Wolv1's questions about causality and particles

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Wolv1, Aug 25, 2008.

  1. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    As the water in your freezer turned to ice energy was used in the process, that is , there was an increase in entropy. To reverse the process requires further energy, heat. No free lunches.

    Ps I am off to France for two weeks. I shall give the matter more thought. Open system ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Myles TANSTAAFL is my motto, but termodyanmics is irrlevant here. Now I apologise that this has the appearance of an Appeal to Authority, but as I noted before a multiplicity of phsyicists of the highest calibre and reputation do not see time travel as being contrary to our current understanding of phsyical laws. In the document I referenced the author is palpably nervous and almost offended that it has not been possible to refute the possibility. What is it that makes you reluctant to accept this.

    Have a nice time in France. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. If energy can be obtained from outside the system all bets are off. Is that what you were asking?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Perhaps you might find it interesting to google " Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics". I would be interested to know what flaws you find in the author's argument.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    My principle concern, based upon a cursory look, is that I will more readily believe a Hwaking or a Feynman than an individual who indulges in ad hominems and plays to the gallery. If he has a valid argument, which I do not feel competent to judge, he has buried it by his approach which runs wholly counter to proper scientific methodolgy. In short, he appears to be a self indulgent charlatan. (I know that may be seen as an ad hominem, but I''m not trying to change the world of physics.)
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I just had a quick look.
    Why does he think you need a "velocity through time" when you move?
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,616
    Quite frankly, I see no difference between you and a kook tossing out a link who would also make unsubstantiated claims without even knowing what he's talking about, squawking about how this should be science.

    I hope the people at your company aren't reading this thread. They might rethink your value.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    (Q), let us get something very clear here. Whether or not I am right or I am wrong I consider you to be a biased, prejudiced, inadequately educated charlatan. I find no redeeming value in anything I have seem you post. I should prefer you go away. Since you probably won't I have decided to use the flollowing:
    [IGNORE]
     
  11. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Here's my idea.

    When we look at the twins situation in special relativity; we see that the twin who does the accelerating ages slower than the non accelerating one.

    If we were to one day decide that we wanted to set a marker to travel back to, some of us could settle on another planet somewhere and blast the Earth off in a similar way to the accelerating twin. We would then go about our lives on the new planet for maybe thousands of years before the Earth gets back, having only experienced a very short amount of aging.

    This would be very different to the normal idea of time travel to the past.
    There would be no worry about killing your grandfather or any of that because you can only go back almost as far as the marker.

    I know the logistics are terrible, but I think it would work.

    Anybody got any reasons why it wouldn't?
     
  12. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Anyone?
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,616
    Good for you, Oly. Just like the kooks. Putting those on ignore who don't agree with your pet theories. :bravo:
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    What did he say?
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,616
    It's sort of similar to that of the 'wormhole time machine' that has everyone (especially Oly) convinced time travel is science. What everyone (especially Oly) seems to be missing is that the wormhole time machine merely creates a scenario whereupon the effects of relativity are "over-ridden", so to speak, yet preserved within the equations. Essentially, an extension of the twin paradox solution.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,616
    Shhhh, nobody wake up Oly. :shh:
     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Based upon past experience it is unlikely to have been important.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,616
    It wasn't. Go back to your Jules Verne.
     
  19. Lamont Cranston Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    According to Einstein, as I understand it, space is curved. So, if I were to travel indefinitely in a perfectly straight line, I'd eventually get back to the place I started from (doubtless someone will correct me).

    Okay, isn't it reasonable to suggest that the course of time itself follows a similar law. Ie, to us we are always travelling forwards in time, but relativistically speaking, we could be actually going backwards without realising it...well?
     
  20. buddieboy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    simple logicwould have it so ! if it moves at all it might be going forward or whatever expanding i guess what we know is that anything going up must come down so
    whats my point? thats it its just that",.... it would be freaky and not the same cycle if thar where such a thing
     
  21. Wolv1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    322
    Do Closed timelike curves exist?

    or are they just mathematical?
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Wolv---

    We have a policy about posting the same thread over and over.

    Consider this a warning.
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    This is not a scientific question. A scientific question is "What is the evidence that closed time-like curves exist or not?" and the answer is that there is no direct evidence, but there is also no direct evidence that GR is wrong and under extreme conditions our best understanding of GR seems to indicate that CTCs would be possible, and so it is an active area of investigation.

    The question: "Do CTCs exist?" is formulated for an omniscient oracle in that to answer "no" one would literally have to know everything, and to answer "yes" goes beyond the history of man's reliable and repeatable observation. Thus it is an unscientific question, and triggers a deep-seated reflex action on the moderator's part to close or move the thread.

    And all of that is boilerplate explanation that doesn't even touch on the purported properties of CTCs.

    So you should write up your own investigation.

    See
    Section "2.7.1 Causality" of "Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance" by David Mattingly
    relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
    for a connection between hypothetical Lorentz Violation and CTCs and a breakdown of the assumption of causality. Causality is one of those reassuring properties of current physical theories that physicists are reluctant to give up for no reason. But finding CTCs or Lorentz Violation would start them down that path.

    Likewise, searching arxiv.org finds many papers on the subject, some by greater and some by lesser lights in physics. But I did not see any experimentalist papers intending a direct search so these papers are discussing the subject entirely from a theoretical viewpoint. No one is seriously trying to answer the question of do CTCs exist until they can characterize what current theory says about CTCs, and that means for the most part, actually having a quantum theory of gravity, since astrophysical CTCs would require engineering beyond current material science to set up and traverse.

    (Because when it comes down to it a CTC is nothing but a path a material object could traverse and meet itself on, and you wouldn't have direct evidence of its existance until that path was traversed. Thus quantum mechanics gets involved since a large-scale experiment or even survey is outside the budget, for all values of the budget.)
     

Share This Page