Alternate timelines, an idea

ruthless

ruthless

Rift Surfer
ok, i need someone with a really big brain to help me with this one...

lets say that titor was right, there are alternate timelines. with that being said, when excactly, did the timelines diverge? at the big bang? if so, that would mean that every big bang was different, and almost ensuring that there would only be one earth in one timeline. am i correct?

AND if they did not start to diverge at the big bang, then is that proof of divine intervention?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This makes an interesting question to look at for my first post.

Alternate Time-lines. Tracks. Lines. Pathways. These are dangerous contradictions to comtemplate for most people if you're digging below the surface, as they provide some very conflicting moral arguments that would make people squirm and not wish to think about it.

Allow me to explain, by demostrating in either the existance or non-existance of alternate time-lines.

If there wasn't alternate time-lines, everything would be linear, which would also mean everything would be predictable, which ironically could allow for information of the future to be gleaned. It would also give rise to the moral question of 'fate'. You can't escape it as there is no alternate (since, obviously, we're discussing linear).

However, this is where the contradiction starts (I've already worked these ideas through several times already). If it IS linear, then you can predict, so you can foresee what happens and change it, which then means it's not linear... unless the changes were part of the linear process all along and it's a 'false choice'. But then you would argue what if I predicted myself predicting my prediction and knew it was linear and stopped it all from occuring?

The next contradiction lies here. If there are alternate time-lines, then prediction will be rendered impossible as any one time-line could be used, so the predictable becomes the unpredictable, thus rendering it linear again in an even further and interesting twist. I dubbed it the 'Central Nexus Theory' for an easier referrence. Basically, if you have more than one possible prediction, it proves the uncertainty remains and the predictions are worthless.

So, I thought, and I thought. What theory would allow the contradictions to be removed, but both linear and non-linear time to exist? Easy. Switch points.

Imagine time like a train track rather than like a million different tree-branches. For the most part it is linear *until* you reach a switch point, which, depending on the operator's decision (you, me, anyone), the track can either switch to another time-line, or remain on course.

Here's the twist - since all the tracks remain linear (no matter which one you choose, the track has already been laid down), you can predict what happens on every one, as in, every single possible alternative has already been mapped out. What can't be predicted is your path along these tracks. A bit of track A. A bit of track B.

And I know what you're thinking (linear track thinking, bah). If every one is already mapped out, then surely so is the path you will choose. Not true. Since every single alternate possibility has already been mapped out, the Central Nexus Theory applies - the unpredictable remains in the predictable since there are so many alternatives.

And, if every track can be predicted, so can the future, so you know where the switch points are so you can make your track changes even more unusual! Living in a track where you're about to die? Switch over to a track where you steal a car and drive to safety!

 
ruthless,

lets say that titor was right, there are alternate timelines. with that being said, when excactly, did the timelines diverge? at the big bang? if so, that would mean that every big bang was different, and almost ensuring that there would only be one earth in one timeline. am i correct?
Click to expand...
We're mixing two seperate sets of physical theories together in your post. The two theories are related in the general scheme of physics but are very different.
The first set of theories relate to the Big Bang. There are several cosmologies predicted by the Big Bang theorists that state that more than one seperate, independent universe could evolve from a single Big Bang event. The histories of those universes don't diverge. They are totally unrelated to each other because they have no contact with each other. Those theories arise from general relativity.

The other set of theories are generally called the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Those theories relate to how the wave function of an "event" resolves itself when acted upon by an "observer". In this set of theories alternate resolutions of the event play themseles out in new, seperate and independent universes created by the observation. The divergence begins immediately due to, at a minimum, the Principle of Uncertainty and Chaos Theory. At the subatomic level particles' paths cannot be predicted. The particles appear to move about by taking unpredictable random paths through spacetime.

If, according to the general class of MWI theories, you take the temperature of an 8 oz. glass of water the world splits into as many different worlds as the range of temperatures allowed (its infinite but limited to the range of temperatures allowed - you won't have one glass of water at 75 degrees and another at 200 degrees - the range might be 69-71 degrees). If you could somehow map the location of every water particle in the glass (without causing the splitting of worlds...which isn't possible according to thetheory), took the temperature and then was further able to "see" all the glasses an again map the water particles you'd see that the individual particles in each glass were no longer moving in parallel paths relative to the other glasses in the set. Instant divergence. And it only gets worse over time.

In the real world we have a huge problem predicting the paths of three objects that are interacting in ways that cause them to change positions over time (the Three Body Problem). It's impossible for us to map the molecules in an eyedropper of water let alone an 8 oz glass of water.

 
" At the subatomic level particles' paths cannot be predicted. The particles appear to move about by taking unpredictable random paths through spacetime."

i understand that. i was wondering if it is kind of like an old video game. when you played a level, and then played it again. it would seem very random at first, but after playing it 1000 times you have it memorized and perfected. i thought that maybe the beggining of every universe starts in the same fashion, this is just our first time through.

 
ruthless,

Good question.

The answer is - cosmologists don't know what the initial state of the uiverse was during the Plank's Time era - the first ~5.4 * 10^-44 seconds after the initial Big Bang event. So we don't know what the initial state of the other universes would be. They should be similar but we also know that the initial state of the universe(s) had to be somewhat "grainy" or lumpy. If the initial state was perfectly smoothe we shouldn't have any planets or stars because there wouldn't be enough currents and eddies in the original plasma to form atoms and then stars and galaxies. The Uncertainty Principle is a very good idea that our Creator decided to build into the fabric of spacetime. ;)

 
We might not know what the path is, but it's there, already laid before us.

If you open up a fridge for a drink, what might you find? Milk? Apple Juice? Maybe even your favourite chilled Cok Cola (bah, sounds like shameless advertising). Your choices of what you can actually choose for a drink is incredibly limited even if all three are availible. You can already imagine what the paths for those would be like...

Open fridge

Choose...

(Switch Point)

To take apple

To take milk

To take coke

Close Fridge Door and not have a drink.

You pour <x> out into the glass.

(switch point)

You either...

Get it all in

Spill some of it

Knock the glass over and spill it over the floor

Curse as you realised you picked the wrong drink

You can start to see how it forms. It would be time consuming to consider every possibility, but I bet, if you were to just casually map it out into your mind - you can already see what kind of reaction and action you would take to each situation. I've saved myself a lot of time by mapping out what is most likely to happen next. I also use such methods in combat games to predict and outwit opponents.

Imagine you're the enemy. Your aim is to kill me. If I run away, I will look like I am scared or losing, and you will give chase (given with the original aim as an enemy). This can be abused in several ways - you can lead your enemy into a team ambush, you can lead your enemy into an area that better suits yourself and ambush him or you could run and hide. For the first two, you know the enemy will be surprised - they thought you were losing! For the last one, they can react in two ways - follow in and wonder where you have gone, thus starting a search for you, or run in and think you have continued onwards and give chase.

In either situation it still works to your advantage - you can come out of hiding when he searches the wrong spot and gun him, or, you can sneak out of the area completely so he has no idea where you are even if he searches that area thourghly. After failing to find you the enemy then becomes paranoid fearing an attack - this slows them down, buying you time.

Now imagine you're a wounded enemy, and try to map out how they would act and react to different situations. It gets fairly easy. Like finding out each card in a shuffled deck slowly.

 
darby, would it be possible to take all the information that is known, and use it to make a very educated guess on what is not known?

 
lemme rephrase my question.

darby, would it be possible to take all the information that is known, and use it to make a very educated guess on what is not known, and then reverse engineer that educated guess into a fact?

 
Ruthless,

lemme rephrase my question.darby, would it be possible to take all the information that is known, and use it to make a very educated guess on what is not known, and then reverse engineer that educated guess into a fact?
Click to expand...
Actually that's a pretty good layman's description of theoretical science.
Scientific theories are built upon the structure of what came before. A valid prior standing theory is one that correctly describes the world around us. Its usually backed up with experimental verification. Its valid to the limit of its domain.

Along comes another scientist. A theoretical scientist, in fact. That scientist takes what is known, looks at a new situation and attempts to apply the old theory to it. Lo and behold s/he has run up against the limit of the domain of the old theory. So s/he makes some educated guesses based on the older theory(s), applies some new approaches and over time comes up with a newer theory (or discovers that the new theory is wrong).

Next comes the experimentalists. The experimental scientists take the new theory to task and formulate, well, some experiments. If the experiments prove fruitful you have a new and more general theory - one that extends the limit of the old domain. It becomes a fact that the new theory is the more correct one.

 
(...) The Uncertainty Principle is a very good idea that our Creator decided to build into the fabric of spacetime. ;)
Click to expand...
Hey Darby, out of curiosity, do you believe the universe had a Creator?

 
I guess alternate timelines are just guesses , indeed it is though i dont think there is a valid evidence for it to exist. I just thing that it was just made out of curiosity

 
Sorry if i miss something because being lazy reading all these posts.

Well, first of all, you are asking something that the answer of a physicist would be that it isn't comprobated so there's still no answer.

Well, that's the answer. Maybe parallel timelines aren't real.

So you're imagining. I could give you any imaginary answer.

But if your question would be real, the answer may depend of the exact theory of multiple timelines.

Pzzt, plot twist: String theory says that because dimension #99999999 (okno just kidding, i think it is the 9 or 10 or so), the answer to this question should be that convergence is always. Because, physicist love to make stupid theories. if you ask me, well man, that's the devil, just don't ask.

Anyways, physicists since like 999 years are having trouble with the quantum theory, specially with the string theory. String theory is this: Random is in seen in the minimal quantum scale. But, what if we are in a minimal scale of something else, and that else is in a minimaler scale? Omg, omgomg im a genius *makes 99999999999999 maths*. Well, now gimme da nobel.

In few words, string theory wants to put every probability existent, so, including the probability of multiple time-convergence. And, all others you could think of.

(In the internet there are very fews explanations of the string theory because physicist only write'em on numbers an weird simbols. I think that's because it isn't comprobated, because the theory could be discarded overnight with one more great discovery..)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok, i need someone with a really big brain to help me with this one...lets say that titor was right, there are alternate timelines. with that being said, when excactly, did the timelines diverge? at the big bang? if so, that would mean that every big bang was different, and almost ensuring that there would only be one earth in one timeline. am i correct?
AND if they did not start to diverge at the big bang, then is that proof of divine intervention?
Click to expand...
After issues started to cool down a bit after the primary big bang.Time lines were only formed after a certain frwequency resonace value had been attained.In order for those timelines to have formed, cooler temperatures must have prevailed, as with the cooler temprautres also came the differing divisions of time.
As time went along, in similar fashion to a segmented four lane highway to where each highway was barriered in from the other, then the timelines formed.Issues became more interesting as time went along as there were happenings in reference to creatures within those time-lanes that began to form.Pinter

 
There is a fairly new line of thought, (at least new for me), that consciousness plays a huge role in time travel.

"Paula, supply your proof and scientific papers". I don't have them. Someone else may and you are certainly free to look for them, but during my conversations with other people consciousness has come up in the conversations. If decisions you make create different timelines, then wouldn't individual consciousness play a role? It comes right back to a question I already posed on my website - Is the universe itself a consciousness?

Think about it. YOU time travel by yourself. Only YOU experience the change. That would be YOUR consciousness, would it not? Why didn't it change EVERYONE'S reality? Consciousness.

The universe and consciousness are related, IMHO. There is even proof of a global consciousness on Earth.

"Paula, where's your proof?". You can Google it. It's there. It's your choice to believe or disbelieve. Again, just a coversation here. Speculation. Thinking out loud. Sharing of ideas. No claims of being right or wrong. Relax. Zen.

:)

 
Think about it. YOU time travel by yourself. Only YOU experience the change. That would be YOUR consciousness, would it not? Why didn't it change EVERYONE'S reality? Consciousness.
Click to expand...
The universe may have been created by an I.What you is, is the accusation of responsibility for which the amalgam of I is housed in.

 
Back
Top