The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Buzz off river

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. He went BROKE, not "cuckoo". I like birds as much as he did; just not pigeons. We're both still using dozens of his patents today, almost none of Edison's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Duration pad is the physical energy between things regardless of whether the the time between is measured or not. Or the movement of things is measured.

Duration is movement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We both agree with Carl Sagan then. He didn't elaborate very much on exactly why you can't time travel to the past. It's elementary conservation of energy for a start, but somehow that just isn't enough for some people.

 

No it's not.

 

Just as you went over board with your nonsense about Thorne and Greene, perhaps I'm too harsh on Tesla...But he was certainly a troubled human being, and I certainly believe he was a giant of science....I thought I said that.

 

Nonsense in line with your electric/Plasma Universe.
Sorry river.

 

Yes. This is Peter Lynd's revelation. An instant of time is not something that has physical meaning in terms of energy or momentum. Only a time interval makes physical sense in terms of energy and momentum. Nevertheless, an instant of time means a great deal to the process we call quantum entanglement. Since this process is not associated with bulk transport of either matter or energy, it has physical meaning in terms of the arrow of time. Think of it as a boundary condition for whatever happens next.

 

What Sagan said about time travel into the past.......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html
Do you think that backwards time travel will ever be possible?
Such questions are purely a matter of evidence, and if the evidence is inconsistent or insufficient, then we withhold judgment until there is better evidence. Right now we're in one of those classic, wonderfully evocative moments in science when we don't know, when there are those on both sides of the debate, and when what is at stake is very mystifying and very profound.

If we could travel into the past, it's mind-boggling what would be possible. For one thing, history would become an experimental science, which it certainly isn't today. The possible insights into our own past and nature and origins would be dazzling. For another, we would be facing the deep paradoxes of interfering with the scheme of causality that has led to our own time and ourselves. I have no idea whether it's possible, but it's certainly worth exploring.

Would you like it to be possible?
I have mixed feelings. The explorer and experimentalist in me would very much like it to be possible. But the idea that going into the past could wipe me out so that I would have never lived is somewhat disquieting.

On that note, can you describe the "grandfather paradox?"
The grandfather paradox is a very simple, science-fiction-based apparent inconsistency at the very heart of the idea of time travel into the past. It's very simply that you travel into the past and murder your own grandfather before he sires your mother or your father, and where does that then leave you? Do you instantly pop out of existence because you were never made? Or are you in a new causality scheme in which, since you are there you are there, and the events in the future leading to your adult life are now very different? The heart of the paradox is the apparent existence of you, the murderer of your own grandfather, when the very act of you murdering your own grandfather eliminates the possibility of you ever coming into existence.

Among the claimed solutions are that you can't murder your grandfather. You shoot him, but at the critical moment he bends over to tie his shoelace, or the gun jams, or somehow nature contrives to prevent the act that interrupts the causality scheme leading to your own existence.

Do you find it easy to believe the world might work that way—that is, self-consistently—or do you think it's more likely that that there are parallel universes?
It's still somewhat of a heretical ideal to suggest that every interference with an event in the past leads to a fork, a branch in causality. You have two equally valid universes: one, the one that we all know and love, and the other, which is brought about by the act of time travel. I know the idea of the universe having to work out a self-consistent causality is appealing to a great many physicists, but I don't find the argument for it so compelling. I think inconsistencies might very well be consistent with the universe.

"Maybe backward time travel is possible, but only up to the moment that time travel is invented."

 

And why exactly is that (that conservation of energy is not sufficient cause for believing time travel to the past isn't possible)?

Get into your time machine with a bar of gold, set it to go one week into the past and power it up. Give yourself the bar of gold in the past and tell yourself where to put it so that you can find it again when you return to the future. Return to the future and repeat the procedure until one week ago, you had a whole stack of gold bars which you told yourself to deposit in the vault at the local bank. All of the energy of those extra bars of gold need to be accounted for, so unless your time machine runs on something much richer in energy density than the fusion of plutonium, you really can't make it pay. Moreover, those gold bricks are going to start popping like balloons in the bank vault about a week later. Probably take out the whole bank when they do, so make sure to convert the bricks to bitcoin before that happens.

 

Qunatum entanglement is not about time ; it is about the connection between the two objects. Physically.

 

"Such as?
First of all, it might be that you can build a time machine to go into the future, but not into the past"

The rest is commentary, paddo.

 

It's the twin of the invariance of c. In order for something to move, even at the speed of light, it must move RELATIVE to something. That "something" is a quantum field that is at rest with respect to everything that is quantum entangled. Lots of things are entangled. Pairs of bound electrons in matter are entangled. Cooper pairs of electrons in superconductors are entangled. Photons can be entangled. Higgs bosons are likely entangled, but we don't actually know. The latter is the motivation for all of this discussion. Quantum Field Theory is in need of a serious overhaul. Unified field theories likewise need a rethink because I actually think there are multiple fields and they are not unified by any theory in place, nor are they ever likely to be unless relativity theory is revived and plays out the way it was originally supposed to before Minkowski threw one of those gears from his Euclidean geometric brain into the works. Euclidean space categorically does not exist in a universe where things move relativistically, which is this one.

 

No the rest is what he said in extension of the interview, culminating with....
"Maybe backward time travel is possible, but only up to the moment that time travel is invented."

 

As I said, commentary. Time travel to the future does not need inventing because we are doing it right now. He didn't specify it to be BACKWARD time travel, did he? That's why it is commentary, as in, something he didn't give a lot of thought to before answering. That happens here a lot too.

 

No, not in the manner we are obviously discussing. It is not time travel.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I certainly do not see it as you do, and also certainly do not dare suggest he did not give a lot of thought to something he surely did give a lot of thought to
In summing, time travel to the future is possible and also has solutions within GR...Time travel to the past is less certain due to paradoxes etc.

 

Time travel pad is not possible. To do so means the changing the entire Universe.

 

Time travel river is allowed for by the laws of physics and GR, and in fact solutions are given in GR equations.
We do not have the ability or technology as yet, but it is totally wrong to say it is impossible.
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/alcubierre-warp-drive.html

And of course the more simple example is of course Astronauts are aging more in the ISS than they do on Earth due to gravitational time dilation effects but their speed effects are larger hence they age slower overall.

 

But of course river, if you have more scientific knowledge then the less knowledgable people like Sagan, Thorne, Carroll, Greene, spit it out boy!
Give us the reasons why it is impossible...No word salad though, we must stick to accepted known mainstream knowledge

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Best of luck!

 

I'll say this; time travel is based mathematics. Not reality.

ISS has nothing to do with " time travel " .

It is because they are moving faster than we.

But to the Universe it is no matter.