Conservation of Mass VS Time Travel

Angleochaos,
I had the same thing happen to me years ago when I was in my car and saw an accident happen in front of me. I was behind a car coming to a light so I was almost stopped, but the car in front of me turned left into an oncoming car. I wasn't in the accident, but I saw that it was going to happen, so I always figured that somehow my brain kicked into high gear in case I needed to react quickly. It turned about 2 seconds into what seemed like 5 or 6 I would say. I also felt like there was a second of re-adjustment to normal speed afterward if that makes sense.
 
Now imagine if one could do that at will, or with the aide of something outside of oneself trigger that.
(One thing I didn't mention to RMT was there was a definite source of extreme heat welling from the lower middle of the chest. It was not a nice feeling either).
 
This has happened to me twice. Our brains may work faster than we think, and we only operate at normal speed in conditions where optimum speed is valuable.

I haven't checked out the article below yet, but here it is--time slowing in accidents.


#
www.livescience.com/health/071211-time-slow.html - Cached
#


P.S. The slowing of external time is equivalent to the speeding up of our thinking speed. It's relative.

P.P.S.: A clever person could make some money with this: Would you pay $19.95 to learn how to think faster than someone else?
 
Nice ! lol
Though I'm not sure if infomercials are my thing :P

I'm going to digest that link for sure.

Am I wrong or does this concept kind of bring together alot of different areas of science???
(If any practical experiments were done; neurology, psychology, physics (motion/time), QM....etc.)

***
After reading the article it made me wonder...how can you experiment in 'close to scary' situations when the participant has to have some kind of 'foreknowledge?
Can't really 'trick' the subconscious.

Made me think of those old experiments with the sensory deprivation tanks...
Did we do much experimenting with those and frequencies? I don't know alot about it in detail.
Is there any way along those lines to isolate a trigger?
 
I think I may need a formal education.
Everytime I think I have an original thought, it appears not really so.
Hopefully, that's a good sign.
I just found out the Soviets played around with critical mass and Stirling engines before I was born. They just never got it 'off the ground'.
I can't understand why they or anyone just dropped it. Say funding, but the space race was before the major arms race.
Gives new meaning to not worth a grain of sodium huh? ^^
 
The one thing that keeps coming up of course is gravity.

When we speak about 'gravity' and 'anti gravity' is 'anti gravity' really the
'opposite' of gravity, or just lack thereof?

I'm asking that because if you think about it - just about everything is subjected to gravitational fields, so 'anti gravity' in that context is just a variance of it's force, and not a 'counter force' or 'antithesis'.

Take matter & antimatter - in the comparison of the gravity terms, it should be -
Matter & perfect vacuum, yet 'we have tangible anti matter' - the opposite tangible.

So if we could really achieve 'tangible anti gravity' as in saying a force opposite but distinct of gravity, that would tie into this whole universal time mechanism?

PS

Please don't say it would be a blackhole, I thought about that, and it doesn't make sense, if it were - blackholes should be 'shooting things out' not devouring I'd think?
Though it could be possible the properities of all these hypotheticals could be found within it?
 
Angleo:

When we speak about 'gravity' and 'anti gravity' is 'anti gravity' really the
'opposite' of gravity, or just lack thereof?
Click to expand...

To be proper, it would have to be the opposite. IOW, since gravity draws bodies together, anti-gravity would have to push them apart.

Please don't say it would be a blackhole, I thought about that, and it doesn't make sense, if it were - blackholes should be 'shooting things out' not devouring I'd think?
Though it could be possible the properities of all these hypotheticals could be found within it?
Click to expand...

You are right, it is not a black hole. There is only one candidate for "anti-gravity" right now, and it is still very tentative. It relates to what physicists have termed Dark Energy. It is based on the observation that the universe is NOT expanding at a constant rate, as was once thought, but it is actually accelerating in its expansion. Since any acceleration implies a force that is causing it, then this means there must be some "force" that is driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. That would be about the only aspect of true "anti-gravity" that any real physicists would point to right now. And as I say, it is still tentative...they are still trying to explain what may be causing this phenomenom. Some still believe the observation/measurement is in error.

However, if we assume the measurement is good, one thing is for sure: Dark Energy represents, by far, the largest portion of total energy in the universe. To the tune of 75%!!! WAY WAY WAY more energy in Dark Energy than there is wrapped up in all the stars, planets, and what we call baryonic matter.

RMT
 
Would it be silly to think that dark energy could be from the rotation of supernovae?

If gravity pulls together, and the source is the rotation of spherical mass, then the opposite...
(an inside-out star)
?
I really liked this visual;
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2009/casa2/

The amount of energy from that rotation seems incredible?

---------

It just seems when working it all backwards that we see how conventional gravitational waves are created...

It would be really ironic if gravity had a duality - gravity/dark energy.
(obviously figurative since it's inherent nature wouldn't be that, without the right conditions)
That's alot to chew on.
 
Regarding the first post of this thread, this is how I think the law of conservation still holds true with time travel:

Provided we exist in a multiverse of parallel timelines (and for certain logical reasons I think we are) let's assume we depart from timeline A and arrive in the past, which is timeline B.
Now, it might be true that some might think the law of conservation has been broken, since in timeline A your mass vanished from that universe, whereas in timeline B you've added your mass to the universe. But now you can't just go and check the law of conservation for each timeline/universe SEPERATELY!
No, rather than that you have to check if it still holds true across ALL the timelines of the multiverse!

So let's see:
==============
For simplicity's sake let's say the multiverse does not consist of an infinite amount of timelines, but of only the two from before (A and B) and that the time travelers name is Peter. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
<ul type="square">BEFORE Peter travels back in time we take a look at the mass:
Multiverse contains 2 Peters (One in A and one in B).

AFTER Peter travels back in time, there is no Peter in timeline A anymore (from the point on when he traveled back) and in timeline B there are 2 Peters (from the point on as soon as he arrives).
Now let's take a look at the mass again:
Multiverse STILL contains 2 Peters (None in A and two in B).

=&gt; Across the multiverse the conservation of mass is maintained.[/list]

I also like to explain it with this little analogy:
====================================================
Let's say we have a crate of water bottles.
The crate represents the "space" of the multiverse and the water bottles within it represent each universe/timeline.
If you take water from one bottle and fill it in another bottle it's true that now the one bottle has more water than before and the other less.
But the amount of water inside the crate has NOT changed at all!

Alright, that's about it, any objections? :D
 
Alright, that's about it, any objections?
Click to expand...

You mean other than these?

1) Your initial (unproven and non-axiomatic) assumption is such that it permits you to arrive at your conclusion.
2) Your scenario cannot be falsified because it involves infinite combinations.
3) Your simplifying assumption is selected from an (assumed) infinite set of combinations, hence it is biased in such a way as to confirm your conclusion.
4) Your closing analogy deals with a finite and countable set, and of course this cannot be an analogy of an infinite (and therefore uncountable) assumption.

Other than those...no, no objection at all.

RMT
 
First, thanks for your reply. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

1: It's true that my initial assumption is neither proven nor axiomatic, but that's because I said "Provided we exist...".
That was my way of saying that everything in my post should only be considered in a multiverse.

2: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Can you explain that a bit more in detail?

3: I didn't want to say: Because my simple analogy works =&gt; my theory works.
Instead it was just to help people better understand what I'm getting at. More like a mnemonic device.

4: Isn't that essentially the same as in 3? If not, can you explain the difference?


Ok, thanks again for the input so far. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

EDIT: And what about the idea itself? Do you like it or do you have reasons not to believe this could be a solution?
 
: Dark Energy represents, by far, the largest portion of total energy in the universe. To the tune of 75%!!!
Click to expand...

You know, of course, that Yogic gurus insist that we see only a quarter of the universe.

I wonder what the Great Goo--ooo-rooo has to say about this?
 
@RainmanTime: You haven't answered me yet, I'd honestly like to know more about what you meant. Please? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
1: It's true that my initial assumption is neither proven nor axiomatic, but that's because I said "Provided we exist...".
That was my way of saying that everything in my post should only be considered in a multiverse.
Click to expand...

OK. Good.

2: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Can you explain that a bit more in detail?
Click to expand...

For any general scientific theory to be valid, it must be Popper-falsifiable. Nothing that relies on something "infinite" in terms of possibilities could ever be falsified. Mathematically speaking.

Does this help your understanding? Or do we need to discuss what it means for a theory to be Popper-falsifiable?

3: I didn't want to say: Because my simple analogy works =&gt; my theory works.
Instead it was just to help people better understand what I'm getting at. More like a mnemonic device.

4: Isn't that essentially the same as in 3? If not, can you explain the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is in progressing from the "general case" to the "specific case".

If the "general case" is speculative and possibly not true, then the "specific case" could never be true if there is even a single instance where the "general case" could be shown to be false.

Does this make sense to you? (i.e. general case vs. specific case)
RMT
 
Something else to think about re: the structure of my reply to you:

1:

2:

3:

4:
Click to expand...

Is it possible there are at least four, structured, hierarchically-related levels of energy that I am talking about in my four lines of rebuttal?

There very well could be. Yes?

RMT
 
Thanks for clarifying!

For any general scientific theory to be valid, it must be Popper-falsifiable. Nothing that relies on something "infinite" in terms of possibilities could ever be falsified. Mathematically speaking.
Click to expand...
Ok, now I see what you mean. But do you refered that to me saying there are an infinite amount of timelines/universes inside a multiverse or that the universe in general is infinite?
But isn't the universe infinite? If a universe would NOT be infinite, then there's of course only a finite amount of mass you could put in there. But still the mass across all universes inside the multiverse would still be the same.

If the former is the case though then I have to agree without a doubt. It could very well be that there is NOT an infinite number of universes inside a multiverse.
But the mass in the multiverse should still be the same, regardless of how you shift the mass around between the containing universes?

The difference is in progressing from the "general case" to the "specific case".

If the "general case" is speculative and possibly not true, then the "specific case" could never be true if there is even a single instance where the "general case" could be shown to be false.
Click to expand...
Alright, that makes sense indeed.
But as I've already mentioned in my earlier post my analogy was only to help people better understand at what I was getting.
It was not supposed to be 100% accurate. I'm well aware that you can't really take a finite example to explain something infinite 1:1 .


But apart from how scientifically correct my method of arguing is or not, etc... what do you think about the actual idea?
Do you think one should think about the law of conservation inside the multiverse instead of a single timeline/universe when thinking about time travel? (Provided of course that you're a proponent of the many worlds theory)
I'd really like to hear your thoughts about that. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

P.S.: And please don't be that smug and handle me like a dummy. Even though I'm new doesn't mean you have to treat me like a pupil.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not angry, I just noticed that your answers had a certain lecturing/belittling character, even though I wasn't unfriendly.
If that wasn't your intention though or if this is just your normal way of speaking, then I apologize.
As I've said, I'm new and still have to pick up on how things are being handled here, so please be gentle. :D
 
dimaggio,

I'm not angry, I just noticed that your answers had a certain lecturing/belittling character, even though I wasn't unfriendly.
If that wasn't your intention though or if this is just your normal way of speaking, then I apologize.
Click to expand...

Eh, don't take Ray's approach personally. Aside from being a working areo engineer he's a college instructor at Cal-Poly Pomona...thus the lecture approach.
 
Do you think one should think about the law of conservation inside the multiverse instead of a single timeline/universe when thinking about time travel?
Click to expand...

A big problem that we have when discussing this area of physics on a forum like this is the loose way that we use the terms "multiverse" and "many worlds [interpretation]". We should be talking about quantum mechanics. But we end up talking about entire universes, which is neither part of Everett's interpretation of how the probability wave function works nor a part of quantum mechanics.

In any case it's probably not useful to talk about conservation of mass-energy across multiple universes. We limit such conservation laws to a local frame. We can put detectors on the walls of our lab (our local frame) and detect particles as they leave the lab. We can speculate, based on every experiment previously performed, that the particles don't just disappear into nothingness once they leave the lab. But we can't actually proove that not to be the case. One electron looks exactly like every other electron. When the particle leaves the lab frame there's no way to detect that precise particle again, know that it is the same particle and state with absolute certainty that mass-energy is conserved outside the lab frame.

But this is a good thing. The theory of conservation of energy is put into terms that allow for falsification. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top