflate one some day, it won't last long enough to be of use as a time machine. That's the real reason no one could come back in time to my party. "Any kind of time travel to the past through wormholes or any other method is probably impossible, otherwise paradoxes would occur. So sadly, it looks like time travel to the past is never going to happen. A disappointment for dinosaur hunters and a relief for historians.[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] What major physicist was that? There's nothing about the nature of space and time, except for the particular geometry of THIS universe which prohibits time travel into the past, paradox, CTC's, and the like. It might cause our heads to explode, but the universe would be fine. The issue is that paradoxes, effect preceeding cause, and the like are NOT what we observe, uniformly, to be the case.
As I said earlier, it's a simple matter to formulate geometries in which paradox is the norm, and far stranger things. It's not so much that what we see is special and protected, as it is that it's apparantly consistant for about 14 billion+ years, and unlikely to change anytime soon.Frame_Dragger
First of saying space and time shows you know nothing about physics (It's space/time btw their the same thing) the universe is 13.75 billion years old not 14. And it just sounds like your scratching the surface when it comes to time travel paradox's. Keep it up, we all have to start somewhere =)
*sigh* Saying "Space and Time" is no more an issue than saying Electrity and Magnetism. In fact, unlike EM, Space and Time, while inextricably part of the same "fabric", are NOT the same. You can have space without time after all. Still, it's cute that you say these things and then assume you're in a position to judge my knowledge of physics. So do tell, what do you think I'm leaving out in regards to paradox?Sigh.... There can be no space without time. Prove me otherwise with a link thats a base of knowledge and I will gladly say I'm wrong but until then... One of the things you are leaving out of your paradox's is the fact that if we do warp space/time to the point were we can travel through time might be impossible simply due to a feedback or reverb loop with background radiation.
I can't even edit that post to make it look more presentable or highlight the parts i'd like, my apologies but it still states that he beleives they cannot happen because the universe won't allow it due to the destructive nature of paradoxes, which is what i posted before.
*sigh* Saying "Space and Time" is no more an issue than saying Electrity and Magnetism. In fact, unlike EM, Space and Time, while inextricably part of the same "fabric", are NOT the same. You can have space without time after all. Still, it's cute that you say these things and then assume you're in a position to judge my knowledge of physics. So do tell, what do you think I'm leaving out in regards to paradox?[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]
First of saying space and time shows you know nothing about physics (It's space/time btw their the same thing) the universe is 13.75 billion years old not 14. And it just sounds like your scratching the surface when it comes to time travel paradox's. Keep it up, we all have to start somewhere =)
vtoshkatur
Sigh.... There can be no space without time. Prove me otherwise with a link thats a base of knowledge and I will gladly say I'm wrong but until then... One of the things you are leaving out of your paradox's is the fact that if we do warp space/time to the point were we can travel through time might be impossible simply due to a feedback or reverb loop with background radiation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165583
This should be an interesting read for you.
I can't even edit that post to make it look more presentable or highlight the parts i'd like, my apologies but it still states that he beleives they cannot happen because the universe won't allow it due to the destructive nature of paradoxes, which is what i posted before.
FrostyPhantasm
This very well maybe a possibility as well. Perhap's the Universe safe guard's itself from paradox's.
@Frosty: He's describing his theory of how certain particles could make arbitarily large numbers of transits through any "time machine" so that the moment you tried to "turn it on" it would be destroyed... not that the nature of paradox would destroy the universe. More importantly , the specific example there just describes why any wormhole that DID exist in the universe wouldn't be traversable, even for a single photon. Once again, this isn't a matter of paradox being something magically evil, just that it's not consistant with the geomotry of THIS universe, and thus it's impossible to produce."This kind of time machine would violate a fundamental rule that governs the entire universe - that causes happen before effects, and never the other way around. I believe things can't make themselves impossible. If they could then there'd be nothing to stop the whole universe from descending into chaos. So I think something will always happen that prevents the paradox." That's him specifically saying, if paradoxes could occur, the universe as we know it would fall into shambles. I'll just avoid quoting that far back as to not screw up this chain as well.I'm afraid you missed Dr. Hawking's point, and then decided to insert your own. That, and you really need to fix that quote-box.Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]
*sigh* Saying "Space and Time" is no more an issue than saying Electrity and Magnetism. In fact, unlike EM, Space and Time, while inextricably part of the same "fabric", are NOT the same. You can have space without time after all. Still, it's cute that you say these things and then assume you're in a position to judge my knowledge of physics. So do tell, what do you think I'm leaving out in regards to paradox?Frame_Dragger
Sigh.... There can be no space without time. Prove me otherwise with a link thats a base of knowledge and I will gladly say I'm wrong but until then... One of the things you are leaving out of your paradox's is the fact that if we do warp space/time to the point were we can travel through time might be impossible simply due to a feedback or reverb loop with background radiation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165583
This should be an interesting read for you.
I was a member there and remember that thread... it's not helping your point. Then again, neither does the reality that I spent a good deal of time discussing SR/GR and QM there, but you don't seem overly burdened by reality. Now, do you think you might be able to adress what I said without resorting to having a 4 year old thread do the arguing for you? Note that it's not a very good thread by PF standards, and that in no way does it contradict my previolus statements. So... :roll:[QUOTE="vtoshkatur"][QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]
Sigh.... There can be no space without time. Prove me otherwise with a link thats a base of knowledge and I will gladly say I'm wrong but until then... One of the things you are leaving out of your paradox's is the fact that if we do warp space/time to the point were we can travel through time might be impossible simply due to a feedback or reverb loop with background radiation.
Frame_Dragger
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165583
This should be an interesting read for you.
I was a member there and remember that thread... it's not helping your point. Then again, neither does the reality that I spent a good deal of time discussing SR/GR and QM there, but you don't seem overly burdened by reality. Now, do you think you might be able to adress what I said without resorting to having a 4 year old thread do the arguing for you?Note that it's not a very good thread by PF standards, and that in no way does it contradict my previolus statements. So... :roll:
LOL I think it says a lot when I'm trying to match wits with someone who can't even spell "address" That doesn't look good for either of us trust me.
time travel huh?
[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]You can travel forward, but not backward, for a couple reasons. The biggest being if you travelled back in time the amount of paradoxes that would occur would explode the universe. Frame_DraggerYou're kidding about the last part, right? 1.21 GIGAWATTS?!
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]@Frosty: He's describing his theory of how certain particles could make arbitarily large numbers of transits through any "time machine" so that the moment you tried to "turn it on" it would be destroyed... not that the nature of paradox would destroy the universe. More importantly , the specific example there just describes why any wormhole that DID exist in the universe wouldn't be traversable, even for a single photon. Once again, this isn't a matter of paradox being something magically evil, just that it's not consistant with the geomotry of THIS universe, and thus it's impossible to produce. I'm afraid you missed Dr. Hawking's point, and then decided to insert your own. That, and you really need to fix that quote-box.FrostyPhantasm"This kind of time machine would violate a fundamental rule that governs the entire universe - that causes happen before effects, and never the other way around. I believe things can't make themselves impossible. If they could then there'd be nothing to stop the whole universe from descending into chaos. So I think something will always happen that prevents the paradox." That's him specifically saying, if paradoxes could occur, the universe as we know it would fall into shambles. I'll just avoid quoting that far back as to not screw up this chain as well. It IS a fundamental rule of the universe... what do you think it means when I say that the geometry of spacetime in this universe simply doesn't allow for paradox, CTC's, time travel into the past? This is one mechanism, in the family of chronology protection that I mentioned earlier, which could possibly play a role. Mind you that it's even more likley that wormholes simply DO NOT EXIST, and if something like an ERB did, it's not an issue because it's already non-traversable.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165583
This should be an interesting read for you.
I was a member there and remember that thread... it's not helping your point. Then again, neither does the reality that I spent a good deal of time discussing SR/GR and QM there, but you don't seem overly burdened by reality. Now, do you think you might be able to adress what I said without resorting to having a 4 year old thread do the arguing for you?Note that it's not a very good thread by PF standards, and that in no way does it contradict my previolus statements. So... :roll:
LOL I think it says a lot when I'm trying to match wits with someone who can't even spell "address" That doesn't look good for either of us trust me.
You're not matching wits, you're making an as$ of yourself. If this were a spelling bee, congrats, you would have won! Sadly, this is a discussion of physics, and you're both crashing and burning. There was a time when I enjoyed this kind of thing too, but in a fit of irony, it's PF that actually cured me of that. Once you talk to a few hundred wannabes, crackpots, and students who think they know something and go on the offensive, it gets VERy old.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I was a member there and remember that thread... it's not helping your point. Then again, neither does the reality that I spent a good deal of time discussing SR/GR and QM there, but you don't seem overly burdened by reality. Now, do you think you might be able to adress what I said without resorting to having a 4 year old thread do the arguing for you?
Note that it's not a very good thread by PF standards, and that in no way does it contradict my previolus statements. So... :roll:
LOL I think it says a lot when I'm trying to match wits with someone who can't even spell "address" That doesn't look good for either of us trust me.
You're not matching wits, you're making an as$ of yourself. If this were a spelling bee, congrats, you would have won! Sadly, this is a discussion of physics, and you're both crashing and burning. There was a time when I enjoyed this kind of thing too, but in a fit of irony, it's PF that actually cured me of that. Once you talk to a few hundred wannabes, crackpots, and students who think they know something and go on the offensive, it gets VERy old. Don't ever change Frame ^.^[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]@Frosty: He's describing his theory of how certain particles could make arbitarily large numbers of transits through any "time machine" so that the moment you tried to "turn it on" it would be destroyed... not that the nature of paradox would destroy the universe. More importantly , the specific example there just describes why any wormhole that DID exist in the universe wouldn't be traversable, even for a single photon. Once again, this isn't a matter of paradox being something magically evil, just that it's not consistant with the geomotry of THIS universe, and thus it's impossible to produce. I'm afraid you missed Dr. Hawking's point, and then decided to insert your own. That, and you really need to fix that quote-box.Frame_Dragger"This kind of time machine would violate a fundamental rule that governs the entire universe - that causes happen before effects, and never the other way around. I believe things can't make themselves impossible. If they could then there'd be nothing to stop the whole universe from descending into chaos. So I think something will always happen that prevents the paradox." That's him specifically saying, if paradoxes could occur, the universe as we know it would fall into shambles. I'll just avoid quoting that far back as to not screw up this chain as well. It IS a fundamental rule of the universe... what do you think it means when I say that the geometry of spacetime in this universe simply doesn't allow for paradox, CTC's, time travel into the past? This is one mechanism, in the family of chronology protection that I mentioned earlier, which could possibly play a role. Mind you that it's even more likley that wormholes simply DO NOT EXIST, and if something like an ERB did, it's not an issue because it's already non-traversable. Then you're either arguing semantics or arguing the same thing i am. I'm saying time travel can't exist because it would cause paradoxes that would break things, you're stating time backwards time travel doesn't exist because paradoxes CAN'T exist due to laws of nature correct? Also isn't it pretty much proven wormholes DO exist just at extremely small levels and for extremely short bursts of time before collapsing on themselves.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="vtoshkatur"]You're not matching wits, you're making an as$ of yourself. If this were a spelling bee, congrats, you would have won! Sadly, this is a discussion of physics, and you're both crashing and burning. There was a time when I enjoyed this kind of thing too, but in a fit of irony, it's PF that actually cured me of that. Once you talk to a few hundred wannabes, crackpots, and students who think they know something and go on the offensive, it gets VERy old. Don't ever change Frame ^.^ Thanks CC, in my experience I'm a pretty inflexible prick so I doubt I'll change. :DLOL I think it says a lot when I'm trying to match wits with someone who can't even spell "address" That doesn't look good for either of us trust me.
chaoscougar1
@FrosyPhantasm: Close. I'm saying that if this universe had a different curvature, then there's no reason to expect that we'd be having this conversation because there would BE NO ARROW OF TIME. The thing is, the universe IS the way it is, so the creation of a time machine (read: wormhole, FTL drive, etc...) is impossible. It's not that there's some guardian of time, keeping paradox from interfering with the order of the cosmos, it's that the order (or increasing disorder) of the cosmos is the result of the conditions which make time travel into the past impossible.
You're saying something that's akin to claiming light is a barrier for a reason, rather than it JUST IS. In another universe, maybe c=800 million mph... there's no reason we know of that physical constants are what they are. That the curvature of spacetime appears locally to be... well... flat... is a feature of where we exist. Just as you can't roll a ball uphill, you can't make a delorian blast into the past in that universe either. You don't say that the hill is protected from balls rolling up it because that would destroy reality, it's just not what happens, which is a feature of reality itself. It may seem semantic, but it's a HUGE distinction.
Don't ever change Frame ^.^ Thanks CC, in my experience I'm a pretty inflexible prick so I doubt I'll change. :D[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're not matching wits, you're making an as$ of yourself. If this were a spelling bee, congrats, you would have won! Sadly, this is a discussion of physics, and you're both crashing and burning. There was a time when I enjoyed this kind of thing too, but in a fit of irony, it's PF that actually cured me of that. Once you talk to a few hundred wannabes, crackpots, and students who think they know something and go on the offensive, it gets VERy old.Frame_Dragger
@FrosyPhantasm: Close. I'm saying that if this universe had a different curvature, then there's no reason to expect that we'd be having this conversation because there would BE NO ARROW OF TIME. The thing is, the universe IS the way it is, so the creation of a time machine (read: wormhole, FTL drive, etc...) is impossible. It's not that there's some guardian of time, keeping paradox from interfering with the order of the cosmos, it's that the order (or increasing disorder) of the cosmos is the result of the conditions which make time travel into the past impossible.
You're saying something that's akin to claiming light is a barrier for a reason, rather than it JUST IS. In another universe, maybe c=800 million mph... there's no reason we know of that physical constants are what they are. That the curvature of spacetime appears locally to be... well... flat... is a feature of where we exist. Just as you can't roll a ball uphill, you can't make a delorian blast into the past in that universe either. You don't say that the hill is protected from balls rolling up it because that would destroy reality, it's just not what happens, which is a feature of reality itself. It may seem semantic, but it's a HUGE distinction.
I wish I could say I still cared and all but you know. 420 time so smell you later milhouse.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment