Conservation of Mass VS Time Travel

Both situation don't work

If you go back in time and there
is no gold there then who took
the gold? GOD.

And if the gold is there then mass
must be constantly being created
and that a lot for every day going
into the future.

Everyone will say to solve this
problem there has to be divergence
and that is what John Titor would say.
But that would make an intelligent
universe to prevent you from getting
more gold.

I am beginning to loose my faith
in time travel. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Moving mass in any number of dimensions is not paradoxical. A simple mathematical example would state that the integral of mass over all of 4-D space is unchanged, though the mass at a given coordinate may change. Suppose m(x,y,z,t) is a scalar field describing all the mass in space and time, and | is the integral operator.

||||m(x,y,z,t)dx dy dz dt = M (constant)

The static interpretation of the universe states that m(x,y,z,t) never changes. Thus, it is only the focus of consciousness at a particular time that creates the illusion of movement.

The dynamic interpretation states that m(x,y,z,t) can change. In this case one must define something analogous to Gauss' law for magnetism, except for mass, in order to say that there are no massive monopoles. That is, mass is always moving either in space or in time.
 
I honestly don't know the answer to this.
But if there was time travel they should
be the richest people in the world if
they perform this trick(GOLD). LOL
Click to expand...

Actually, you wouldn't be rich at all. In theory you could have more gold than there is iron. Iront, being less plentiful, might be more valuable.
 
"But doesn't time travel 'violate' the Law of Conservation of Mass any which way you cut it? The traveler appears from nowhere (mass gain) and departs to somewhere (mass loss).
Click to expand...
I'd agree on some lvls from the mind's eye yes it does. 'But it's all perception right?
Does a subatomic particle manifesting violate these laws as well?
Where in 'time' was the law that governed nothing just prior to observation?
Instead of thinking of it as 'time travel', would it not be the manipulation of time itself?
If you could manipulate time effectively, would you rather immediately 'travel' in it,
or witness it standing still?

Some people think of themsevles moving while everything is static. It makes me think of a pulse that can't be explained.
 
||||m(x,y,z,t)dx dy dz dt = M (constant)
Click to expand...

'If' we were able to replace the value of 't' with some sort of measurement of universal gravitational frequency (vibration) as a measurement, does that change things up?

I only ask that because as a medium of the passage of time and it's relation to the physics of the universe, light 'travelling' is certainly handy and accurate for motion and it's measurment.
However, what I'm speaking about here more to the point...
Does 'light' travel?
Does a photon 'travel'?
Silly question right?

If a 0-D subatomic particle emerges, then why would it be 'travelling' when observed?
Think of a cartoon flip-book.
Motion is perceived, but in actually it's a rapid change of position.
Almost like a 'pulse' on a very high frequency.

So then, why gravitational frequency? Well under this pretext we can observe the 'light pulse' for lack of proper or better terminology, but what is regulating it?
 
Just a reply about any of this, perhaps. Perhaps a different way of perception is needed in the first place. The only reason I mention this is because of an article on the PhysOrg.com website about the electron. The electron has another state in the quantum world, and perhaps being concrete in an abstract universe is the first problem or awareness that people have to change about anything and everything.

http://www.physorg.com/news166097923.html

mmmmmmm..........I thought there was another article other than the link above that I read, but now, I don't seem to find another article about that electron critical state in quantum theory. I guess that is it, but then perhaps I was just glancing articles that day a while back now. (??)

Here is a newer article about quantum theory:
http://www.physorg.com/news167461123.html

or measurements, but time to go, for I have not been following all of it lately either.
 
Interesting links, I'll certainly digest those ^^

Just to touch back on the 'flip-book' analogy a moment. To give some insight why I said that...
Wild imagining? Nope.
Experience, yes.

When I was involved in that head on car accident, the 'perception' of time changing (not after trauma, or such but prior to impact) was fascinating in retrospect.
Did time really 'slow' ? Nope, it did not. Of that I have no doubt.

However, I did perceive time as 'slowing' because I wasn't using the correct analogies I realize.

It became a freeze-frame to freeze-frame. No second guessing it. Didn't appear to happen for a good few seconds, or some such. It took a fraction of a second and extended it to comparitively five solid minutes for perceptions sake.
Cognitive 'coming in and out'? 'rapid eye movement'? Nope.
Perception was solid, and used to navigate the physics of my body around folding metal.

The perception was very much like how you describe 0-D particles. Not a fluid motion, but 'pulsing'.

After all, what's the building blocks of everything right? If that is their inherent behaviour, then the subconscious when in those few rares times giving lend to it's perception when it takes over - might give us a glimpse?

------

To get back to logic a moment...
If we look at ||||m(x,y,z,t)dx dy dz dt = M (constant)

Where (if we surmise hypothetically), there had to be a contradiction somewhere in that statement, could it be?

Well... there are four measurements. All indictive of a coordinate.

Now, in the sense of the manipulation of 'x'
can we put our thumb on x, y, z & t ? and give them solid values, sure?
Contradiction yet? only the speculation that 't' makes it all work, so yes.
But in terms of visual perception, only one is not like the others.

Manipulation of x through z, largely the same.

Now, manipulation of 't' with regard to the others.
Not the same ball game is it?
While 3 of the 4 representative cooridinates can be assigned actual values for 'change', the fourth appears to have already been assigned value to just be 'representative' in conjuncture when giving shape.
So how can one manipulate a coordinate that has a fixed representative value?

You tell me?
 
Moving mass in any number of dimensions is not paradoxical. A simple mathematical example would state that the integral of mass over all of 4-D space is unchanged, though the mass at a given coordinate may change. Suppose m(x,y,z,t) is a scalar field describing all the mass in space and time, and | is the integral operator.

||||m(x,y,z,t)dx dy dz dt = M (constant)

The static interpretation of the universe states that m(x,y,z,t) never changes. Thus, it is only the focus of consciousness at a particular time that creates the illusion of movement.

The dynamic interpretation states that m(x,y,z,t) can change. In this case one must define something analogous to Gauss' law for magnetism, except for mass, in order to say that there are no massive monopoles. That is, mass is always moving either in space or in time.
Click to expand...

Here is a video off youtube showing a sphere of water and the resulting waves when a puff of air is put into it very fast. It has outter waves and inner body waves. I think this is a good example of the bubble universe theories and what happens with space time. Well worth looking at I thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iax3wNqktA
 
'If' we were able to replace the value of 't' with some sort of measurement of universal gravitational frequency (vibration) as a measurement, does that change things up?
Click to expand...

"t" and "dt" are variables of integration that represent functions which are, hopefully, at least piecewise continuous. Frequency is merely the reciprocal of time, so yes you could replace "t" and "dt" with "1/f" and "1/df". But it would not change the integral relation over the 4-D that OCS posted. But a bigger question is "what would the frequency function look like?" It could not just be a single frequency in the frequency spectrum. How would you model (mathematically, as a function) this "universal gravitational frequency" that you talk about (whatever that is!). /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I only ask that because as a medium of the passage of time and it's relation to the physics of the universe, light 'travelling' is certainly handy and accurate for motion and it's measurment.
Click to expand...

It is a relative standard. Being that it is the fastest motion we can sense, that does indeed make it handy to relate all other objects and their motion to.

Does 'light' travel?
Does a photon 'travel'?
Silly question right?
Click to expand...

It all depends on what reference frame you select... and the basis of physics (and relativity specifically) is that all reference frames are equally valid, and that physics is invariant of the reference frame you select. So if you select a reference frame attached to the photon, then no, it does not "travel" in that frame... but everything else certainly does "travel" with respect to it!


Think of a cartoon flip-book.
Motion is perceived, but in actually it's a rapid change of position.
Click to expand...

Change of position (no matter how rapid) is the definition of motion. Velocity is change in position divided by change in time.

Almost like a 'pulse' on a very high frequency.

So then, why gravitational frequency? Well under this pretext we can observe the 'light pulse' for lack of proper or better terminology, but what is regulating it?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are getting at. But I guess it is not the first time! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
When I was involved in that head on car accident, the 'perception' of time changing (not after trauma, or such but prior to impact) was fascinating in retrospect.
Did time really 'slow' ? Nope, it did not. Of that I have no doubt.

However, I did perceive time as 'slowing' because I wasn't using the correct analogies I realize.
Click to expand...

Before you dismiss that time did not really slow, one must ask which reference frame are you measuring time in? Because that does make a difference. Speaking very technically, it actually did change because you had a velocity with respect to some inertial frame (the earth). Of course, since your velocity was nowhere near the speed of light, the relativistic effects were very tiny. But time did change in your frame.

And then we address the PERCEPTION (or measurement) of time within the selected frame. Any measurement is subject to both systematic and random errors. I have a theory that explains events and perceptions such as yours: Since time is directly related to matter in motion (again, Einstein and Relativity showed us this), then it stands to reason that both your systematic and random errors of your "sensory apparatus" are going to be subject to how much matter is in motion, and what the magnitude of that motion is (which includes both velocity, acceleration, jerk, and likely even higher order motion differentials).

In short: The greater the amount of "matter" and the higher the magnitude of "motion" that is being processed by your sensory apparatus, in your chosen reference frame, the larger the systematic and random errors are going to be. I have also explained this with a different (but similar) example to yours:

Think of two different days at work. One day is extremely slow. You do not have any pressing deadlines. People are not calling you with questions or asking for help. Maybe the boss is even out of town! Don't we all tend to think that such days "crawl by"? And then the other type of day... That day where you are exceedingly busy. A big deadline is ahead of you, and you think you may have too much work to get done that you may miss the deadline. The phone rings off the hook, people stop by your desk to chat or ask questions. Such days, when you are really busy, seem to "fly by".

My theory is that this is nothing more than systematic and random error effects of your sensory apparatus because of the level of MATTER IN MOTION that is inherent in your "reference frame" (you body).

The perception was very much like how you describe 0-D particles. Not a fluid motion, but 'pulsing'.
Click to expand...

You seem to be fixated on the concept of a 0-D particle! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The "pulsing" effect has another very mundane (but scientific) explanation related to your sensory apparatus. Your senses are bandwidth-limited. All real sensing devices are. This is a topic I deal with in control system design all the time, because to make a "closed loop control system" you need sensing devices and they all have a prescribed bandwidth. The pulsing you perceive is nothing more than your sensory apparatus being exposed to a frequency environment that is beyond its design bandwidth. And again, this relates to systematic error, mostly in the Nyquist sampling realm.

After all, what's the building blocks of everything right? If that is their inherent behaviour, then the subconscious when in those few rares times giving lend to it's perception when it takes over - might give us a glimpse?
Click to expand...

I would not even bring the subconscious into it. That is more of a "software realm". What you are describing, as I have explained above, is very much a hardware effect (bandwidth limitation of a real sensor).

RMT
 
There's alot more to this I'm sure, but was thinking about it, and had a question.
To sum up one aspect in this sense, does this sound correct?
Gravitational frequency over distance cubed would give the average based on the frequency of a single measured gravitational field?
But it doesn't account for dissipation.
So if the area were to be surmised from point of origin to a reading of as close to zero as possible, that distance cubed could then be halved giving an average value for effect?
(in respect to the gravitational field).
 
Gravitational frequency over distance cubed would give the average based on the frequency of a single measured gravitational field?
Click to expand...

Still too fuzzy. Here are some things you should do to clarify it:

1) Show it in equation form, and define your variables.
2) Define the physical units of each term in your equation.
3) Ensure that the units on the right side of "=" combine to form the units on the left side of "=".
4) Ensure that the units for the quantity on the left side of "=" are correct for the physical quantity you are trying to describe.

That is the scientific way to pose your question. For example: What are the units of "gravitational frequency?" It this nothing more than the rate of change of acceleration (i.e. acceleration due to gravity per unit time?)

So if the area were to be surmised from point of origin to a reading of as close to zero as possible, that distance cubed could then be halved giving an average value for effect?
(in respect to the gravitational field).
Click to expand...

I cannot even begin to understand what this means. Start with the equation first, as I suggest above. Let's work up to this later.
RMT
 
I see what you're saying. I was trying to get a mental picture out a little quickly.
'And yes, I am fascinated by 0-D.
(similarities in function - If a photon/wave is 0-D then gravity to give it's field properties would similarly be considered zero dimensional (taking up no physical space).
Then a field containing uniformity even during the course of dissipation shares a few functions of the wave in regards to shape.
I was just speculating about preliminary space visuals.
I can see this requires alot of focus.
 
Did some more researching there, and wow did I go for a ride on self educating myself on that one.
There's alot of common view out there that subatomic particles do not take up physical space.
However, reading up on the actual defintion of a 'point particle' and it's usage, takes me back to my first presumption that 0-D is a reference point.
Thanks for the clarification ^^
 
Angleo,

In your equation remember that those are squared values and that the time value is imaginery. The space-time manifold that is implied is complex, not real.
 
Angleo,

Did some more researching there, and wow did I go for a ride on self educating myself on that one.
There's alot of common view out there that subatomic particles do not take up physical space.
However, reading up on the actual defintion of a 'point particle' and it's usage, takes me back to my first presumption that 0-D is a reference point.
Click to expand...


Good job at doing individual research.

"Point particles" are generally a Newtonian simulation. In many cases we can take a situation and make a crude but very accurate assumption that, for example, the mass is a point particle. The center of mass in our approximation - even if it is an entire planet - can be assumed to be a dimensionless point. The assumption involves being far enough away from the body that it makes no significant difference to our system. But in quantum mechanics particles are rarely treated as points. They are smeared out as a multidimensional field rather than as a point.

Even in the classical approximation if we are attempting to predict the future positions of the Earth-Moon system we can't treat either body as a point particle. Both bodies are huge, close together and the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. The math involved, if we want to have absolute "perfection" in our prediction of the future relative positions, require that we treat the mass of both bodies as being "smeared out" over a large volume of space.
 
In your equation remember that those are squared values and that the time value is imaginery. The space-time manifold that is implied is complex, not real.
Click to expand...

You picked up on something that had been bothering me when I was visualizing shape.
I cubed the distance to be relative to the field with an image of dissipation.
Though then that means to fit, the field has to be given greater dimension for it's value to really be realtive to a complex space, correct?
 
Back
Top