http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html
"And according to Einstein, whenever you do something to space, you also affect time. Twisting space causes time to be twisted, meaning you could theoretically walk through time as you walk through space."
Just one of the numerous absurd corollaries of the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last scientist with an intact rationality. The moment people started worshipping at the idiocy according to which either observer measures the other observer"s clock to be slower than his own, or at the idiocy according to which passengers in the train measure the tunnel to be shorter than the train whereas observers in the tunnel measure the train to be shorter than the tunnel, a revolution took place. Humanity entered a world where the supernatural was defined as natural. A huge army of zombies systematically destroy those who would continue to call it "supernatural". Dieu est toujours pour les plus gros bataillons. Rational criticism is impossible: you cannot refute truths like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length".
George Orwell:
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
I have to say I don't buy Ronald Mallett's theory. The quantity of energy needed to bend space the way he is describing would have to be absurdly enormous. If you need the mass of a black hole to make a time machine, then take that mass and multiply it by the square of the speed of light, and that is how much energy in electron volts you will need to make a time machine with light.
I'm afraid that is far more energy than is found in the sun.
His time machine will never work in any practical manner.
I'm afraid that is far more energy than is found in the sun.
His time machine will never work in any practical manner.
QUOTE
Mallett hopes that he will observe these particles to exist for a longer time than expected when placed in the vicinity of the circulating light beam. A longer lifetime means that the particles must have flowed through a time loop into the future.
I don't see how a longer lifetime suggests something "must have flowed through a time loop into the future" - does the expression mean anything to anyone else?
If one person counts to 10 more slowly than another .. this does not suggest that one is counting backwards or that the other has leaped into the future.. it is just 'as it is'.
If the presence of light affected the passage of time then emission spectra would be altered in areas of high photon density (eg the surface of a star) .. is this observed?
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
I don't see how a longer lifetime suggests something "must have flowed through a time loop into the future" - does the expression mean anything to anyone else?
Sounds like plain-old time dilation to me. I think someone is not being honest, here. I am tempted to call this a publicity stunt. All the examples and illustrations Mallet gives are of "time travel into the future". Again, this is just simple Einsteinian time dilation. Already proven.
So what is he trying to do exactly? The article implies he's trying to achieve time travel backward in time. Without black-hole-strength warping, this is not possible under Einstein's theories. I can't determine whether it is the journalist's interpretation, or claims made by Mallet personally. Mallet never seems to say anything about "backward" time travel except when asked about the grandfather paradox explicitly, which already presumes the possibility of backward time travel.
Sounds like plain-old time dilation to me. I think someone is not being honest, here. I am tempted to call this a publicity stunt. All the examples and illustrations Mallet gives are of "time travel into the future". Again, this is just simple Einsteinian time dilation. Already proven.
So what is he trying to do exactly? The article implies he's trying to achieve time travel backward in time. Without black-hole-strength warping, this is not possible under Einstein's theories. I can't determine whether it is the journalist's interpretation, or claims made by Mallet personally. Mallet never seems to say anything about "backward" time travel except when asked about the grandfather paradox explicitly, which already presumes the possibility of backward time travel.
QUOTE (article+)
By arranging mirrors, Mallett can make a circulating light beam which should warp surrounding space.
AFAIK, the equivalence principle addresses how entities experience gravity regardless of their mass. It does not address whether, for example, photons can be a "source" of gravity. In that respect, I think this is a new type of experiment. And if so, it is one that needs to be performed.
I could be wrong on that last bit, but I read up on the EP, just to be sure, so I think I've got it right there.
AFAIK, the equivalence principle addresses how entities experience gravity regardless of their mass. It does not address whether, for example, photons can be a "source" of gravity. In that respect, I think this is a new type of experiment. And if so, it is one that needs to be performed.
I could be wrong on that last bit, but I read up on the EP, just to be sure, so I think I've got it right there.
http://nuno.typepad.com/theabbott/images/Time%20Machine.pdf
"Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser"
RL Mallett, 2000. Physics Letters A
"Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser"
RL Mallett, 2000. Physics Letters A
QUOTE (Abstract+)
The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of the ring laser. It is found that the
particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging.
Mallet had a special on the science channel not more than a year ago, where his theories were explained in much more detail.
This sounds like an "argument from credulity" by someone who has not worked through the maths, consequences, or experimental evidence surrounding it. Someone incapable of understanding it, and suffering from "science envy"
1. e=MC^2 derives from this - it gave us the nuclear bomb
2. The concept of momentum of photons - E=PC for a photon derives from SR's postulates.
Use E=hc/L (L=wavelength) and you get de broglie's relation p=h/L.
Photon momentum is the only way we have of measuring gamma ray wavelength.
Extending de Broglie's hypothesis to particles is the basis of quantum mechanics - the understanding of which underpins the transistors in the microchips in the PC you're using to view this post.
And diffraction experiments using electron beams confirm this relationship nicely - the measured wavelength in terms of energy nicely agrees with experiment.
3. If we didn't take into account general relativity, our GPS systems wouldn't work.
4. Look at the classic muon experiment (unstable particles from outer space lasting longer than they should) - time dilation explains perfectly the "extra durability" of muons from space.
5. The deviation of mercury from its Newtonian Orbit is explained far better in terms of GR.
We have above, then, a list of experiments and engineering applications which depend, directly or indirectly, upon Einstein's original postulate of the constancy of the speed of light.
When your ideas let you build useful things, you have a damn good possibility of being on the right track.
The quote from Orwell is just a bit of clever generalisation - "anyone who belives in an odd sounding idea cannot be right, is surely parroting propaganda". That's Quantum mechanics out of the window too, then!
Anyway, back to comments about Mallet's ideas. As a previous author said, it didn't sound ever so different from using time dilation as a "trip to the future"
Personally, I'd do that in summer, and the reverse in winter (spend most of it in hibernation to avoid the long cold nights)
I don't understand why everyone - especially the uneducated - get so riled up about "Time Travel"
Clearly he is doing a "simple" time dialation experiment.
Such experiments are a logical progression from the ones done using Aircraft with Atomic Clocks on board.
The fact is being able to create localized time dialations would a have profound social and economic impact.
The pratical applications of such a technoogy - if/when upscaled - would be numerous.
Therefore lets encourage such research and not belittle it ignorantly.
Regarding reverse Time Travel I would stake my reputation that such a thing is impossible - and such speculation reflects a naivety of our current understanding of physical science.
This is just a bunch of quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo and fantastic gobbledygook.
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
So, we already have time machines, then. Walt Disney and Ted Williams' head are both enjoying theirs, they are just a cooler than room temperature.
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy.
Expressed like this, it makes more sense. But call it what it is, then. And don't talk about going backwards in time in the same breath, and don't pose with a miniature model from a dumb movie. that's when you start sounding like a crackpot.
You should explain this a bit more, or else disprove the corollary that if I travel in that same plane I should be able to expand my life.
You should explain this a bit more, or else disprove the corollary that if I travel in that same plane I should be able to expand my life.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
Okay, I'll buy part of that, in that the physical properties of the particle have been affected, but not the "time travel" part.
later. . .
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Okay so we are talking about transporting yourself into the future. Hold on now. . .
Okay so we are talking about transporting yourself into the future. Hold on now. . .
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
Whoops!
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Double Whoops!
Double Whoops!
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
Triple Whoops!
Okay that's enough.
Your first postulate indicated we could travel into the future, but your remaining arguments talk about receding into the past. If you entered your so-called Mallett Chamber, you wold travel into the future, as you have proved in the first part of your post. Ergo, entering one with a broken arm today, and coming out a week later, you would still have the broken arm and it would actually be healed -less- than if you had stayed in real-time. By your own example, you have proved the body (the physical elements, the atoms) can move into the future by slowing down it's aging process, but in your later examples you try to have us make the stretch in the opposite direction, saying that your aging would accelerate (heal faster) by staying in this chamber for short periods of time.
No thanks, I'll age at the rate God gave me. Now could you please fix your theories?
[QUOTE]
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.[QUOTE]
I'll agree to this, because I think his experiment has merit, and racial slurs have no place in judgment, even if I thought he was a crackpot, which I don't.
I'm just another non-scientist on this one.
particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging.
QUOTE (Equation 26+)
[a neutral] particle at the center of the ring laser ... will tend to precess in a counterclockwise direction with a rate of precession given by
rate = 8 sqrt(2) G p / a c ^ 3
with radiation linear density p and beam length a.
Edit: 8:45
This is a typical result in GR, but I can't vouch for the calculations and approximations chosen in the time I have. Verifying that there are closed time-like curves is harder to verify, because curves aren't necessarily geodesics. I thought a frame-dragging CTC required a frame dragging effect so that some geodesics took on a FTL appearance for an observer at infinity, but all the solutions I read about where for external frame dragging, not internal frame dragging.
rate = 8 sqrt(2) G p / a c ^ 3
with radiation linear density p and beam length a.
Edit: 8:45
This is a typical result in GR, but I can't vouch for the calculations and approximations chosen in the time I have. Verifying that there are closed time-like curves is harder to verify, because curves aren't necessarily geodesics. I thought a frame-dragging CTC required a frame dragging effect so that some geodesics took on a FTL appearance for an observer at infinity, but all the solutions I read about where for external frame dragging, not internal frame dragging.
This whole scheme sounds like a rip-off of an idea (time suppression) I read about in a science fiction book (3000 Years) a few months back. Funny thing is, the way it was described there made much more logical sense than what this real life physicist is trying to do...
one can travel only into space and not into time
because time is motion into a-temporal space
because time is motion into a-temporal space
One of the main problems I have had with time travel is, how do control it? How would I tell the machine I wanted to go to Berlin March 3, 1944, for example. To tell the machine Berlin not a problem. We have points of references on the earth to use and can point to Berlin. But there are no points of references for dates. We cant tell a machine to look for events that happened and the dates themselves are meaningless since we made it all up and over our history we have skipped and changed how time has been measured. So unless we create a universe map with plot points, we will always lack points of reference for "time".
The only option I see is if we can figure out the energy is takes to go back 1 second, for example. Then create the algorithm that if I continue to use x amount of energy, based on the equation, I will go back x seconds, mins, hours, etc.
Any one have any other ideas?
The only option I see is if we can figure out the energy is takes to go back 1 second, for example. Then create the algorithm that if I continue to use x amount of energy, based on the equation, I will go back x seconds, mins, hours, etc.
Any one have any other ideas?
QUOTE (Apr 5 2006+ 12:09 AM)
...The coffee is empty space, and the spoon is the circulating light beam. When you stir the coffee with the spoon, the coffee – or the empty space – gets twisted. Suppose you drop a sugar cube in the coffee. If empty space were twisting, you’d be able to detect it by observing a subatomic particle moving around in the space. And according to Einstein, whenever you do something to space, you also affect time. Twisting space causes time to be twisted, meaning you could theoretically walk through time as you walk through space...
We can replace the the word "time" by the word "Aether", can we? Why should just the empty space "rotate"? For example, the electrodynamic Biot-Savart law analogy in hydrodynamic for vortex filament.
We can replace the the word "time" by the word "Aether", can we? Why should just the empty space "rotate"? For example, the electrodynamic Biot-Savart law analogy in hydrodynamic for vortex filament.
QUOTE (David B+Apr 4 2006, 09:37 PM)
One of the main problems I have had with time travel is, how do control it? How would I tell the machine I wanted to go to Berlin March 3, 1944, for example.
The type of time machine predicated on Closed Time-like Curves cannot take you back in time before the creation of the closed time-like curve, and therefore you can't go back in time to a time before when you made the time machine.
Ronald Mallett's machine is unlikely to scale up for moving people from day-to-day, because from what I read, in addition to the time machine, the person must be very-very small and subject to vast accelerations. So Santa Claus need not apply unless he wishes to be reduced to "a bowlful of jelly."
Mallet uses some approximations in his math, which could be a problem, because in the past approximations have given a qualitatively different answer than the full theory. For some mathematical physics questions we can't prove that the math says that quarks are confined to protons and neutrons and never free, or the exact endstate of the collision of 2 black holes, or that string theory is or isn't a good theory of the universe, because the math is too hard. These approximations could cancel out Mallet's earlier results when the full math is done.
The type of time machine predicated on Closed Time-like Curves cannot take you back in time before the creation of the closed time-like curve, and therefore you can't go back in time to a time before when you made the time machine.
Ronald Mallett's machine is unlikely to scale up for moving people from day-to-day, because from what I read, in addition to the time machine, the person must be very-very small and subject to vast accelerations. So Santa Claus need not apply unless he wishes to be reduced to "a bowlful of jelly."
Mallet uses some approximations in his math, which could be a problem, because in the past approximations have given a qualitatively different answer than the full theory. For some mathematical physics questions we can't prove that the math says that quarks are confined to protons and neutrons and never free, or the exact endstate of the collision of 2 black holes, or that string theory is or isn't a good theory of the universe, because the math is too hard. These approximations could cancel out Mallet's earlier results when the full math is done.
I find this article (like all the other ones about the time travell) slightly phony and softheadedly simplistic.
I think that this quote shows what I mean:
[i]If you go back into the past, you’ll go into another universe. As soon as you arrive at the past, you’re making a choice and there’ll be a split.[i]
Maybe I'm retarded, but how does the very fact that you have arrived at the past is not already "making a choice"? That means, the split occurs at the very moment of entering "the past universe" and not "as soon as you arrive there".
I think that this quote shows what I mean:
[i]If you go back into the past, you’ll go into another universe. As soon as you arrive at the past, you’re making a choice and there’ll be a split.[i]
Maybe I'm retarded, but how does the very fact that you have arrived at the past is not already "making a choice"? That means, the split occurs at the very moment of entering "the past universe" and not "as soon as you arrive there".
Jung (1981) concludes in an exert, that “psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing”
Can time have the same thing? What would it be? thanks.. luca
Can time have the same thing? What would it be? thanks.. luca
Maybe Freud should be quoted, rather than Wells and Orwell.
This exercise is a practical example of a subject, who is locked in a grief cycle, oscillating between bargaining and denial.
Denial, 'My father is not dead, I can save him.'
Bargaining, 'My father is dead, but if I travel back in time, I will save him, even if it means I save him in a tangental universe.'
Google 'Elsabeth Kubler-Ross' to find out more.
It's sad really, because by his own admission, his father cannot be saved in this reality, and, because if there are alternate/tangental universes, the father is likely to be alive in a near infinite number of universes.
At it's core, this is an exercise in futility, because it is not time travel, so much as trans-universe travel. In addition to this, there is every likelihood that other universes have this technology already, or will have it at the same point in time as 'we' do. What use will these other universes be to us, and what use will we be to them. Plunder resources? Steal population? Dump hazardous materials? Impose political and religious frameworks?
Perhaps this has already happened to us, it may explain some occurances in 'our' reality.
This exercise is a practical example of a subject, who is locked in a grief cycle, oscillating between bargaining and denial.
Denial, 'My father is not dead, I can save him.'
Bargaining, 'My father is dead, but if I travel back in time, I will save him, even if it means I save him in a tangental universe.'
Google 'Elsabeth Kubler-Ross' to find out more.
It's sad really, because by his own admission, his father cannot be saved in this reality, and, because if there are alternate/tangental universes, the father is likely to be alive in a near infinite number of universes.
At it's core, this is an exercise in futility, because it is not time travel, so much as trans-universe travel. In addition to this, there is every likelihood that other universes have this technology already, or will have it at the same point in time as 'we' do. What use will these other universes be to us, and what use will we be to them. Plunder resources? Steal population? Dump hazardous materials? Impose political and religious frameworks?
Perhaps this has already happened to us, it may explain some occurances in 'our' reality.
QUOTE
By arranging mirrors, Mallett can make a circulating light beam which should warp surrounding space.
Mallet had a special on the science channel not more than a year ago, where his theories were explained in much more detail.
This guy is obviously on crack or something very strong...or maybe he just watched too many sci fi movies.
If time travel would be possible at ANY point in the future, don't you think someone would have come to us and told us?
Therefore I have to think it is not possible (i.e. not feasible/possible)
Therefore I have to think it is not possible (i.e. not feasible/possible)
Time travel is not plausible at least not in this time. If time travel were to be possible that would mean that there would be a different dimension for every human on the planet. Say you travel in time 1 day because you screwed something up.... Does this mean that the "present" that you left will wait for you to return ? No it will keep on going... but if you travel back, how will you be able to travel forward... The "forward" is always moving but in the past time has passed, and technically stopped at that point...
It is not possible to travel between time and space without screwing something up... Even if you could travel to the past it is very unlikely that you could then travel to the "present" ... and the "future" does not exist because it has not yet been created, and if the future did exist that would mean that we live in a dimension that is slower than the "future"....
EITHER WAY our human brains are just not made to comprehend these sort of things... you just can't think that everything is already set and whatever you do, even those "random" things are all pre-set/already done ......
It is not possible to travel between time and space without screwing something up... Even if you could travel to the past it is very unlikely that you could then travel to the "present" ... and the "future" does not exist because it has not yet been created, and if the future did exist that would mean that we live in a dimension that is slower than the "future"....
EITHER WAY our human brains are just not made to comprehend these sort of things... you just can't think that everything is already set and whatever you do, even those "random" things are all pre-set/already done ......
Prof. Mallet has expressed an "Idea" based on Einstein's "ideas". Remember that Einstein went back to school to learn mathematical expression as a medium to COMMUNICATE his very wise thoughts and views! E=MC2 can not be reduced to digits without pages of circumstances, locations, parameters, velocities, etc. The IDEA that a great deal of energy can be extracted from a small mass is really SPLENDID! This IDEA led to exploitation of atomic energy. The actual measurable, digital, quantity varies with exponential conditions.
As to expanding Einstein's expressed ideas to facilitate flesh and blood neural awareness from one time frame to another is a "reach beyond the stars". I prefer the psalmist's inspired view of "time" in psalm 46 as he sees "time" as a "RIVER" flowing from eternity to eternity. If you want to do time travel LEARN TO SWIM!
E. L. Earnhardt
As to expanding Einstein's expressed ideas to facilitate flesh and blood neural awareness from one time frame to another is a "reach beyond the stars". I prefer the psalmist's inspired view of "time" in psalm 46 as he sees "time" as a "RIVER" flowing from eternity to eternity. If you want to do time travel LEARN TO SWIM!
E. L. Earnhardt
Hmm I wonder if time can be sped up in a local area rather than slowed down like in a fast moving object. If one could make a bed that made time pass faster in the bed then one could get 8 hours sleep in a 1 hour period. Now that could have some good (and bad) applications. Firstly a person could go work an 8 hour shift take a 1 hour (8 to them) nap and then have the rest of the day and night to do whatever. People would be a lot happier then.
I am actually from the future to warn you not to let mallet make his machine. Terrible consequences will come from the creation of this machine, and Mallet will use the machine to gain power over the world, with whole nations being bound into slavery while Mallet stays one jump ahead of his would be captors, always able to predict their every move!!!!
YOU MUST STOP HIM!!!!!!!!!!! The FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE IS IN YOUR HANDS!!!!!!!
YOU MUST STOP HIM!!!!!!!!!!! The FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE IS IN YOUR HANDS!!!!!!!
isn't this just the twins paradox, with out the spaceship. instead one enters the machine, time is slowed, while on the outside it continues at 'normal' speed. the twin steps out of the machine and to him its been a second, while in the 'real' world its been say a 24hrs.
so if this device works, there is no gong backwards in time, just forward like everyone else in the universe, but at a slower speed, this has commercial potentials, instead of waiting to die and been frozen, a person enters this device with a terminal illness, comes out when they have found a cure in the future..imagine the profits in that..
so if this device works, there is no gong backwards in time, just forward like everyone else in the universe, but at a slower speed, this has commercial potentials, instead of waiting to die and been frozen, a person enters this device with a terminal illness, comes out when they have found a cure in the future..imagine the profits in that..
QUOTE
Just one of the numerous absurd corollaries of the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Poincare never accepted the reciprocity of time dilation and length contraction, although as a mathematician he should have been less sensitive to physical absurdity. Roughly speaking, he was the last scientist with an intact rationality.
This sounds like an "argument from credulity" by someone who has not worked through the maths, consequences, or experimental evidence surrounding it. Someone incapable of understanding it, and suffering from "science envy"
1. e=MC^2 derives from this - it gave us the nuclear bomb
2. The concept of momentum of photons - E=PC for a photon derives from SR's postulates.
Use E=hc/L (L=wavelength) and you get de broglie's relation p=h/L.
Photon momentum is the only way we have of measuring gamma ray wavelength.
Extending de Broglie's hypothesis to particles is the basis of quantum mechanics - the understanding of which underpins the transistors in the microchips in the PC you're using to view this post.
And diffraction experiments using electron beams confirm this relationship nicely - the measured wavelength in terms of energy nicely agrees with experiment.
3. If we didn't take into account general relativity, our GPS systems wouldn't work.
4. Look at the classic muon experiment (unstable particles from outer space lasting longer than they should) - time dilation explains perfectly the "extra durability" of muons from space.
5. The deviation of mercury from its Newtonian Orbit is explained far better in terms of GR.
We have above, then, a list of experiments and engineering applications which depend, directly or indirectly, upon Einstein's original postulate of the constancy of the speed of light.
When your ideas let you build useful things, you have a damn good possibility of being on the right track.
The quote from Orwell is just a bit of clever generalisation - "anyone who belives in an odd sounding idea cannot be right, is surely parroting propaganda". That's Quantum mechanics out of the window too, then!
Anyway, back to comments about Mallet's ideas. As a previous author said, it didn't sound ever so different from using time dilation as a "trip to the future"
QUOTE
Hmm I wonder if time can be sped up in a local area rather than slowed down like in a fast moving object. If one could make a bed that made time pass faster in the bed then one could get 8 hours sleep in a 1 hour period. Now that could have some good (and bad) applications. Firstly a person could go work an 8 hour shift take a 1 hour (8 to them) nap and then have the rest of the day and night to do whatever. People would be a lot happier then.
Personally, I'd do that in summer, and the reverse in winter (spend most of it in hibernation to avoid the long cold nights)
"his theories have been demonstrated experimentally by comparing time on an atomic clock that has traveled around the earth on a jet. It’s slower than a clock on earth.”
Although the jet-flying clock regained its normal pace when it landed, it never caught up with earth clocks – which means that we have a time traveler from the past among us already, even though it thinks it’s in the future. "
Doesn;t the clock think it is in the past and everyone else is in the future. We get to 11 o clock before the other clock.
thusly to the clock we are in the future it is in the past as we are ahead of it in time.
Was it just me who saw the glaringly obvious mistake?
Forwards travel is a yes (as we have seen it occurs), backwards is a no.
Although the jet-flying clock regained its normal pace when it landed, it never caught up with earth clocks – which means that we have a time traveler from the past among us already, even though it thinks it’s in the future. "
Doesn;t the clock think it is in the past and everyone else is in the future. We get to 11 o clock before the other clock.
thusly to the clock we are in the future it is in the past as we are ahead of it in time.
Was it just me who saw the glaringly obvious mistake?
Forwards travel is a yes (as we have seen it occurs), backwards is a no.
Imagine that time passes significantly more slowly at the bottom of a deep mine.
You go down to the bottom of the mine and wait for the future to happen .. it happens but you aren't in it because you're at the bottom of a mine.
You return to the surface and place your recently deceased grandfather at the bottom of the mine .. if he is travelling backwards in time then he should come back to life.. see you being born again etc.. does anyone really expect this to happen?
-C2.
You go down to the bottom of the mine and wait for the future to happen .. it happens but you aren't in it because you're at the bottom of a mine.
You return to the surface and place your recently deceased grandfather at the bottom of the mine .. if he is travelling backwards in time then he should come back to life.. see you being born again etc.. does anyone really expect this to happen?
-C2.
Its just an idea on the atomic scale. He wants to prove it on the ATOMIC scale.
If you know anything about science you know this guy because hes one of the most out there physics guys and if you do know him, you know hes far from a crackpot.
Hes actually a bit dull, so if he says it, he must really believe it. But if he can prove it on an atomic scale that it can be done, he said within 100 years it could be done a large enough scale for a human.
And lets face it, the guy knows more about this subject and probably a million others then anyone on this board so stop acting snobby.
If you know anything about science you know this guy because hes one of the most out there physics guys and if you do know him, you know hes far from a crackpot.
Hes actually a bit dull, so if he says it, he must really believe it. But if he can prove it on an atomic scale that it can be done, he said within 100 years it could be done a large enough scale for a human.
And lets face it, the guy knows more about this subject and probably a million others then anyone on this board so stop acting snobby.
U-Conn should be ashamed for associating with Dr. Mallert. He thinks that dressing his theory up in the latest buzz words and terminology will be enough to make it work. His logic of causation is completely backwards.
My own analogy to his mode of thinking:
Hmmmm....the moon's gravitational pull causes waves.
.................so if I make waves in my little bathtub (watch out duckies),
.................I can alter the orbit of the Moon!!!!
You heard it here first. Restrain your toddlers lest there careless splashing doom our planet by destabilizing the orbit of the Moon.
What frustrates me the most is that this is being distributed so widely without the expected avalanche of "Bullshits!".
My own analogy to his mode of thinking:
Hmmmm....the moon's gravitational pull causes waves.
.................so if I make waves in my little bathtub (watch out duckies),
.................I can alter the orbit of the Moon!!!!
You heard it here first. Restrain your toddlers lest there careless splashing doom our planet by destabilizing the orbit of the Moon.
What frustrates me the most is that this is being distributed so widely without the expected avalanche of "Bullshits!".
I think this is another ploy to get airtime on Art Bell Coast 2 Coast.
The proof that human time-travel is impossible lies in the fact that there are no people from the future - a future in which we think time travel will be possible - roaming around in the present. If it were to be possible they'd already have come back to our time to visit.
University of Connecticut.
OK, scratch that one off the list of schools to look at to send my daughter. This idea sounds like what a couple of stoned high school geeks would come up with. Big difference between a slight relativistic dilation and going backwards.
As an analogy. We are falling. If we present max surface area to the airstream, we will slow down a bit. But we ain't gonna rise.
I can't believe a University wouldn't have a higher standard for it's faculty.
OK, scratch that one off the list of schools to look at to send my daughter. This idea sounds like what a couple of stoned high school geeks would come up with. Big difference between a slight relativistic dilation and going backwards.
As an analogy. We are falling. If we present max surface area to the airstream, we will slow down a bit. But we ain't gonna rise.
I can't believe a University wouldn't have a higher standard for it's faculty.
Why don't you eggheads quit coming up with excuses of why it won't work and let the man try. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. Won't it be wonderful if he is right though? Be positive for once.
QUOTE (David B+Apr 4 2006, 09:37 PM)
One of the main problems I have had with time travel is, how do control it? How would I tell the machine I wanted to go to Berlin March 3, 1944, for example. To tell the machine Berlin not a problem. We have points of references on the earth to use and can point to Berlin. But there are no points of references for dates. We cant tell a machine to look for events that happened and the dates themselves are meaningless since we made it all up and over our history we have skipped and changed how time has been measured. So unless we create a universe map with plot points, we will always lack points of reference for "time".
The only option I see is if we can figure out the energy is takes to go back 1 second, for example. Then create the algorithm that if I continue to use x amount of energy, based on the equation, I will go back x seconds, mins, hours, etc.
Any one have any other ideas?
Likewise - I've always thought that if I only "went back in time to 1944" I'd end up in space, because the earth would not have arrived to the point in space where I left. So a functional device will either need a method of also directing your location of emergence or one would need to be in a space ship when making the journey. Also, what if there is substantive mass in the space that one emerges?
The only option I see is if we can figure out the energy is takes to go back 1 second, for example. Then create the algorithm that if I continue to use x amount of energy, based on the equation, I will go back x seconds, mins, hours, etc.
Any one have any other ideas?
Likewise - I've always thought that if I only "went back in time to 1944" I'd end up in space, because the earth would not have arrived to the point in space where I left. So a functional device will either need a method of also directing your location of emergence or one would need to be in a space ship when making the journey. Also, what if there is substantive mass in the space that one emerges?
Based on my personal experiments in everyday life I have concluded that time is nothing more than a closed loop. The same events happen over and over to infinity and man just simply does not have the intellect to realize it. The circumstances may change but it's really all the same. For example take a set of numbers 0-9. If you draw enough times then each number will come up 10 % of the time. This must happen. Why? Because time is a closed loop. If time were not a closed loop then you would be able to come up with an extremely unbalanced outcome and the fact is that you can't do it. There is only so much range there and the numbers must stay within it. Point made.....There's no such thing as random.
I don't believe it will work either. It seems unphysical that an experimentally attainable coiled laser beam would cause a measurable space time distortion. Seems to me that if you want to send signals backward in time you need a signal that travels faster than light with some relay point in high relative motion or some way of using quantum entanglement for communication (which is supposed to be impossible). In fact, I would bet on some innovative way of making the latter possible as our best hope for cross-temporal communication.
Note that actual time travel is not necessary to be useful. Mere signaling would be enough. Exclusive possession of a cross-temporal communicator (CTC) would enable to nation that had it to eliminate military surprise and give themselves an unbeatable advantage against insurgents. Suicide bombers would lose their greatest advantage. If we (the USA) had it we could really achieve true world dominion. If an individual had exclusive possession, he could clean up in lotteries, stocks, and commodities and grap something like 10-25% of the world's wealth for himself. Just imagine hooking up your CTC to the internet and surfing future web pages, such as the page for big stock movers...
Note that actual time travel is not necessary to be useful. Mere signaling would be enough. Exclusive possession of a cross-temporal communicator (CTC) would enable to nation that had it to eliminate military surprise and give themselves an unbeatable advantage against insurgents. Suicide bombers would lose their greatest advantage. If we (the USA) had it we could really achieve true world dominion. If an individual had exclusive possession, he could clean up in lotteries, stocks, and commodities and grap something like 10-25% of the world's wealth for himself. Just imagine hooking up your CTC to the internet and surfing future web pages, such as the page for big stock movers...
I don't understand why everyone - especially the uneducated - get so riled up about "Time Travel"
Clearly he is doing a "simple" time dialation experiment.
Such experiments are a logical progression from the ones done using Aircraft with Atomic Clocks on board.
The fact is being able to create localized time dialations would a have profound social and economic impact.
The pratical applications of such a technoogy - if/when upscaled - would be numerous.
Therefore lets encourage such research and not belittle it ignorantly.
Regarding reverse Time Travel I would stake my reputation that such a thing is impossible - and such speculation reflects a naivety of our current understanding of physical science.
This is just a bunch of quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo and fantastic gobbledygook.
The theory is just that. Basing anything on a theory is an exercise in futility.
I have a theory that rain falls up. Based on that, none of us will ever need to buy an umbrella.
I have a theory that *** don't stink. No need to burn matches.
I have a theory that only ugly chicks wear heels. I guess Halle Berry, Alyssa Milano and Angelina Jolie homely.
I have a theory that Einstein didn't know what the hell he was talking about and neither does Mallert.
I have a theory that rain falls up. Based on that, none of us will ever need to buy an umbrella.
I have a theory that *** don't stink. No need to burn matches.
I have a theory that only ugly chicks wear heels. I guess Halle Berry, Alyssa Milano and Angelina Jolie homely.
I have a theory that Einstein didn't know what the hell he was talking about and neither does Mallert.
The very fact that phys org puts up junk like this also says something about validity and quality of the articles found on physorg.
TIME IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MANIFESTATION, AND RECOGNITION, OF OUR OWN MORTALITY.
Time Travel is NOT POSSIBLE, because TIME itself doesn't EXIST , except in the minds of Humans
TIME exists only in the same way that 'Tuesday' exists = as a Use·ful Concept that has No Basis in Physical Reality
What Humans think of as TIME is actually just the playing out of the Second Law of Thermo·Dynamics, which basically states that :
" Entropy Never Decreases "
[ that is : 'Entropy' as is usually expressed by the equation:
dS = dQ / T ]
This Law also explains the Concept of the so·called 'Arrow of Time'
Suppose i show you a film that depicts a broken egg sitting on the floor,
when suddenly the egg assembles itself into a whole, un·broken egg, and
then leaps *up* to a counter·top .
You know the film is being run in reverse, because you know from personal
experience that Entropy Never Decreases.... but as a Social Construct you
think " The film shows Time running back·wards " when in fact what's
really happening is that the film shows Entropy Decreasing, which you know
is Opposite of the way the Physical World works [ and there·fore, the
film must be running in Reverse ]
And since TIME doesn't actually Exist, attempts to manipulate it via
Time Travel are doomed to failure ; much like a Gun designed to kill
were·wolves won't 'work' because there's no such thing as a were·wolf
The reason the concept of "Monsters" frightens young children is
because their un·abstract [ "concrete" , the Shrinks call it ] thinking
can't conceive of the possibility that a Word exists for some·thing that
Doesn't, in fact, exist.
Shrinks call this 'Magical Thinking' ; and it's exactly what we Adults do
when we think about the concept of TIME
So will i be throwing my wrist·watch and Calenders out ?? NO !!
Because the CONCEPT of TIME is Extremely Useful, just like the concept
of Numbers is extremely useful, and Numbers don't exist in physical
reality either ......
Sorry to burst yer Bubble, Guys !!!
TIME exists only in the same way that 'Tuesday' exists = as a Use·ful Concept that has No Basis in Physical Reality
What Humans think of as TIME is actually just the playing out of the Second Law of Thermo·Dynamics, which basically states that :
" Entropy Never Decreases "
[ that is : 'Entropy' as is usually expressed by the equation:
dS = dQ / T ]
This Law also explains the Concept of the so·called 'Arrow of Time'
Suppose i show you a film that depicts a broken egg sitting on the floor,
when suddenly the egg assembles itself into a whole, un·broken egg, and
then leaps *up* to a counter·top .
You know the film is being run in reverse, because you know from personal
experience that Entropy Never Decreases.... but as a Social Construct you
think " The film shows Time running back·wards " when in fact what's
really happening is that the film shows Entropy Decreasing, which you know
is Opposite of the way the Physical World works [ and there·fore, the
film must be running in Reverse ]
And since TIME doesn't actually Exist, attempts to manipulate it via
Time Travel are doomed to failure ; much like a Gun designed to kill
were·wolves won't 'work' because there's no such thing as a were·wolf
The reason the concept of "Monsters" frightens young children is
because their un·abstract [ "concrete" , the Shrinks call it ] thinking
can't conceive of the possibility that a Word exists for some·thing that
Doesn't, in fact, exist.
Shrinks call this 'Magical Thinking' ; and it's exactly what we Adults do
when we think about the concept of TIME
So will i be throwing my wrist·watch and Calenders out ?? NO !!
Because the CONCEPT of TIME is Extremely Useful, just like the concept
of Numbers is extremely useful, and Numbers don't exist in physical
reality either ......
Sorry to burst yer Bubble, Guys !!!
Plexus,
Thus with localized Time Dialation you are simply slowing down entropy in a "closed" system.
Practical applications of such a technology could revolutionize many fields.
A rose by any other name...
Thus with localized Time Dialation you are simply slowing down entropy in a "closed" system.
Practical applications of such a technology could revolutionize many fields.
A rose by any other name...
I don't know as much about physics as many of the people here who have already posted. But I know enough to be able to tell that this proposal is patently absurd. The clause "...his team still needs funding..." is the real point of the story. It has no chance of succeeding. This is not science, it's politics--and it could be fraud, unless the potential funders know in advance that this experiment is a bad joke. With a projection of ten years before any deliverables, it should make it easy to get just about ten years worth of funding. Congratulations dude, nice scam.
I'm not a scientist, just a historian. But it seems to me that travel backward in time from a point on the Earth would be inherently risky even if it were possible.
The Earth rotates, moves around the Sun, and hurtles through space along with its neighbors in this spiral arm of the Milky Way. If I had a machine that could take me back in time from the spot I'm at right now wouldn't I run the risk of watching my lovely spaceship earth recede into the future as I hurtled backward into the void of space?
Or, would it somehow correct for that and move me to the exact point in space that my current Terrestrial position occupied 5, 10, or 20 years ago? And, when I stop travelling, will I immediately resume motion with Earth's rotation SANS acceleration trauma?
hmmm?
The Earth rotates, moves around the Sun, and hurtles through space along with its neighbors in this spiral arm of the Milky Way. If I had a machine that could take me back in time from the spot I'm at right now wouldn't I run the risk of watching my lovely spaceship earth recede into the future as I hurtled backward into the void of space?
Or, would it somehow correct for that and move me to the exact point in space that my current Terrestrial position occupied 5, 10, or 20 years ago? And, when I stop travelling, will I immediately resume motion with Earth's rotation SANS acceleration trauma?
hmmm?
This Item shows an April 4th posting, but because of a causal warp in the space time continum, it clearly was originaly posted April 1, 2006.
Therefore we should give this report the attention it's correct time of posting deserves.
Therefore we should give this report the attention it's correct time of posting deserves.
Regarding the Orwell passage at the top of this thread in which it is stated that 2+2 = 5: Does anyone out there know what 2 dBm + 2 dBm equals?
Hint: The answer is staring at you.
Einstein called TIME an ILLUSION, a persistent illusion but an illusion none the less. All time is NOW and part of the multidimensional present. We are separated from the past by space. The only way to travel in time (and only go to the past) would be to accelerate the entire universe to beyond the speed of light at which point time would appear to run backwards. This is highly unlikely. This could also occur if the universe stopped expanding and contracted back in on itself. The other scenarios rely on dimensional shortcuts which are perhaps mathematically possible but IMO impractical in the physical world. As it doen't exist yet, the future would be accessible only from coming back from travelling to the past, and absent the same dimensional shortcuts would take as long as the relative time delta between the starting and ending times of the temporal excursion into the past.
A couple of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman and John Wheeler advanced the idea that a positron is identical to an electron moving backwards in time. This leads to the theory that only 1 electron or elementary particle is necessary, it's just VERY busy. If Mallet could convert everything to antimatter and back again maybe time travel would be possible.
Hint: The answer is staring at you.
Einstein called TIME an ILLUSION, a persistent illusion but an illusion none the less. All time is NOW and part of the multidimensional present. We are separated from the past by space. The only way to travel in time (and only go to the past) would be to accelerate the entire universe to beyond the speed of light at which point time would appear to run backwards. This is highly unlikely. This could also occur if the universe stopped expanding and contracted back in on itself. The other scenarios rely on dimensional shortcuts which are perhaps mathematically possible but IMO impractical in the physical world. As it doen't exist yet, the future would be accessible only from coming back from travelling to the past, and absent the same dimensional shortcuts would take as long as the relative time delta between the starting and ending times of the temporal excursion into the past.
A couple of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman and John Wheeler advanced the idea that a positron is identical to an electron moving backwards in time. This leads to the theory that only 1 electron or elementary particle is necessary, it's just VERY busy. If Mallet could convert everything to antimatter and back again maybe time travel would be possible.
Kip, you seem to be a real internet savy kind of guy... Have you ever done any work with time travel?
Time slowed to a stop while I was reading through all these posts.... does that mean I am now a visitor from the past? Is it possible for me to warn myself about the inherent dangers of the closed loop discussion board?
[FONT=A
al]
Here's the deal. You convince someone to back your research with a fat grant, then you have steady work for ten years and maybe you never publish the results.
al]
Here's the deal. You convince someone to back your research with a fat grant, then you have steady work for ten years and maybe you never publish the results.
I am going to perform an experiment. If time travel will be possible in my lifetime I will make sure to put a letter in my mailbox from myself. In that letter I will tell myself a sure-fire stock in which to invest. Then We'll all know it's possible.
Wait, what if I die before time travel but it's still invented in what would have been my life-time had I lived. Could the universe be that cruel?
Ok...anyone here who lives to see time travel invented please come back in the past and post a note telling us the winning powerball numbers for the next draw.
If the next message is not those numbers We'll all know it's not possible.
Wait, what if I die before time travel but it's still invented in what would have been my life-time had I lived. Could the universe be that cruel?
Ok...anyone here who lives to see time travel invented please come back in the past and post a note telling us the winning powerball numbers for the next draw.
If the next message is not those numbers We'll all know it's not possible.
One other problem: Using mirrors or materials with a high refractive index to change the path of a photon is not "bending light". Whenever light is "reflected" it is in fact absorbed by, then adsorbed from, an atom of material. Even while traveling through a transparent medium, the path of each photon is discreet and linear as it bounces from atom to atom.
This is nothing like gravitational lensing around a large mass. In fact, from the perspective of the photon, the path remains straight. Remember, it's all relative.
Max
This is nothing like gravitational lensing around a large mass. In fact, from the perspective of the photon, the path remains straight. Remember, it's all relative.
Max
Somebody ought to tell that dolt who wants to suck a small fortune into a monetary blackhole to use Energy=Mass x the speed of light <squared>, and solve for fricking mass. The faster "you" go and the closer you get to the speed of light, the more mass it takes, until it'll take all the mass in the universe when the speed of light is reached. Btw, Schrodinger's cat is dead.
If the future hasn't happened yet why would we think we could go back in time, say 10 years. Once we're there we'd know there is a future. How would we tell the poor people 10 years back that, sorry, they're living their life in real time, they just happen to be 10 years behind us. If that could happen that would mean the future has already happened and we could be the ones 10 years behind. Just the fact that someone in the future could come back to this time would mean the future already has happened, or is happening at the same time.
Publicity stunt - Drudge picked it up too.
ed teller, on a recording i once heard, told the story 'there once was a lady named bright, who traveled much faster than light..............she went to town one day, and returned the previous night'..........
time travel is impossible because to go somewhere back in time would require the entire possibility of mass to go as well.........the perception of time travel can exist, but not actual time travel........................but i do not want to discount the perception of time travel as a useful tool...........
a parallel example is perception and perspective in art.........figures in the distance are drawn smaller than figures in the foreground to show distance, objects in the distance do not actualy become smaller - it is the perception..
in sports we use 'applied perception' when we judge the distance by the appearance in size of the person we are throwing the ball to compared to the size of the person if they were standing next to us.....this tells us how hard to throw the ball....
we use the same applied perception when we are driving our cars....noting when to speed up, or slow down, or stay the same speed, or even stop(and how urgent to stop).......
are objects further away from us smaller? no, but the perception that they are smaller is a very useful tool.....just as 'time travel' is not possible, but the perception is a very useful tool to the study of relativity in physics.........
time travel is impossible because to go somewhere back in time would require the entire possibility of mass to go as well.........the perception of time travel can exist, but not actual time travel........................but i do not want to discount the perception of time travel as a useful tool...........
a parallel example is perception and perspective in art.........figures in the distance are drawn smaller than figures in the foreground to show distance, objects in the distance do not actualy become smaller - it is the perception..
in sports we use 'applied perception' when we judge the distance by the appearance in size of the person we are throwing the ball to compared to the size of the person if they were standing next to us.....this tells us how hard to throw the ball....
we use the same applied perception when we are driving our cars....noting when to speed up, or slow down, or stay the same speed, or even stop(and how urgent to stop).......
are objects further away from us smaller? no, but the perception that they are smaller is a very useful tool.....just as 'time travel' is not possible, but the perception is a very useful tool to the study of relativity in physics.........
I'm not going to pretend be an expert or even educated well enough to make a comment on this topic. . .there are concepts going on here that i'm not going to pretend to grasp. From my understanding. . .in areas of extreme gravity and at extremely high speeds time slows, to the point that, theoretically, at the event horizon (probably from a science fiction movie) of a black hole time actually stops. Science fiction stories tell of space travellers that travel at super high speeds and time passes so slowly at those speeds that when they return many years have passed. Does that really qualify calling these people time travellers from the past?
Assuming that Mallet's machine works and he can miraculously produce the unimagineable amount of energy to make it work. . .what does having that loop in time provide for us. From my understanding, passing through this "loop" in time would only send you into the future (in a sense), what application would this have?
Assuming that Mallet's machine works and he can miraculously produce the unimagineable amount of energy to make it work. . .what does having that loop in time provide for us. From my understanding, passing through this "loop" in time would only send you into the future (in a sense), what application would this have?
QUOTE (Guest+Apr 5 2006, 08:05 PM)
Publicity stunt - Drudge picked it up too.
Exactly. Drudge only posts publicity stunts and other stupid crap that no one really cares about but will waste time to read it anyways... kind of like fark.com
Aside from this, while I think this man is a loony, in a negative non-genius way, we should just wait. Let us consider that we may know things he doesn't and will have to make an *** out of himself in order to realize it but we should just let him anyway. If he screws it up, like most of us here seem to think, we will have still learned something and maybe people who have no concept of particle physics (children) will be inspired to become scientists and research there own things.... but this guy still seems loony to me.
Exactly. Drudge only posts publicity stunts and other stupid crap that no one really cares about but will waste time to read it anyways... kind of like fark.com
Aside from this, while I think this man is a loony, in a negative non-genius way, we should just wait. Let us consider that we may know things he doesn't and will have to make an *** out of himself in order to realize it but we should just let him anyway. If he screws it up, like most of us here seem to think, we will have still learned something and maybe people who have no concept of particle physics (children) will be inspired to become scientists and research there own things.... but this guy still seems loony to me.
Some of you have raised some interesting points regarding Dr. Mallet's experiment. However, it seems the bulk (if not all) of the issues raised in these postings would have already been considered by Dr. Mallet and his team. Do you think they just sit around, pull ideas out of their asses and run them up the flag pole, just for fun (and ridicule)?
Dr. Mallet is tackling an interesting and complex idea as all real scientists do - by attempting to prove his hypothesis, despite criticism.
Hey, I'm no physicist - I'm just a lawyer. But I know haters when I see (or read) them. There appears to be an awful lot of them on this board.
Then again, maybe a few do believe that "niggers" can't make time machines (or come up with any interesting scientific ideas to explore).
Stop hating and come up with something anyone other than your mother would find interesting enough to talk to you about.
Lastly, how can one dismiss the possibility that we have, in fact, had travelers from the future? Just because they did not announce themselves does not mean it did not happen.
Dr. Mallet is tackling an interesting and complex idea as all real scientists do - by attempting to prove his hypothesis, despite criticism.
Hey, I'm no physicist - I'm just a lawyer. But I know haters when I see (or read) them. There appears to be an awful lot of them on this board.
Then again, maybe a few do believe that "niggers" can't make time machines (or come up with any interesting scientific ideas to explore).
Stop hating and come up with something anyone other than your mother would find interesting enough to talk to you about.
Lastly, how can one dismiss the possibility that we have, in fact, had travelers from the future? Just because they did not announce themselves does not mean it did not happen.
QUOTE (Mad Engineer+Apr 5 2006, 01:23 PM)
U-Conn should be ashamed for associating with Dr. Mallert. He thinks that dressing his theory up in the latest buzz words and terminology will be enough to make it work. His logic of causation is completely backwards.
My own analogy to his mode of thinking:
Hmmmm....the moon's gravitational pull causes waves.
.................so if I make waves in my little bathtub (watch out duckies),
.................I can alter the orbit of the Moon!!!!
You heard it here first. Restrain your toddlers lest there careless splashing doom our planet by destabilizing the orbit of the Moon.
What frustrates me the most is that this is being distributed so widely without the expected avalanche of "Bullshits!".
Umm; just so you know, you are right, in fact, if you stand up and lay down, or jump, you also change the orbit of the moon. JUST NOT IN A MANNER THAT IS VISIBLY OBSERVABLE ON ANY SCALE, but by changing the position of any peice of mass, changes it's affect on the orbit of the moon, as the affect of its gravity on the moon has changed as well.
My own analogy to his mode of thinking:
Hmmmm....the moon's gravitational pull causes waves.
.................so if I make waves in my little bathtub (watch out duckies),
.................I can alter the orbit of the Moon!!!!
You heard it here first. Restrain your toddlers lest there careless splashing doom our planet by destabilizing the orbit of the Moon.
What frustrates me the most is that this is being distributed so widely without the expected avalanche of "Bullshits!".
Umm; just so you know, you are right, in fact, if you stand up and lay down, or jump, you also change the orbit of the moon. JUST NOT IN A MANNER THAT IS VISIBLY OBSERVABLE ON ANY SCALE, but by changing the position of any peice of mass, changes it's affect on the orbit of the moon, as the affect of its gravity on the moon has changed as well.
plexus - you are right, entropy only increases within a system as a whole. theoretically at some point all energy (mass) will be evenly distributed and no energy will be able to be transferred ie organized in total chaos. presumably this would take place infinitely in the future as the universe has to expand to an infinite size for this to happen. biology shows us that with added outside energy entropy can be reversed. you leave that egg on the floor and over time it will become 'organized' within bacteria and will disappear. just because entropy as a whole increases within the system does not mean you cannot borrow energy to reduce entropy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mallet's idea may be totally off, it may be right on, many big dreamers are wrong, but the ones that are right change history though typically in their lifetimes they are called heretics. whether its just time dilution or not it represents mankind's best option for getting off of this planet, which we need to do to carry on as a species. don't be fooled the government is very interested in higly speculative work like this (DARPA anyone?). There was recently a theoretical presentation on a magnetic inter-dimensional engine that won a large aeronautical award. These two are only the tip of the iceberg as far as 'time travel' is concerned.
Any time machine will use vast amounts of energy, but compared to the stone age, we use vast amounts of energy in cars. No doubt potential uses of energy like this are the reason national labs like Sandia are funded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mallet's idea may be totally off, it may be right on, many big dreamers are wrong, but the ones that are right change history though typically in their lifetimes they are called heretics. whether its just time dilution or not it represents mankind's best option for getting off of this planet, which we need to do to carry on as a species. don't be fooled the government is very interested in higly speculative work like this (DARPA anyone?). There was recently a theoretical presentation on a magnetic inter-dimensional engine that won a large aeronautical award. These two are only the tip of the iceberg as far as 'time travel' is concerned.
Any time machine will use vast amounts of energy, but compared to the stone age, we use vast amounts of energy in cars. No doubt potential uses of energy like this are the reason national labs like Sandia are funded.
If time travel is possible then it must have already happened in the future. So why have we not been visited by people from the future? This is all nonsense, it would require too much energy. The human body could not survive the forces placed apon it in order to travel in time.
Out of all the people on this board, who among you are ACTUAL scientists or engineers?
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
None of you? I thought so.
Anyone who knows physics knows Mallett is the real deal. Obviously, small minds who have to use the "N-WORD" are not smart enough to discuss his ideas. And of course, his ideas are nothing really new. This is simple time dilation, people.
Time travel into the past is impossible unless you are accelerating so fast that time appears to reverse. The energy required to do this is simply not doable.
Remember when Superman reversed time to save Lois Lane? It's almost like that. Of course, making the Earth spin backward on its axis would destroy the planet, but the filmmakers had the right idea. It's about acceleration.
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth. Now:
Imagine if a human being "slowed down" because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
This is mind-blowing.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
If Mallett can actually do this, then he will be another Einstein.
Because then, you ramp up the experiment. Bigger lasers, more acceleration, and more particles. Now tell me, what's the difference between an atom and a mouse?
The mouse is simply made up of more atoms.
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
This is earth-shattering. If we expand on this guy's theory, we can have time-dilation spas and retreats. Eventually, the rich will build their own Mallett Chambers so they can live for hundreds of years (on the inside) without aging in the real world.
Only problem is, if you spend too much time in the Chamber, and it's accelerating you fast enough (subatomically), you could return to the real world and be younger than your children. Yikes! But still...
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
Spaceships could be turned into Mallett Chambers. While the astronauts hibernate within, the ship enters new solar systems that would take us millennia to travel to.
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
None of you? I thought so.
Anyone who knows physics knows Mallett is the real deal. Obviously, small minds who have to use the "N-WORD" are not smart enough to discuss his ideas. And of course, his ideas are nothing really new. This is simple time dilation, people.
Time travel into the past is impossible unless you are accelerating so fast that time appears to reverse. The energy required to do this is simply not doable.
Remember when Superman reversed time to save Lois Lane? It's almost like that. Of course, making the Earth spin backward on its axis would destroy the planet, but the filmmakers had the right idea. It's about acceleration.
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth. Now:
Imagine if a human being "slowed down" because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
This is mind-blowing.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
If Mallett can actually do this, then he will be another Einstein.
Because then, you ramp up the experiment. Bigger lasers, more acceleration, and more particles. Now tell me, what's the difference between an atom and a mouse?
The mouse is simply made up of more atoms.
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
This is earth-shattering. If we expand on this guy's theory, we can have time-dilation spas and retreats. Eventually, the rich will build their own Mallett Chambers so they can live for hundreds of years (on the inside) without aging in the real world.
Only problem is, if you spend too much time in the Chamber, and it's accelerating you fast enough (subatomically), you could return to the real world and be younger than your children. Yikes! But still...
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
Spaceships could be turned into Mallett Chambers. While the astronauts hibernate within, the ship enters new solar systems that would take us millennia to travel to.
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.
If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings. The universe revolves around the Earth. It's impossible for a man to move at speeds faster than 15 mph and live (1700s). All the inventions that can be made have been made (US Patent official about 100 years ago). That moon landing was faked (Flat Earth Society, 1970s).
QUOTE (A Real Scientist+Apr 5 2006, 09:18 PM)
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
So, we already have time machines, then. Walt Disney and Ted Williams' head are both enjoying theirs, they are just a cooler than room temperature.
"Time "is a universal measurement of motion through space. It takes me two seconds to reach for the mouse next to my keyboard. What I have done is measured the motion by using time
"Time Travel" is a construct of Science Fiction and the believers postulate that they can affect a change based on a displeasure with a present outcome. I don't like the fact millions of Jews were killed in WWII, so I wish to go back and warn the world or at least kill Hitler before it all happens. That is a mental construct based on bereavement
I am no scientist, but I do have a respect for the science community.
Einstein's theories of "Relativity" have in my opinion been misconstrued. Disregarding the changing physical elements such as altitude, temperature, acceleration and gravity that can affect an atomic clock traveling in an airplane versus the stable physical elements affecting one on the ground, let's examine the idea of travelling away from planet Earth at the speed of light.
You travel away, I'll stay here.
From my perspective, as you travel away at the speed of light, you no longer appear to age, this is because the physical properties of light (photons?) bouncing off your present self are not reaching me yet. At the point in space where you stop, you again appear to start aging.
From your perspective, traveling away from the Earth, the same is true. For example, let's say you took a trip to the nearest star, four light-years away. You travel at the speed of light. As you look back on the Earth, it appears to stand still for four years. When you arrive at your destination, time begins to move forward on the Earth. You can actually see what happened four years ago, going forward. you are now looking directly into the past. Congratulations, you've traveled back through time. Or have you?
You decide to return and head directly back to Earth at the speed of light. As you do, you continuously encounter the photos of light coming from Earth, time appears to be moving forward at a tremendous rate until you reach Earth and stop, whereupon you find yourself in exactly the same point of time you should be, had you never left, say eight years into the future from your time of departure. You are in fact eight years older, it took you four to get to the nearest star and four to get back. When you arrived at the nearest star four years out, the view of the Earth was that of four years prior, but as you came back, the view accelerated not only through the four years it took for you to travel away, but also through the four years it took you to get back.
The concept of the moment in time, as a function of time travel, can only be expressed relative to your viewpoint.
This scientists experiment may in fact prove that physical properties of elements may be able to affect another element and prolong it's life or delay it's decay. The fact is, if the element does not simply disappear then reappear at a later time, then travel through time can not be proven. In his experiment he only wishes to prove an physical element can last longer under the influence of other elements.
In that simplest case, I can make the argument that most of us already have a time machine in our abodes. The common refrigerato or freezer is a time machine, and I'll prove it to you. Take two common Chicken eggs. Lay one on the kitchen counter, the other place into the refrigerator. After a measured amount of time, say one week, or one month if you are brave, crack open both eggs into respective bowls and perform a simple sniff test. The egg in the refrigerator has traveled into the future because it has not decayed like the egg on the counter. This is really no more that what this scientist wishes to attempt.
With that said, I do believe his experiment has importance. The better we understand how physical properties can affect physical elements, the better we know our own universe. Therefore, I don't discount his experiment, but I would certainly discount his "Time Travel" theory.
And that's just my cup of coffee. Oh, which reminds me, coffee is -not- empty space, it has physical properties, even the air around us, if thought of as empty space, is a misnomer because it is made up of physical elements and has physical properties, therefore his example lacks merit.
"Time Travel" is a construct of Science Fiction and the believers postulate that they can affect a change based on a displeasure with a present outcome. I don't like the fact millions of Jews were killed in WWII, so I wish to go back and warn the world or at least kill Hitler before it all happens. That is a mental construct based on bereavement
I am no scientist, but I do have a respect for the science community.
Einstein's theories of "Relativity" have in my opinion been misconstrued. Disregarding the changing physical elements such as altitude, temperature, acceleration and gravity that can affect an atomic clock traveling in an airplane versus the stable physical elements affecting one on the ground, let's examine the idea of travelling away from planet Earth at the speed of light.
You travel away, I'll stay here.
From my perspective, as you travel away at the speed of light, you no longer appear to age, this is because the physical properties of light (photons?) bouncing off your present self are not reaching me yet. At the point in space where you stop, you again appear to start aging.
From your perspective, traveling away from the Earth, the same is true. For example, let's say you took a trip to the nearest star, four light-years away. You travel at the speed of light. As you look back on the Earth, it appears to stand still for four years. When you arrive at your destination, time begins to move forward on the Earth. You can actually see what happened four years ago, going forward. you are now looking directly into the past. Congratulations, you've traveled back through time. Or have you?
You decide to return and head directly back to Earth at the speed of light. As you do, you continuously encounter the photos of light coming from Earth, time appears to be moving forward at a tremendous rate until you reach Earth and stop, whereupon you find yourself in exactly the same point of time you should be, had you never left, say eight years into the future from your time of departure. You are in fact eight years older, it took you four to get to the nearest star and four to get back. When you arrived at the nearest star four years out, the view of the Earth was that of four years prior, but as you came back, the view accelerated not only through the four years it took for you to travel away, but also through the four years it took you to get back.
The concept of the moment in time, as a function of time travel, can only be expressed relative to your viewpoint.
This scientists experiment may in fact prove that physical properties of elements may be able to affect another element and prolong it's life or delay it's decay. The fact is, if the element does not simply disappear then reappear at a later time, then travel through time can not be proven. In his experiment he only wishes to prove an physical element can last longer under the influence of other elements.
In that simplest case, I can make the argument that most of us already have a time machine in our abodes. The common refrigerato or freezer is a time machine, and I'll prove it to you. Take two common Chicken eggs. Lay one on the kitchen counter, the other place into the refrigerator. After a measured amount of time, say one week, or one month if you are brave, crack open both eggs into respective bowls and perform a simple sniff test. The egg in the refrigerator has traveled into the future because it has not decayed like the egg on the counter. This is really no more that what this scientist wishes to attempt.
With that said, I do believe his experiment has importance. The better we understand how physical properties can affect physical elements, the better we know our own universe. Therefore, I don't discount his experiment, but I would certainly discount his "Time Travel" theory.
And that's just my cup of coffee. Oh, which reminds me, coffee is -not- empty space, it has physical properties, even the air around us, if thought of as empty space, is a misnomer because it is made up of physical elements and has physical properties, therefore his example lacks merit.
This guy has seen "Back to The Future" a few too many times!
QUOTE (A Real Scientist+Apr 5 2006, 09:18 PM)
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy.
Expressed like this, it makes more sense. But call it what it is, then. And don't talk about going backwards in time in the same breath, and don't pose with a miniature model from a dumb movie. that's when you start sounding like a crackpot.
PHYSICAL TIME TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE. HERE IS WHY
if it will be physically possible to travel in time in the future, then one could either travel physically forward in time or backwards. if some one will travel to the past from the future. then some one from the future is already with us or millions of them are already with thus changing word events at will again and again. thing that we haven't seen yet.
example : some one from the future who had traveled to the past could have gotten rid of Hitler or made him more powerful by getting rid of his opponents. thing could be done time and again as many travelers that be.
JUST IMPOSSIBLE
if it will be physically possible to travel in time in the future, then one could either travel physically forward in time or backwards. if some one will travel to the past from the future. then some one from the future is already with us or millions of them are already with thus changing word events at will again and again. thing that we haven't seen yet.
example : some one from the future who had traveled to the past could have gotten rid of Hitler or made him more powerful by getting rid of his opponents. thing could be done time and again as many travelers that be.
JUST IMPOSSIBLE
A Real Scientist;
Sir, while I am not a degreed scientist I lack thirty hours to attain a degree in
Geology, physics, engineering or mathematics...any or all. I have always considered myself a scientist due to the training I endured. I began my college career as a Lib Arts Major. I was an artsy type who turned my mind toward the analytical side. Engineering was by far the most difficult and most enjoyable due to the creative side of the mind one must use. Few men of a scientific bent have that, so far as I have seen. I would wager I have a broader range of knowledge than almost anyone you would meet. I have never claimed to be anything more than I am; a college dropout. I do make a living using computer skills I never meant to learn and the mathematics I forced myself to learn (because nobody else in the real world cares to "go there"). Einstein had a godly mind among mortals and I can understand why those who never studied his ideas have a difficult time understanding his work. We are still discovering and applying the knowledge fallout from his theories. He was (is) magnificent. Not all of us here are among the vulgate. I am here for the mind broadening and mind bending that comes from discussion with folks who can even understand what I like to talk about. I got so tired of school after a decade of it. Learning is my love. I did the best I could to learn about EVERYTHING. I met many who were educated beyond their intelligence. Many learn more than they are capable of understanding and others loose patience with the repetitiveness of structured classes. I detested having to reinvent the wheel with every new course I took. Academic snobbery also offended me no end. Those who CAN, do...you know the quote. Best regards.
Sir, while I am not a degreed scientist I lack thirty hours to attain a degree in
Geology, physics, engineering or mathematics...any or all. I have always considered myself a scientist due to the training I endured. I began my college career as a Lib Arts Major. I was an artsy type who turned my mind toward the analytical side. Engineering was by far the most difficult and most enjoyable due to the creative side of the mind one must use. Few men of a scientific bent have that, so far as I have seen. I would wager I have a broader range of knowledge than almost anyone you would meet. I have never claimed to be anything more than I am; a college dropout. I do make a living using computer skills I never meant to learn and the mathematics I forced myself to learn (because nobody else in the real world cares to "go there"). Einstein had a godly mind among mortals and I can understand why those who never studied his ideas have a difficult time understanding his work. We are still discovering and applying the knowledge fallout from his theories. He was (is) magnificent. Not all of us here are among the vulgate. I am here for the mind broadening and mind bending that comes from discussion with folks who can even understand what I like to talk about. I got so tired of school after a decade of it. Learning is my love. I did the best I could to learn about EVERYTHING. I met many who were educated beyond their intelligence. Many learn more than they are capable of understanding and others loose patience with the repetitiveness of structured classes. I detested having to reinvent the wheel with every new course I took. Academic snobbery also offended me no end. Those who CAN, do...you know the quote. Best regards.
QUOTE
A Real Scientist Posted on Today at 9:18 PM
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
You should explain this a bit more, or else disprove the corollary that if I travel in that same plane I should be able to expand my life.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A Real Scientist Posted on Today at 9:18 PM This is how time travel IS possible: The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth. |
You should explain this a bit more, or else disprove the corollary that if I travel in that same plane I should be able to expand my life.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
Okay, I'll buy part of that, in that the physical properties of the particle have been affected, but not the "time travel" part.
later. . .
QUOTE
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Okay so we are talking about transporting yourself into the future. Hold on now. . .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans. |
Okay so we are talking about transporting yourself into the future. Hold on now. . .
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
Whoops!
QUOTE
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Double Whoops!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed. Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm. |
Double Whoops!
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
Triple Whoops!
Okay that's enough.
Your first postulate indicated we could travel into the future, but your remaining arguments talk about receding into the past. If you entered your so-called Mallett Chamber, you wold travel into the future, as you have proved in the first part of your post. Ergo, entering one with a broken arm today, and coming out a week later, you would still have the broken arm and it would actually be healed -less- than if you had stayed in real-time. By your own example, you have proved the body (the physical elements, the atoms) can move into the future by slowing down it's aging process, but in your later examples you try to have us make the stretch in the opposite direction, saying that your aging would accelerate (heal faster) by staying in this chamber for short periods of time.
No thanks, I'll age at the rate God gave me. Now could you please fix your theories?
[QUOTE]
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.[QUOTE]
I'll agree to this, because I think his experiment has merit, and racial slurs have no place in judgment, even if I thought he was a crackpot, which I don't.
I'm just another non-scientist on this one.
to OdinsAcolyte I believe that what the real scientist was saying was directed to the true lay men, of which i consider myself to be. I'm in school for physics, but don't know nearly enough to be able to disprove mallette. So like with many others i watch it has been said before that the one's who change the world first have to go through hell, but even if his idea turns out to be false then it's false and another avenue is then known not to work out. How many experiments fail, succeed, or at the least add to the base of human knowledge.
Mike_guest is right about people from the future walking around now. Moreover, wouldn't these people from the future have already cornered all the state lotteries, all the best Wall Street Investments (remember the movie "Time-Cop")? Is Bill Gates really from the 22nd Century which would then account for his amassed fortune? Fact is 100 years won't change a damn about the human proclivity to amass wealth. And Bill Gates, regardless of your opinion of the product, isn't from the future. He made it the old fashioned way - he earned it. Or he reversed engineered UFO technology like the rest of us.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 4 2006, 07:46 PM)
http://nuno.typepad.com/theabbott/images/Time%20Machine.pdf
"Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser"
RL Mallett, 2000. Physics Letters A
"Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser"
RL Mallett, 2000. Physics Letters A
QUOTE (Abstract+)
The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of the ring laser. It is found that the
particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging.
particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial frame-dragging.
QUOTE (Equation 26+)
[a neutral] particle at the center of the ring laser ... will tend to precess in a counterclockwise direction with a rate of precession given by
rate = 8 sqrt(2) G p / a c ^ 3
with radiation linear density p and beam length a.
Edit: 8:45
This is a typical result in GR, but I can't vouch for the calculations and approximations chosen in the time I have. Verifying that there are closed time-like curves is harder to verify, because curves aren't necessarily geodesics. I thought a frame-dragging CTC required a frame dragging effect so that some geodesics took on a FTL appearance for an observer at infinity, but all the solutions I read about where for external frame dragging, not internal frame dragging.
As I said before, GR is tricky, and sometimes approximations get you in trouble. Based on "The Gravitational Field of a Circulating Light Beam" RL Mallett, September 2003. Foundations of Physics, 33 , pp 1307-1314.
rate = 8 sqrt(2) G p / a c ^ 3
with radiation linear density p and beam length a.
Edit: 8:45
This is a typical result in GR, but I can't vouch for the calculations and approximations chosen in the time I have. Verifying that there are closed time-like curves is harder to verify, because curves aren't necessarily geodesics. I thought a frame-dragging CTC required a frame dragging effect so that some geodesics took on a FTL appearance for an observer at infinity, but all the solutions I read about where for external frame dragging, not internal frame dragging.
As I said before, GR is tricky, and sometimes approximations get you in trouble. Based on "The Gravitational Field of a Circulating Light Beam" RL Mallett, September 2003. Foundations of Physics, 33 , pp 1307-1314.
QUOTE (RL Mallet+)
Exact solutions of the Einstein field equations are found for the exterior and interior gravitational field of an infinitely long circulating cylinder of light. The exterior metric is shown to contain closed timelike lines.
one paper has been published which points out the perils of approximate GR.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0410/0410078.pdf
"Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine?" KD Olum and A Everet, August 2005. Foundations of Physics Letters, 18, 4, pp 379-385
I have a problem understanding the infinite universes theory. I only have a cursory, layman's knowledge of physics. I understand that in quantum phsyics, particles can be in different states simultaneously. But how does that translate into infinite possibilities, e.g. universes? Using that theory, EVERYONE is President of the United States in an infinite number of universes (if you were President, there must be an infinite number of variations as every possible decision you make (and every possible version of "you" there is) is combined with every possible decision everyone ELSE makes, combined with every permutation of historical events, ETC.
And everyone must be a serial killer somewhere. Dinosaurs coexist with humans somewhere. And there must be an actual Starfleet somewhere with an actual Captain Kirk. Am I totally offbase?
And assuming that is the case, and there IS time travel to the past, why wouldn't travel to the past effect our timeline? Where's the immutable rule that says we won't travel to our own timeline. Because isn't that A possibility among infinite possibilities? And if we CAN'T travel to our OWN past, does that mean we would be "polluting" the timelines of OTHER universes? e.g. we travel to the past, we make a choice to kill our grandfather, and then there's a split so we are actually in a different universe and kill the grandfather in the other universe (preventing the birth of a version of ourselves in that universe). Isn't that changing "their" timeline?
Someone, please write an explanation along the lines of "Physics for Dummies".
Thanks!
ha, what is lacking from ur post is that you fail to extend to the audience the courtesy that Dr. Arthur C. Clark is a sicence fiction writer, and that is EXACTLy what this is. Aside from that, he is a renown crack pot. Is that a toy in the "professor's" time machine...lol I think it is a red toy. wow, I can seriously rest knowing my kids are recieving an education from people who expect funding just because they make vague interpretations of GR and make tiny toy models for proof.
ha, what is lacking from ur post is that you fail to extend to the audience the courtesy that Dr. Arthur C. Clark is a sicence fiction writer, and that is EXACTLy what this is. Aside from that, he is a renown crack pot. Is that a toy in the "professor's" time machine...lol I think it is a red toy. wow, I can seriously rest knowing my kids are recieving an education from people who expect funding just because they make vague interpretations of GR and make tiny toy models for proof.
Lol. Comedy at its best.
well said, I thought it you said it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0410/0410078.pdf
"Can a circulating light beam produce a time machine?" KD Olum and A Everet, August 2005. Foundations of Physics Letters, 18, 4, pp 379-385
QUOTE (Olum and Everett+2005)
In a recent paper, Mallett found a solution of the Einstein equations in which closed timelike curves (CTC’s) are present in the empty space outside an infinitely long cylinder of light moving in circular paths around an axis. Here we show that, for physically realistic energy densities, the CTC’s occur at distances from the axis greater than the radius of the visible universe by an immense factor. We then show that Mallett’s solution has a curvature singularity on the axis, even in the case where the intensity of the light vanishes. Thus it is not the solution one would get by starting with Minkowski space and establishing a cylinder of light.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/ and http://www.phys.uconn.edu/faculty/mallett.html show no response as of now, but their Apache server isn't sending me a Last-Modified date.
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/ and http://www.phys.uconn.edu/faculty/mallett.html show no response as of now, but their Apache server isn't sending me a Last-Modified date.
I have heard of one theory of why we don't see anyone from the future... It's because they can only travel as far back as the first time machine. As soon as that is created, and turned on, then we will see the first time travelers. Be it humans, or just data.
P.S. I don't think anyone else had a rebuttal against the notion that we are constantly moving in space, so one place in time will not be in the same place at another point in time.
P.S. I don't think anyone else had a rebuttal against the notion that we are constantly moving in space, so one place in time will not be in the same place at another point in time.
I saw a piece about this idea on Science channel. I don't think there is anything fringe about it. I think he is thinking along the lines of information transfer through time. A laser beam pulse in binary code would do nicely. One idea that would be interesting assuming that information could travel both forward and backwards in time, would be to create an interface that would allow you to hook the machine up to the Internet; imagine a search engine that could reference the entire sum total of the future? You could instantly get all the winning lottery numbers and become a gazillion-are, get the cure for cancer, know when hurricanes will hit, when earthquakes take place, when terrorists might strike. Plane crashes could be prevented. Just the simple action of being able to access the future would totally change (screw up?) all of history. Wondrous and scary at the same time. Also the potential for someone in the future abusing such technology to affect outcome is substantial. There would be no way to test the validity of the received information until things came to pass.
we have our time machine in our brain 
HERE is what I have figured out so far:
Gravity is a result of frame dragging.
when you're in a car and step on the accelerator - you seem to be "pushed" ito the car seat because your frame is traveling slower than the car's frame.
the frame rate of a large mass (such as the planet) is at an accelerated rate compared to the "space/time" around it so we have the outcome of "gravity"...
the planet is "pushing" time at a faster frame rate than the "marble" - hence the marble "falls" into the seat.
Gravity is a result of frame dragging.
when you're in a car and step on the accelerator - you seem to be "pushed" ito the car seat because your frame is traveling slower than the car's frame.
the frame rate of a large mass (such as the planet) is at an accelerated rate compared to the "space/time" around it so we have the outcome of "gravity"...
the planet is "pushing" time at a faster frame rate than the "marble" - hence the marble "falls" into the seat.
QUOTE
“The Grandfather Paradox [where you go back in time and kill your grandfather] is not an issue,” said Mallett. “In a sense, time travel means that you’re traveling both in time and into other universes. If you go back into the past, you’ll go into another universe. As soon as you arrive at the past, you’re making a choice and there’ll be a split. Our universe will not be affected by what you do in your visit to the past.”
I have a problem understanding the infinite universes theory. I only have a cursory, layman's knowledge of physics. I understand that in quantum phsyics, particles can be in different states simultaneously. But how does that translate into infinite possibilities, e.g. universes? Using that theory, EVERYONE is President of the United States in an infinite number of universes (if you were President, there must be an infinite number of variations as every possible decision you make (and every possible version of "you" there is) is combined with every possible decision everyone ELSE makes, combined with every permutation of historical events, ETC.
And everyone must be a serial killer somewhere. Dinosaurs coexist with humans somewhere. And there must be an actual Starfleet somewhere with an actual Captain Kirk. Am I totally offbase?
And assuming that is the case, and there IS time travel to the past, why wouldn't travel to the past effect our timeline? Where's the immutable rule that says we won't travel to our own timeline. Because isn't that A possibility among infinite possibilities? And if we CAN'T travel to our OWN past, does that mean we would be "polluting" the timelines of OTHER universes? e.g. we travel to the past, we make a choice to kill our grandfather, and then there's a split so we are actually in a different universe and kill the grandfather in the other universe (preventing the birth of a version of ourselves in that universe). Isn't that changing "their" timeline?
Someone, please write an explanation along the lines of "Physics for Dummies".
Thanks!
So, essentially, if the Earth circulated the Sun in the opposite direction to it's current path past events would gradually reappear?? If not, where then did these past events go? It seems to me that by this man's theories the past still exists in actuality, and not only in our remembrance. And that to reach it you simply bend the space a certain way as to arrive in this "place" of the past. So these "eddy currents" of space (not really area, area I think is something else) open up paths through which the past enters another dimension and out of our present dimension?? Doesn't seem Right to me. Time shall be no more in the future. Does this mean that all motion will cease? Does this mean there will be no more physical matter? Not sure.
The past is gone, the future does not exist, only the infinite thinness of the present.
From the logic point of view, time travel is impossible and will not happen!
The reason is simple, if time travel will happen in the future; this means that we need to see time travallers today.
If we don't see them (assuming that they are not hiding), it means that time travel is a theoretically discussion...
The reason is simple, if time travel will happen in the future; this means that we need to see time travallers today.
If we don't see them (assuming that they are not hiding), it means that time travel is a theoretically discussion...
Time travel is more or less proven possible with many different ways to make it happen. Its just a race to see which kind of time travel gets there first. So it seems the problem is we are all dead in the near future as there are no people from the future around.
Maybe we can perform an experiment on illegal immigrants and walk them through space and time back to a point in which they were not illegal-the ultimate test of the space/time continium............or is this yet another bad time to bring it up?
Philip.vest@verizon.net
Philip.vest@verizon.net
I disagree with those who on this board who said travel to the past is theoretically impossible: Reverse the scenario so that instead of accelerating in a rocket to return to a world gone by (the "future"), one decelerates by entering a chamber while the rest of the world is does the traveling (accelerating). After emerging, now YOU are the "future" as perceived by the rest of the world, hence you've traveled into the past.
But what a fruitless endeavor! After an interminable length of time existing in real time (in other words, aging), you emerge to see only a few seconds or minutes having passed in the real world, while you have aged. Is this something anyone really wants to do? This is where A Real Scientist went all wrong. If you're going to emerge into the real world where nothing much has happened, you will have had to have "perceived" that you, yourself, experienced normal time, otherwise there would be no sense of having slowed time down. What in the world advantage is there from your perspective if you emerge to show the world your broken arm has healed overnight--YOU will have experienced the entire healing process!
Two points: 1. It had better be a Disney World in that chamber or you'll just be wasting your life away. 2. If done on a world-wide scale, in no time the earth will be populated by a whole bunch of old people, unless of course they have children outside the chamber and leave them there. Better let all those aliens in and stop checking green cards--after all, somebody's got to watch the kids.
But what a fruitless endeavor! After an interminable length of time existing in real time (in other words, aging), you emerge to see only a few seconds or minutes having passed in the real world, while you have aged. Is this something anyone really wants to do? This is where A Real Scientist went all wrong. If you're going to emerge into the real world where nothing much has happened, you will have had to have "perceived" that you, yourself, experienced normal time, otherwise there would be no sense of having slowed time down. What in the world advantage is there from your perspective if you emerge to show the world your broken arm has healed overnight--YOU will have experienced the entire healing process!
Two points: 1. It had better be a Disney World in that chamber or you'll just be wasting your life away. 2. If done on a world-wide scale, in no time the earth will be populated by a whole bunch of old people, unless of course they have children outside the chamber and leave them there. Better let all those aliens in and stop checking green cards--after all, somebody's got to watch the kids.
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
QUOTE
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
ha, what is lacking from ur post is that you fail to extend to the audience the courtesy that Dr. Arthur C. Clark is a sicence fiction writer, and that is EXACTLy what this is. Aside from that, he is a renown crack pot. Is that a toy in the "professor's" time machine...lol I think it is a red toy. wow, I can seriously rest knowing my kids are recieving an education from people who expect funding just because they make vague interpretations of GR and make tiny toy models for proof.
QUOTE (Drude+Apr 6 2006, 08:06 AM)
QUOTE
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
-Dr. Arthur C. Clark
ha, what is lacking from ur post is that you fail to extend to the audience the courtesy that Dr. Arthur C. Clark is a sicence fiction writer, and that is EXACTLy what this is. Aside from that, he is a renown crack pot. Is that a toy in the "professor's" time machine...lol I think it is a red toy. wow, I can seriously rest knowing my kids are recieving an education from people who expect funding just because they make vague interpretations of GR and make tiny toy models for proof.
Lol. Comedy at its best.
QUOTE (A Real Scientist+Apr 5 2006, 09:18 PM)
Out of all the people on this board, who among you are ACTUAL scientists or engineers?
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
None of you? I thought so.
Anyone who knows physics knows Mallett is the real deal. Obviously, small minds who have to use the "N-WORD" are not smart enough to discuss his ideas. And of course, his ideas are nothing really new. This is simple time dilation, people.
Time travel into the past is impossible unless you are accelerating so fast that time appears to reverse. The energy required to do this is simply not doable.
Remember when Superman reversed time to save Lois Lane? It's almost like that. Of course, making the Earth spin backward on its axis would destroy the planet, but the filmmakers had the right idea. It's about acceleration.
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth. Now:
Imagine if a human being "slowed down" because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
This is mind-blowing.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
If Mallett can actually do this, then he will be another Einstein.
Because then, you ramp up the experiment. Bigger lasers, more acceleration, and more particles. Now tell me, what's the difference between an atom and a mouse?
The mouse is simply made up of more atoms.
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
This is earth-shattering. If we expand on this guy's theory, we can have time-dilation spas and retreats. Eventually, the rich will build their own Mallett Chambers so they can live for hundreds of years (on the inside) without aging in the real world.
Only problem is, if you spend too much time in the Chamber, and it's accelerating you fast enough (sub-atomically), you could return to the real world and be younger than your children. Yikes! But still...
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
Spaceships could be turned into Mallett Chambers. While the astronauts hibernate within, the ship enters new solar systems that would take us millennia to travel to.
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.
I consider myself an student of science/engineering, although, no, I don't have a degree in physics. However, that last (second-to) example went beyond the point of absurdity, although the rest of your post was pretty good.
How can someone who studied for (only) decades come out with the knowledge that required three centuries to produce, unless you're implying this Mallatt Chamber would allow humans to live for 300 years. To be quite honest, the average life span of humans in Earth time would shrink drastically if thing ever came to fruition, because everyone would spend too much time being time-dilated. It would present some legal issues too - how can one verify that they are at the age they say they are.
My gut feeling tells me this wouldn't be practical, though. In order to affect an area large enough for a human to survive (and I'm not talking about just cubic volume of the human body), you'd have to affect an area large enough for someone to live comfortably for an extended period of time, with the proper amount of life support and other equipment. The closest thing we have right now is the Space Shuttle and/or the ISS. And if I understand my math correctly, you'd need enough energy to accelerate the equivalent of that mass to a whatever fraction of c required for the time dilation ratio. So unless he is coming up with a way to short-circuit Einstein's equation regarding that mass-energy-momentum conversion, you'd have a hard time coming up with enough energy to do it in the first place. Also, is there any guarantee that the time dilation would be preserved across a vast area of space within the said chamber? I'm willing to bet that the dilation would be a function of the distance between the actual dilator and the space the particle occupies in just like a black hole, but in reverse, which would render a chamber of any practical size useless (say, more than a few microns).
I've done my little research on time travel, and I've come to the conclusion that particles do time travel backwards in time, but the limitation of the universe would preclude objects (like humans) from traveling back in time within this universe. Also, this talk of alternate universe/realities is utter bunk - it'd be producing literally billions (if not more) copies of alternate universe/realities every second. Einstein was only half correct - God does play dice, but he plays knowing full well where it will roll, without knowing how it will roll. I'd offer my proof, but this forum is too short for me to write it down.
-- Starfox
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
None of you? I thought so.
Anyone who knows physics knows Mallett is the real deal. Obviously, small minds who have to use the "N-WORD" are not smart enough to discuss his ideas. And of course, his ideas are nothing really new. This is simple time dilation, people.
Time travel into the past is impossible unless you are accelerating so fast that time appears to reverse. The energy required to do this is simply not doable.
Remember when Superman reversed time to save Lois Lane? It's almost like that. Of course, making the Earth spin backward on its axis would destroy the planet, but the filmmakers had the right idea. It's about acceleration.
This is how time travel IS possible:
The atomic clock "slowed down" on a supersonic flight because it was going faster than objects on Earth. Now:
Imagine if a human being "slowed down" because it was going faster than objects on Earth.
This is mind-blowing.
Mallett is simply trying to make one particle in his machine "live longer" than a normal particle outside the machine. In essence, the particle becomes a "time traveler." Inside the chamber, the particle experiences normal time. But in the real world, time has "slowed" for the particle during the trip.
If Mallett can actually do this, then he will be another Einstein.
Because then, you ramp up the experiment. Bigger lasers, more acceleration, and more particles. Now tell me, what's the difference between an atom and a mouse?
The mouse is simply made up of more atoms.
If Mallett can accelerate the particles in a mouse's body without destroying it, and if he can do it fast enough, he could "transport" a mouse a few seconds, or a few hours "into the future." He is not really time traveling. He is "time dilating." He is just slowing down entropy. Next step: humans.
Imagine having a "Mallett chamber" in your bedroom. You lay in it, get a nice 8 hour sleep. In the real world, only a few minutes have passed. Human productivity could take a quantum leap, as no one would need to "sleep."
After major surgery, people could enter the Chamber and in a day or two, emerge with their body totally healed.
Your kid breaks his arm? No problem. The doctor sets it, puts it in a cast, and your kid gets in the Chamber (with IV feeders attached). In a day, he emerges with a fully functioning, healed arm.
Eventually, Disney World will be a "time-dilation theme park." The whole place is surrounded and enclosed by a giant Mallett Chamber. You spend a week in the park, but only a day passes in the real world.
This is earth-shattering. If we expand on this guy's theory, we can have time-dilation spas and retreats. Eventually, the rich will build their own Mallett Chambers so they can live for hundreds of years (on the inside) without aging in the real world.
Only problem is, if you spend too much time in the Chamber, and it's accelerating you fast enough (sub-atomically), you could return to the real world and be younger than your children. Yikes! But still...
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
Spaceships could be turned into Mallett Chambers. While the astronauts hibernate within, the ship enters new solar systems that would take us millennia to travel to.
Stop hating on the man, and let's explore the wonderful ideas this opens us up to.
QUOTE
Out of all the people on this board, who among you are ACTUAL scientists or engineers?
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
How many of you have a degree in any field of physics?
Academics could absorb knowledge for decades inside the Chamber, and emerge with ideas only a three-hundred year old human could reproduce.
I consider myself an student of science/engineering, although, no, I don't have a degree in physics. However, that last (second-to) example went beyond the point of absurdity, although the rest of your post was pretty good.
How can someone who studied for (only) decades come out with the knowledge that required three centuries to produce, unless you're implying this Mallatt Chamber would allow humans to live for 300 years. To be quite honest, the average life span of humans in Earth time would shrink drastically if thing ever came to fruition, because everyone would spend too much time being time-dilated. It would present some legal issues too - how can one verify that they are at the age they say they are.
My gut feeling tells me this wouldn't be practical, though. In order to affect an area large enough for a human to survive (and I'm not talking about just cubic volume of the human body), you'd have to affect an area large enough for someone to live comfortably for an extended period of time, with the proper amount of life support and other equipment. The closest thing we have right now is the Space Shuttle and/or the ISS. And if I understand my math correctly, you'd need enough energy to accelerate the equivalent of that mass to a whatever fraction of c required for the time dilation ratio. So unless he is coming up with a way to short-circuit Einstein's equation regarding that mass-energy-momentum conversion, you'd have a hard time coming up with enough energy to do it in the first place. Also, is there any guarantee that the time dilation would be preserved across a vast area of space within the said chamber? I'm willing to bet that the dilation would be a function of the distance between the actual dilator and the space the particle occupies in just like a black hole, but in reverse, which would render a chamber of any practical size useless (say, more than a few microns).
I've done my little research on time travel, and I've come to the conclusion that particles do time travel backwards in time, but the limitation of the universe would preclude objects (like humans) from traveling back in time within this universe. Also, this talk of alternate universe/realities is utter bunk - it'd be producing literally billions (if not more) copies of alternate universe/realities every second. Einstein was only half correct - God does play dice, but he plays knowing full well where it will roll, without knowing how it will roll. I'd offer my proof, but this forum is too short for me to write it down.
-- Starfox
I am a multi-degreed scientist / engineer. I deal with some of these issues often. Mallett was a person that the U of Con used to fufill a quota, and he got out of control, much to their dismay.
He solved the Einstein equations with conditions that worked on paper, but result in imaginary solutions that are not attainable.
Manipulating light will not result in gravitational effects that can produce sufficient frame-distortion, akin to a "spoon in a coffee cup". IF that were the case, then all of the people that went to see Lasarium shows must have found the fountain of youth.
He solved the Einstein equations with conditions that worked on paper, but result in imaginary solutions that are not attainable.
Manipulating light will not result in gravitational effects that can produce sufficient frame-distortion, akin to a "spoon in a coffee cup". IF that were the case, then all of the people that went to see Lasarium shows must have found the fountain of youth.
QUOTE
am a multi-degreed scientist / engineer. I deal with some of these issues often. Mallett was a person that the U of Con used to fufill a quota, and he got out of control, much to their dismay.
well said, I thought it you said it.
The second law of thermodynamics and the random nature of quantum mechanics. This Prevents time symmetry for Marco scale stuff (molecules and larger). By symmetry I mean events reversing like a movie run backward. Only at the single atom or particle can you get any hint of time symmetry. The minute you start on molecules or larger, things are no longer symmetrical with time. Reversing time will lead to a result that was not the original starting state. The larger the "thing", the more true this becomes.
Entropy determines the positive direction of time, not necessarily a magnitude or scale. The Irreversibility of processes forces the direction. There was a quote by a famous physicist (I forget who) that made the point that you cannot run a sausage factory backward to manufacture pigs. Likewise how can you collect burned up matter to energy without using even more energy to put it back together as the original thing. The second law of thermodynamics is applicable to all systems. You drive or ride in a car don't you? Heat engines lead to those understandings. The universe as a whole is the only true closed system. There is no "outside the boundary". It’s only necessary for the entropy of the universe as a whole to increase, but you can have local reducing entropy.
Quantum and Macro world things are very different. I really get upset at people who try to apply quantum results to the macro world. As I have stated before: "The second law of thermodynamics” prevents all those things happening. Almost all quantum effects that are reversible at the atomic scale, just aren't at the macro scale. Even superconductivity, which is called a macroscopic quantum effect, does not involve quantum interaction beyond a few thousands of atomic radii. It’s the random and unpredictable nature of moles and moles of atoms interacting, that prevents large scale stuff from being reversible." The fundamental reason is that quantum mechanics gives expectation values, It gives odds of each outcome. It does not define exactly which ones will prevail. Each atom’s state change takes its random choice. This is why Einstein couldn't believe "god plays dice with the universe". You cannot turn back to the original state by any simple process, and you will have to expend much more energy to reverse something than it took to get it there in the first place. That is the essence of the 2nd law, irreversibility.
I can see how a Multiverse might be convenient for descriptions of the microscopic quantum world or uncomfortable realities of some people’s theories. I believe absolutely that It can’t and won't apply at our large scale macro world. It seems it would take ‘an infinity of infinities of energy’ to support all these separate paths. The reason is simple. For each split, some energy from one universe has to pass to the new one, even if each new one had all the energy available that we have. This comes from communication theory, Which is also tied to the second law of thermodynamics. You need a certain minimum amount of energy to transmit a “bit of information”, defined by the background noise or Signal to Noise ratio. Even if the amount needed was vanishingly small, the infinite number of splittings required , all the decision points, at each infinitesimal amount of time, is what would multiply to an infinite amount. If each universe was doing this, there you have my ‘an infinity of infinities of energy’.
It’s the RANDOM outcome of Quantum effects that prevents the reversal of events at the MACRO scale. To suggest otherwise, you have to have an insane asymmetrical model of the action of all those atoms and molecules. What goes forward randomly, can't just then reverse deterministically. For all I've seen, It seems that backward time is just a mathematical connivance at the quantum level to explain some observed effects.
Any backward time talk or theory that does not address the "The second law of thermodynamics” and all its requirements, is pure hog wash!
Entropy determines the positive direction of time, not necessarily a magnitude or scale. The Irreversibility of processes forces the direction. There was a quote by a famous physicist (I forget who) that made the point that you cannot run a sausage factory backward to manufacture pigs. Likewise how can you collect burned up matter to energy without using even more energy to put it back together as the original thing. The second law of thermodynamics is applicable to all systems. You drive or ride in a car don't you? Heat engines lead to those understandings. The universe as a whole is the only true closed system. There is no "outside the boundary". It’s only necessary for the entropy of the universe as a whole to increase, but you can have local reducing entropy.
Quantum and Macro world things are very different. I really get upset at people who try to apply quantum results to the macro world. As I have stated before: "The second law of thermodynamics” prevents all those things happening. Almost all quantum effects that are reversible at the atomic scale, just aren't at the macro scale. Even superconductivity, which is called a macroscopic quantum effect, does not involve quantum interaction beyond a few thousands of atomic radii. It’s the random and unpredictable nature of moles and moles of atoms interacting, that prevents large scale stuff from being reversible." The fundamental reason is that quantum mechanics gives expectation values, It gives odds of each outcome. It does not define exactly which ones will prevail. Each atom’s state change takes its random choice. This is why Einstein couldn't believe "god plays dice with the universe". You cannot turn back to the original state by any simple process, and you will have to expend much more energy to reverse something than it took to get it there in the first place. That is the essence of the 2nd law, irreversibility.
I can see how a Multiverse might be convenient for descriptions of the microscopic quantum world or uncomfortable realities of some people’s theories. I believe absolutely that It can’t and won't apply at our large scale macro world. It seems it would take ‘an infinity of infinities of energy’ to support all these separate paths. The reason is simple. For each split, some energy from one universe has to pass to the new one, even if each new one had all the energy available that we have. This comes from communication theory, Which is also tied to the second law of thermodynamics. You need a certain minimum amount of energy to transmit a “bit of information”, defined by the background noise or Signal to Noise ratio. Even if the amount needed was vanishingly small, the infinite number of splittings required , all the decision points, at each infinitesimal amount of time, is what would multiply to an infinite amount. If each universe was doing this, there you have my ‘an infinity of infinities of energy’.
It’s the RANDOM outcome of Quantum effects that prevents the reversal of events at the MACRO scale. To suggest otherwise, you have to have an insane asymmetrical model of the action of all those atoms and molecules. What goes forward randomly, can't just then reverse deterministically. For all I've seen, It seems that backward time is just a mathematical connivance at the quantum level to explain some observed effects.
Any backward time talk or theory that does not address the "The second law of thermodynamics” and all its requirements, is pure hog wash!
QUOTE (Guest_Mike+Apr 5 2006, 04:58 PM)
The proof that human time-travel is impossible lies in the fact that there are no people from the future - a future in which we think time travel will be possible - roaming around in the present. If it were to be possible they'd already have come back to our time to visit.
Mike says:
"The proof that human time-travel is impossible lies in the fact that there are no people from the future - a future in which we think time travel will be possible - roaming around in the present. If it were to be possible they'd already have come back to our time to visit."
I ask you: How do we know they didn't ?
Mike says:
"The proof that human time-travel is impossible lies in the fact that there are no people from the future - a future in which we think time travel will be possible - roaming around in the present. If it were to be possible they'd already have come back to our time to visit."
I ask you: How do we know they didn't ?
QUOTE (tminus7+Apr 6 2006, 11:26 PM)
Any backward time talk or theory that does not address the "The second law of thermodynamics” and all its requirements, is pure hog wash!
I still stand by my theory that would allow for particles to travel backwards relative to "our" time, and no, it wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. I'm also starting to wonder whether the Big Bang was the actual "start" of the universe is a correct assumption. Seems to me that scientists are assuming that all actual energy (or mass) in our universe was created at that point, and basing their calculations as to the age or mass of the universe on that, which would explain the incosistent result, and having to resort to "dark matter" and other such issues. You're right about one thing, though, supporting a multiverse would take too much energy, something this universe would not likely support.
-- Starfox
I still stand by my theory that would allow for particles to travel backwards relative to "our" time, and no, it wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. I'm also starting to wonder whether the Big Bang was the actual "start" of the universe is a correct assumption. Seems to me that scientists are assuming that all actual energy (or mass) in our universe was created at that point, and basing their calculations as to the age or mass of the universe on that, which would explain the incosistent result, and having to resort to "dark matter" and other such issues. You're right about one thing, though, supporting a multiverse would take too much energy, something this universe would not likely support.
-- Starfox
Science fiction writer Larry Niven wrote an interesting article. He says that, were it possible to change the past, eventually a situation would arise wherein time travel never had been discovered at all. Therefore, if time travel is possible, time travel is impossible.
Look, I don't know if this guy is nuts or not. But consider this:
Which of these statements is true?
a) What we know = everything
What we know > What we don't know
c) What we know = What we don't know
d) What we know < What we don't know
Obviously, the answer is not a). Until it is, how can anyone say for sure what is and is not possible? No matter which of the other three remaining options you believe is true, you must consider that what we don't know may contradict (as discoveries often do) what we thought we knew.
That's my main issue with people who claim to be scientists. They often tend to close their minds to possibilities because they may contradict what was read in a book somewhere once upon a time.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
Which of these statements is true?
a) What we know = everything
What we know > What we don't knowc) What we know = What we don't know
d) What we know < What we don't know
Obviously, the answer is not a). Until it is, how can anyone say for sure what is and is not possible? No matter which of the other three remaining options you believe is true, you must consider that what we don't know may contradict (as discoveries often do) what we thought we knew.
That's my main issue with people who claim to be scientists. They often tend to close their minds to possibilities because they may contradict what was read in a book somewhere once upon a time.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
Einstein himself said time travel wasn't possible, but that time viewing was, in theory, possible. But how do we view things-via light-what is light? We have yet to figure that out, all scientists can say is that it has wave-like properties and particle-like properties coined "quantum physics" ie matter-we-are-unfamiliar-with. Once we understand what light is then we can make further judgments but as of right now i doubt we can, but I, as any other human, can be wrong.
I doubt it was a publicity stunt, for they often have to seem plausible at first then denied later by evidence found contradicting the statements or events that were said to of happened or happen. For a publicity stunt not the scale of time-travel, something viewed as sci-fi still for most, he would have to have outstanding proof of his theory and be able to enlighten the -right- others about it. Imagine if he actually did describe how his theory worked to the public, what's stopping people who have the funds to carry out the experiments before he does from doing it?
He, as it's blatantly obvious, is covering up how his scheme truly works, if it does. Also, quit idolizing Einstein, look up on your history and you'll notice that there were plenty others like him in the world but in less... how-should-I-say, "fortunate" situations as to be in the U.S. were you would get praised for such works unlike in more religious societies which will go nameless.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -Albert
But what did he do, he took the concept of a bomb. And figured out what materials and chemicals and what kind of fusion or reaction between the two would create an even bigger and more violent explosion, he himself was an intelligent fool. "Lacking street smarts" so-to-speak. Very hypocritical, no?
I doubt it was a publicity stunt, for they often have to seem plausible at first then denied later by evidence found contradicting the statements or events that were said to of happened or happen. For a publicity stunt not the scale of time-travel, something viewed as sci-fi still for most, he would have to have outstanding proof of his theory and be able to enlighten the -right- others about it. Imagine if he actually did describe how his theory worked to the public, what's stopping people who have the funds to carry out the experiments before he does from doing it?
He, as it's blatantly obvious, is covering up how his scheme truly works, if it does. Also, quit idolizing Einstein, look up on your history and you'll notice that there were plenty others like him in the world but in less... how-should-I-say, "fortunate" situations as to be in the U.S. were you would get praised for such works unlike in more religious societies which will go nameless.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -Albert
But what did he do, he took the concept of a bomb. And figured out what materials and chemicals and what kind of fusion or reaction between the two would create an even bigger and more violent explosion, he himself was an intelligent fool. "Lacking street smarts" so-to-speak. Very hypocritical, no?
a) What we know = everything (that we know).
Without experimentation the rest is either presumption, assumption or nothing at all.
We must either deduce, induce or reduce our observations to fit "what we know".
I say let the guy form his hypothesis, conduct the experiment, collect the data and submit the thesis for peer review and redact observations. In all the speculations presented in his work and this forum there seems to be little actual basis from the data of actual experimentation. Not that it is nonexistent.
A degree helps ones official status......BUT.....a piece of paper does not insure an absolute....especially in the area of relativity versus anti-relativity.
I, for one, hope the graviton is a "particle". I also hope that it's normal velocity is V>C. I certainly expect it. I cannot yet fathom an experiment that would measure anything at V>C. Thus I am unable to induce the dissolution of E=MC2.
In fact, I would suspect that most "particles" we encounter in the v<c temporal universe may in fact be just fleeting ensembles of "gravitational energy waves" created when normal gravitons traveling along different vectors approach other gravitons from dissimilar vectors and become briefly entangled, long enough to slow down, release energy which is perceptible to this time frame, and propel other gravitons onward (like billiard balls)...with a chain of cascading events forcing an "apparent"
Without experimentation the rest is either presumption, assumption or nothing at all.
We must either deduce, induce or reduce our observations to fit "what we know".
I say let the guy form his hypothesis, conduct the experiment, collect the data and submit the thesis for peer review and redact observations. In all the speculations presented in his work and this forum there seems to be little actual basis from the data of actual experimentation. Not that it is nonexistent.
A degree helps ones official status......BUT.....a piece of paper does not insure an absolute....especially in the area of relativity versus anti-relativity.
I, for one, hope the graviton is a "particle". I also hope that it's normal velocity is V>C. I certainly expect it. I cannot yet fathom an experiment that would measure anything at V>C. Thus I am unable to induce the dissolution of E=MC2.
In fact, I would suspect that most "particles" we encounter in the v<c temporal universe may in fact be just fleeting ensembles of "gravitational energy waves" created when normal gravitons traveling along different vectors approach other gravitons from dissimilar vectors and become briefly entangled, long enough to slow down, release energy which is perceptible to this time frame, and propel other gravitons onward (like billiard balls)...with a chain of cascading events forcing an "apparent"