| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
| Re: Time Travel: Is it possible? |
|
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
quote:
Originally posted by HWFanatiC
First, nothing can exceed the speed of light. I thought scientist agreed on this one.
That's the currently accepted paradigm. It's based on empirical observation, true, but it can change in the future, just as physics paradigms have changed in the past.
I think you have it wrong. Nothing "in this universe" can exceed the speed of light is the correct wording. If you picture the 4 dimensional universe as a flat sheet, there is nothing prohibiting an object being picked up from one location and placed down somewhere else in such a way as to 'seem' to have exceded c.
There are many ways this can be accomplished, the sheet can be folded such that two points that are far away on the sheet are actually very close in the embedding space (think of wrinkled bed sheets) - this could perserve c as a limit in the embedding space as well.
Or, it could be that by being 'lifted' off the sheet an object enters a space where c is NOT a limit, it could then procede parellel to the sheet to another spot before settling down again.
Thirdly, the sheet could be folded in such a way that it actually 'touches' itself in otherwise far removed spots.
The trick here is that in cases 1 and 2 the object has 'left' the 4 space we call 'the Universe' and, so, c is no longer applicable. In the 3rd case c has not been violated, a short cut was used.
As to time travel ... well ... I have my ideas, but work calls me.....
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
Fri Jan 31, 2003 2:22 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
Yes, Lintra, you're right. But then some controversies arise in this case. If, for instance, a wormhole is used to bend space, then indeed an object could travel faster than light as you say. But that is, in a way, "cheating" (for lack of a better word), since the object would not physically travel that distance, but rather it would take a shortcut (if we consider speed = physical distance / time). Besides, it would take an outrageously enormous amount of energy just to create the tiniest of wormholes for a brief time, so this method of "travelling faster than light" exists only in theory -- there's no empirical evidence (that I know of -- although somebody could already have used a particle accelerator to do this). Einstein's theory, OTOH, is based on practical experiments that can be easily repeated. It's ironic, though, that Einstein's theory also proves that space can be bent, thus suggesting that wormholes can be created, which in turn suggests that objects can travel faster than light ("cheating") which in turn disproves Einstein's theory.
Ack, my head hurts. 
edit: Actually, regarding wormholes, we believe that some naked singularities create a gravitational field so intense that they end up creating a wormhole -- hence the torus shape of many sigularities. But this too is just theory.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Sat Feb 08, 2003 2:41 am |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
"Scotty... bring us up to warp speed."
Supposedly, Star Trek's WARP engines warp space and forms it's own artificial worm-hole type corridor while the ship travels through it at impulse speed.
Hey... I could buy that!  Then again...
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:38 am |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Don't get me started about Star Trek warp drives... last episode of Enterprise, it took them two minutes to get 500,000 kms at high warp...  |
|
Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:36 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
Don't get me started about Star Trek warp drives... last episode of Enterprise, it took them two minutes to get 500,000 kms at high warp...
So that would be about 0.014c, correct?
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:02 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Which is much less than the speed of light... which is why I say don't get me started about Star Trek warp engines. |
|
Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:28 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
Make of it what you may...
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html
 That's a funny article.
I so want to believe it... accept we still do not know where Bin Laden is, nor the cure for AIDS nor even if Saddam is dead or alive.
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:45 pm |
|
|
Scribbles
Unsent
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 1063
Location: Spokane, WA. US of A |
if anyone has seen the remake of "The Time Machine" you will know what im talking about. i personally believe that time travel will be possible one day, and that the following text is rather close to the possible truth
If someone made a time machine just so he could change one certain point in time, he would not be able to change it. If the event was the way he wanted it, the time machine would cease to exist. this is because if the event had taken place that certain way, he would not have made the time machine to begin with. without the time machine, the event would change back to the way it was first with absolutly the same outcome every time.
_________________
Broken in Exile |
|
Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:36 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Paradoxes like that are what make time travel a fanciful idea... most of the theories developed to deal with paradox problems usually involve parallel existences created when the flow of time (even for just the traveller) is altered... these theories have their problems, but they are not so blatantly troubled as to make them dismissed as quickly as something which is clearly subject to an impossibility or two. However, they are generally disregarded as the idea of many more existences or dimensions or such seems to have taken on a Star Trekish property.
As I've said before - or at least thought of before - I think we are the mouse trying to find the cheese in the maze, when it comes to such areas of science... if perhaps you could call them that... but our search of course is not in vain.
One little thing that I happen to like is the idea that recording information about something alters what data it gives to the recorder in an unpredictable way... there is some experiment to do with photons that if you measure & save the data related something to do with their spread and distribution, they will spread out in a different pattern, but if you unplug the device which saves the information, but still measure it, then have the data lost instantly thereafter, it can be seen that the photons return to a former configuration when compared to configuration when the recording machine is on. This violates linearity laws... for even if the saving machine were to be sufficiently far enough away to make it impossible to know whether it was on or not (that is, more than one light second off, just to be safe) the particles still react in a way fitting to the binary "on" "off" state of the saving device... as such, the particles must have known beforehand whether the machine would have been on or off at any given time... of course, I'm sure that I've butchered up the example... but a one slightly closer to home:
Why is it that when I actively take part in a dream and remember it, I know that I will wake up soon after? If I dream but do not remember it (which can only be verified by third person assistance) I do not wake up until the regular morning wake-up-time. This is too unclear: What I mean to say is that if I remember taking part in a dream, I know I will be awake in the next few minutes. The only dreams I remember are the ones I take part in, and as consequence I only remember dreams where I have woken up shortly after having. So, I must be able to know beforehand that I will be woken up, either by conclusion of the dream, or by outside force (which is much less explainable) in order to participate in a dream. This does not mean that I can see the future, or anything like that, but it is an odd occurrence, and in some respects comparable to the first of my examples...
I apologize for my inability to clarify. What I wish to say lingers on my mind... and does not seem to want to work its way down to my fingers and onto the keyboard. |
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 4:41 am |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
The multiple universe theroies (at least the most widely postulated ones) were developed to explain other quantum mechanical peculiarities than time travel, it just happens to be that you could extrapolate them to cover paradoxical situations that occur due to time travel.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
One little thing that I happen to like is the idea that recording information about something alters what data it gives to the recorder in an unpredictable way... there is some experiment to do with photons that if you measure & save the data related something to do with their spread and distribution, they will spread out in a different pattern, but if you unplug the device which saves the information, but still measure it, then have the data lost instantly thereafter, it can be seen that the photons return to a former configuration when compared to configuration when the recording machine is on. This violates linearity laws... for even if the saving machine were to be sufficiently far enough away to make it impossible to know whether it was on or not (that is, more than one light second off, just to be safe) the particles still react in a way fitting to the binary "on" "off" state of the saving device... as such, the particles must have known beforehand whether the machine would have been on or off at any given time... of course, I'm sure that I've butchered up the example...
You are talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Basically you cannot both simultaneously know the velocity and the position of a light particle at once. These experiments use the two-slit light distribution test. Basically if you send light through two slits you will get a broken up distribution of discrete locations where the light comes through. If you run light through one slit you will get a gaussian distribution with no discrete pattern breaks like you do with two slits. However if you slow your light source WAY down such that you only shoot one photon at a time through the slits, you get the same effect. The uncertainty principle comes in when you measure which slit the photon passed through. As soon as you do that by either covering the slits, or using some other method you no longer get your discrete pattern. Thus the single photon is passing through both slits simultaneously. If you try and measure any part of the system you collapse the photon into either particle behavior only, or wave behavior only. This is also where we get the partlicle/wave duality of light.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
but a one slightly closer to home:
Why is it that when I actively take part in a dream and remember it, I know that I will wake up soon after? If I dream but do not remember it (which can only be verified by third person assistance) I do not wake up until the regular morning wake-up-time. This is too unclear: What I mean to say is that if I remember taking part in a dream, I know I will be awake in the next few minutes. The only dreams I remember are the ones I take part in, and as consequence I only remember dreams where I have woken up shortly after having. So, I must be able to know beforehand that I will be woken up, either by conclusion of the dream, or by outside force (which is much less explainable) in order to participate in a dream. This does not mean that I can see the future, or anything like that, but it is an odd occurrence, and in some respects comparable to the first of my examples...
I think I understand what you are saying, but aren't you just saying you are only active in the dreams you remember? Thus the dreams you don't remember you weren't active in? How do you know you are just not remembering your activity? As far as I recall you only remember (if at all) the dreams where you are awaken during or very shortly after the dream phase of your sleep. If you are awaken from deep sleep or non-dream light sleep you won't remember any dreams because your short term memory is clear.
-vaticide |
|
Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:25 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Thanks for clearing up what I was trying to describe.
When I mean active dreams, I mean dreams where I am trying to get my protagonist to do something... like not falling down the cliff. However, in doing so, I usually just end up smacking the wall in reality, as 'dream characters' do not respond too well to spastic flailing actions... although I remember one particular instance where I could actually control what was happening... needless to say, landing that airplane it was lots of fun...
But that is just an aside... active dreams are dreams that I remember trying to change the course of... it appears to occur to me that in order to be conscious enough to record the dreams onto waking memory, you must be near enough to awake-ness, and thus awareness, to realize that you are dreaming, and realize that you should be able to control everything you see, which would explain a great lot.
I realize that you only remember ones that are near to a wake up point, and the idea that they are remembered only because they have not been cleared, which does occur very quickly after 'exiting,' does make sense, and by Occam's razor, it is a fine solution. 
... But ... I still think it odd that I actively participate only in dreams where in a few moment's time I will be awake. [This is where I think atext.] Perhaps, then, I would participate in all dreams but only actively in ones near enough to the chemical phase of ‘awake,’ where I would have some control of higher thought, and thus a subconscious will to improve my conditions.
I am satisfied with your answers; although they weren't new ideas ( ) I think that I was overanalysing how I judge whether or not I will be woken by something or another in a few minutes... Madness what free time on your hands does to you.
_____
If you're interested in my bad applications of science... or rather my flawless applications of bad science...
Why is it that when I close one eye and put a finger in front of the open eye, (I swear this isn't a question about parallax) anything around the edge of the finger becomes distorted ever so slightly?
In order to best try this, I'd recommend something with text on it... like a newspaper... put it about a foot away, on a table perhaps... Close your left eye, and put your right index finger in front of your eye. Now look at one word and move your finger back and forth slowly, physically near to your eye, and in front of (in the two dimensional sense) the word you are focussing on. Just when the word is about to be occluded by your finger, it appears as though the word becomes bent... similar as to how light is bent around galaxies and other such heavy space objects... except on a much smaller scale. Funny, eh? |
|
Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:42 am |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
I am satisfied with your answers; although they weren't new ideas ( ) I think that I was overanalysing how I judge whether or not I will be woken by something or another in a few minutes... Madness what free time on your hands does to you.
I know it wasn't anything new, but new ideas aren't always the best solutions. I guess my feeling is I am active in all the dreams I remember, therefore I would think I am active in all of my dreams that I don't remember as well. However you do make a point about chemical readiness for waking up-- this could be very likely. When you are in REM sleep, your brain function is fairly active but all of your skeletal muscle control is shut off. This is how your body keeps you from flailing around when you are dreaming. It isn't perfect, however, so sometimes you will twitch or kick in your dreams (see sleeping dogs). Likewise some people (an old roomate of mine for one) are awaken in fright from some scary aspect of a dream and for a short period of time (until their system resets control of skeletal muscle) completely paralyzed. Waking up deathly afraid of something fresh in your mind from a dream and unable to move or even scream made for some interesting nights for him.
quote:
Originally posted by sauron38
If you're interested in my bad applications of science... or rather my flawless applications of bad science...
Why is it that when I close one eye and put a finger in front of the open eye, (I swear this isn't a question about parallax) anything around the edge of the finger becomes distorted ever so slightly?
In order to best try this, I'd recommend something with text on it... like a newspaper... put it about a foot away, on a table perhaps... Close your left eye, and put your right index finger in front of your eye. Now look at one word and move your finger back and forth slowly, physically near to your eye, and in front of (in the two dimensional sense) the word you are focussing on. Just when the word is about to be occluded by your finger, it appears as though the word becomes bent... similar as to how light is bent around galaxies and other such heavy space objects... except on a much smaller scale. Funny, eh?
Light does bend on smaller than astronomical scales. I remember in some phsyics class we did an experiment on calculating (or pseudocalculating, I can't remember) the amount of light bend around ordinary louvre blinds in a window. This is also a good place to observe light bending. I don't know if that is the same thing as when I tried your experiment with the text, but it could be.
-vaticide |
|
Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:16 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
That makes sense... it isn't that tough to bend something with no mass.
Now I promise my last rumination for today is... what does the (!) mean in math equations... when I do it on my calculator,
0! = 1
1! = 1
2! = 2
3! = 6
4! = 24
5! = 120
6! = 720
...
If perhaps you could just provide a simple name for the character or the concept (like calling a cedilla something other than a ‘"C" with a line under it’) so I could look it up on Google... Thanks. |
|
Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:53 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
! is the symbol for 'Factorial'
1! = 1
2! = 1 * 2 = 2
3! = 1 * 2 * 3 = 6
4! = 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 = 24
etc.
You won't find me answering why 0! = 1 without looking it up though.
-vaticide
Edit: silly typo for 1 * 2 = 2
Last edited by vaticide on Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:34 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
