Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

anyone here ever read "The Fall of Hyperion"?  it has some interesting similarities

[redacted123]

-

[Osmosis Jones]

Of course I can't say any of what I say is true but the only way a theory can be properly explored is if you assume it is truth for a while. Have you seen sub atomic particles? Yet we take the theory that they exist as truth. If we didn't do that sometimes, then all scientific research would be without direction and pointless.

Heh, there's a slight difference between subatomic particles and alternate realities 

From a scientific standpoint, the problem with alternate dimensions is falsifiability;

Subatomic particles are falsifiable; testable predictions can be made that must be satisfied if subatomic particles exist, and finding a result that contradicts the theory negates it. They so far have survived testing, hence it's fine to take them as fact (at least until a better explanation comes along).

Alternate dimensions however are not falsifiable. There are no known testable predictions that can be made that negate alternate universes. Equally, there are no known phenomena that require alternate universes to exist. As such alt. universes falls into the realm of metaphysics (just like what happened before the big bang, whether or not god exists, etc.).

I think this is what Twiggie is getting at, and if so, I happen to agree. As it stands, the idea of multiple dimensions, while nifty, can't really be used as justification for time travel (or indeed anything), and it can get somewhat silly sometimes. That being said, if someone comes up with a falsifiable theory for alternate universes, well, onya son.

[redacted123]

-

[Sean Mirrsen]

Falsifiable? We don't need it proven false, we need it proven true!

But yeah, it's quite a bit outside the range of current physics. Interestingly, since multiworlds are the 5th dimension and above, we'd first need to be able to probe the timestream before we can get a measure on the parallel universes. So, we'll likely invent timetravel (or at least Time-TV) before science can "falsify" multiworlds, even if they really exist and have a part in time travel.

Unless of course there will be a freak accident at the LHC, at which point timetravel will only concern us as a means of getting off this rock.

[Aqizzar]

Funnily enough, there may be proof of travel back in time accidentally discovered by the Large Hadron Collider.  Or at least theoretically proposed by two of it's scientists.  It's a roundabout, but the basics go like this: The creation or observation of Higgs Boson particles may cause such catastrophic devastation to spacetime that they can ripple backwards through time to cause physical disturbance at the time and place of their creation. 

Or that when the Higgs Boson particle is eventually discovered, it will wreck such havoc that people are inspired to go back in time and destroy the project to study them 12 Monkeys style.  Or that Higgs Boson particles are self-aware and self-loathing and are taking the initiative themselves.  Or that God is jealous of other Gods indeed, and is finally showing his infinite power by sabotaging the LHC project by hand.

At least, that's the best answer by a couple scientists for why their big fancy project keeps going tits up.

It's all very theoretical, you understand.  But I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

[Alexhans]

The problem here is that he wrote the word "PROOF" in his post title.

I've conducted an experiment which proves time travel is impossible or at least, will never be realised. When I have a child, I will tell them to come back and pick me up with a time machine at this exact time, failing that pass the same instruction onto their child. So far, no time machine. Therefore, time travel is impossible.

There's the possibility that your child simply had no access to a time machine, right?  What if he died?  What if he decided he didn't really care?

Dave probert (windows kernel designer) gave a speech recently where he said that Moore's law wouldn't apply for much longer... The heat dissipation is not enough to keep adding transistors.  Instead.  we need to add cores.  The problem is that there is no real programming paradigm for it.

also, what Frelock says: http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=43978.msg836747#msg836747

mmm... there's a lot of blah, blah time travel as if we could seriously prove something... G_G  It's like when Leonard and Sheldon (from Big Bang Theory) discuss about Superman...

If you want a good sci-fi story read "By his bootstraps" by Robert A. Heinlein.

Finally, if the world is destroyed in 500 years... Do we care?  What we should try to do is not be part of that destruction (not polluting, for example)

[redacted123]

-

[dragnar]

Given our current understanding of physics, time travel cannot happen. Einstein's theories prove that (if they are true) it is possible to travel forward in time, but you would have to exceed the speed of light to go back in time.

Besides, one of the simplest ways to determine that a theory is flawed is to find a paradox. Time travel introduces a massive number of paradoxes, so it cannot be possible (at least not in the way we think of it currently).

[Alexhans]

I've conducted an experiment which proves time travel is impossible or at least, will never be realised. When I have a child, I will tell them to come back and pick me up with a time machine at this exact time, failing that pass the same instruction onto their child. So far, no time machine. Therefore, time travel is impossible.

There's the possibility that your child simply had no access to a time machine, right?  What if he died?  What if he decided he didn't really care?

It was written primarily in jest.

I assumed that much.  But no smiley means I get the right to answer just in case

[qwertyuiopas]

What is to say that time flows in every direction at once, but out perception is rooted in a single frame? If you go so fast that you travel backwards, won't it be like rewinding a video, where everything plays out as it had before, just in the opposite direction?

Really, what we want is time control so that we can isolate objects from such a potential effect, allowing them to proceed through time in a forward manner despite it's true time-velocity.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I think their big fancy project is going tits up because it is one of the biggest, fanciest projects in the world, and the bigger and fancier the thing, the wronger it goes. It'll work eventually.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'm thinking the LHC will either go horribly wrong, or horribly right. The former meaning any of the current "LHC will end the world" theories in action, the latter meaning that humanity will uncover one of the universe's secrets and proceed to wreak havoc on the universe in its usual fashion.

[Dvergar]

There has been one experiment that supposidly agrees with the whole parallel universe thing...

Something to do with a single photon of light hitting a peice of film in several seperate spots, but the location of the photon strikes makes it so that should be theoretically impossible

[LegoLord]

But yeah, it's quite a bit outside the range of current physics. Interestingly, since multiworlds are the 5th dimension and above, we'd first need to be able to probe the timestream before we can get a measure on the parallel universes. So, we'll likely invent timetravel (or at least Time-TV) before science can "falsify" multiworlds, even if they really exist and have a part in time travel.

Bad.  There is a difference between dimension (as in, parallel universes) and dimensions (as in coordinate planes).  Frankly, saying that the first four coordinate planes originate in our universe and that all other universes are just a fifth dimensional plane is a bit arrogant.  The potential for differences between parallel universes (assuming there even is more than one) is far more complex than simple progression along a coordinate plane - even if that plane happens to be tangled up with four other coordinate planes.

Second, the concept of coordinate planes other than the x, y, and z axis are hazy at best.  All we can really observe are three-dimensional objects.  All the pictures of what a cube (for example) would look like in four dimensions are only visible to me in two dimensions, being flat pictures, and look more like spiky hexagons.  It doesn't work very well.

Finally, the LHC.  We're worried about black holes coming from it?  Black holes follow the same rules of gravity that everything else does - they need a lot of mass to have a significant pull.  The sort of pull black holes the size of those generated wouldn't be able to develop before evaporating (or so I hear).

You know, all this talk of metaphysics really just convinces me that people are crazy - that they want the world to end.

Something to do with a single photon of light hitting a peice of film in several seperate spots, but the location of the photon strikes makes it so that should be theoretically impossible

Somehow that just doesn't sound quite right.  What did they use to observe the process of the photon hitting the spots?  It can't have been photons, could it?  Doesn't light bounce a little bit as well?