Wolv1's questions about causality and particles

And now you're being obtuse. Here is a proof of the existence of closed time-like curves for compact Lorentzian manifolds:

Why do you feel the need to be so defensive? No one is blaming you for not knowing about this area - I've simply pointed out a mistake!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I apologise if I come across as being "Defensive", however it's all very well quoting mathematicsbut do you have any citations suggesting the observation of such systems in reality, rather than being just mathematically speculative?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They needn't have been observed to be valid science. Examples are a-plenty, I've already mentioned string theory. No one blames you for not knowing about these things, but I do think you're being a little stubborn by trying to defend your statement instead of accepting the correction and moving on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not suggesting anyone blames me for knowing or not knowing anything and my stubbornness does actually suit a purposes, after all to be "not knowing" means to not be told, to not ask questions and to not of course listen.

considering this thread is about the prospects of such a potential it's important to clarify some of the basics first, like for instance where it currently is seen in Mainstream science.

String started as Fringe and some theories still exist there, Fringe is not some hideous deformity that all Scientists should be aware of, it merely means that most of it is Speculative and current has no confirmed results that nail it down to a consensus in clear layman terms.

As I initially stated I would have preferred to have moved it to a Fringe forum but it doesn't exist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow this does unfortunately take us away from the overall topic by "seemingly" arguing over small change.

Let me throw something down for you to discuss, debate, throw out or just laugh at, but in all it's something that can be pondered about.

The best concept for "Time Travel" is to invent at first... not the concept of "travelling in time" but of "Time itself". This basically means defining the creation of the universe and everything in it, because if you do that then there is no violations of any physic's laws since all physic's laws would incidentally be a violation themselves.

 

Never say never. Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean there isn't much more to learn and understand. I don't think its impossible. Nothing is impossible. Because I soon as you say it is someone slaps you in the face and does it. I remember my father talking about all of the weapons he used to use in the military and listening to him I was certain he was making stuff up because stuff like that couldn't exist. But then I saw one of the weapons he told me about on a tv show called "future weapons". Guess he wasn't lying after all. And if we had that technology in the late 70s early 80s, nearly 30 years ago then what kind of technology do we have now?

 

Cutsie, although I have lambasted some fellow posters for mocking the idea of time travel, I cannot agree with your all encompassing, anything goes dictum. You seem to be saying, 'well we just don't know, therefore anything is possible'.

Whereas, in many cases we can say 'well this is just so well established that it is as close to an absolute fact as you are ever going to get, therfore such and such is impossible.'

I prefer the second approach as a means of defining the impossible. My objection is that it doesn't apply to time travel. (Let me point out here that what I know about time travel can be written on a pin head - admitedly by using 0.0003 font.) However those whom I understand to hold positions of respect in the community of physicists have identified circumstances, according to plausible views of the world, in which closed, time-like curves exist.

Matt Visser observes that 'for all practical purposes the phrases time machine and closed time-like curve may be used interchangeably.' He lists seven instances in theoretical/mathematical descriptions of space-time that appear to allow for a time-machine. He describes these as standard, but temporally ill-behaved space-times.

Godel’s cosmology.
Van Stockum spacestimes/tippler cylinders/
Kerr and Kerr-Newman geometries
Gott’s time machines
Wheeler wormholes (spacetime foam)
Morris-Thorne traversable wormholes
Alcubierr ‘warp drive’ space times

[All these comments are taken from Chapter 8, in The Future of Theoretical Physics, a compendium of lectures by leading physicists to mark Hawking's 60th birthday. You can access, but not download, the book here.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...hJk&sig=n5AFygfKbzF2pSwB02o7fLyQb5U#PPA183,M1 ]

In light of the fact that a) time travel is perceived as a potentially plausible concept by leading physicists b) it has attracted a wealth of publications on the topic by these same physicists, then this thread should be moved back to the mainstream physics section where it belongs.

 

Time is simply a tool to measure change. Travel through a measuring tool?

What is required to visit a location along the scale of measured events, instead, is to design "something" that would move forward or backwards all physical changes throughout the entire universe.

In other words, if a star went supernova yesterday, and you wanted to visit last week, you'd need to put that star back together in the exact state it was before it went nova. And that's only one star. How do you turn back or move forward more quickly every single event in the universe?

Do dead things suddenly spring back to life?

A time machine cannot work independent of universal change.

 

It seems like the real question that should be asked or maybe the name of this post should be:

1. Are theories impossible until proven possible

OR

2. Are theories possible until proven impossible.

Realistically we cannot say either; although I think it is possible, but I still don’t have the right to say either, because both points are plausible. Either has the right to be right or wrong. We just need to compromise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mr. Top Secret, compromise is a wonderful thing in politics. It has absolutely no place in science. Even (Q) may agree with that, even though he thinks we cannot travel any distance through space, since distance is only a measurement .

 

Hi ophiolite. What do you think about the questions I asked though.

 

Apples and oranges, O. Try again.

 

I see where you are headed with them. In there way they are quite good questions. I think science, or at least historians and philosophers of science have already answered them, at least indirectly. The answers are somewhat embedded in the scientific method.

I say somewhat, because there is still debate. For example, while I arguing here to move time travel out of pseudoscience I am all in favour of moving anything on string theory into it. I have characterised string theory as mental masturbation for mathematicians. (But on Tuesdays and alternate Fridays I acknowledge that while it cannot meet Popper's requirement of faslifiability, it does match Kuhn's description of 'the gathering data phase' of a new field.

And what do I know? I used to sell double glazing,:shrug:

 

I really wasnt trying to get to a specific point, I was just curious what people thought, because I thought they were fairly good questions. Thanks though.

 

Fine for now. I'm tired and probably too tired to give them the consideration they deserve right now. Welcome to the forum by the way.

 

Thanks Ophiolite

 

The notion of closed timelike curves goes all the way back to people like Godel. The discussion of them is anything but "fringe science", unless you contend that general relativity is as such. This is quite ridiculous - instead of accepting the correction, you seem intent on pointlessly defending your patently false claim. You're not above correction, surely?

 

surely not. say it aint so, stryder
perhaps an escalation of commitment?
what the hell are you doing in physics anyway?

/perplexed

move it back
let ben or james take the flak

/eek

 

That's right (Q), they are both fruits. It's not as if we were comparing an apple and a cosmological neophyte. (Are you up for a neophyte?)