When we look up at the sky either with the naked eye or with telescopes we are looking at billions of years of past time, we can see light from stars that no longer exist, we can see expansions of supernovas and nebula's that happened thousands of years ago, why is all in still frame, why cant we see it in motion as if looking farther away from it and seeing what happened before it?
Conservation of Mass VS Time Travel
- Thread starter Designer
- Start date
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
@Darby:
Thanks for the clarification on this. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
It's absolutely understandable that nothing about my theory is falsifiable and that fabricating theories like this is not a good way to prove anything.
But you're all looking at what I wrote a way too serious I believe.^^
It was not my intention to write soemthing that should be tested against any scientific methods etc.
It was just an "idea" that I though about in the past after people said: "Timetravel is not possible since the conservation of law would be broken!".
And then I merely wanted to present a possibility how both could coexist.
I don't believe that the law of conservation was conceived/formulated with the possibility of a multiverse in mind. (Although I don't KNOW that for a fact)
So maybe this physical law still holds true after some mass traveled to the past since it is still all there in the entirety of all the universes?
I know there might never be a way to prove or disprove it, but that's not what I intended.
What I wanted to know was merely who of you believes this could be a possible idea for this problem.
Not because it is possible in general, but because YOU like the idea and lean towards it.
And if NOT, then I'd like to know why specifically you think this could not possibly be.
Not because it's not falsifiable to begin with or sth.
Like: Tell me why you don't like the story I wrote and don't start telling me why my grammar and punctuation etc. is flawed.
I hope this example helps to explain better what I mean. I'm really struggling to get the point of what I'm thinking sometimes. :\
As to the term multiverse and many worlds theory:
I said that because it is what I specifically require for my theory.
I think that every probability has its own universe, simply because it's possible.
Creating a new timeline the very moment we time travel is not what I think.
Instead I believe that every moment of time might already be "played out".
I mean, only because we feel our here-and-now is the now, doesn't mean it is.
It could very well be that a version of me 2 hours or even 2 years in the future feels HE is in the here-and-now.
And since there's no indication to think we are at the writing arrow of time it could very well be that the film of time we're on already has an end.
So all the timelines where a time traveler arrives, they're all existing already, even though some of the travelers didn't even arrive at their departure window yet.
And in general ALL probable timelines exist already, form beginning to end.
Granted, it could very well be that maybe there are indeed some timelines whose "writing arrow" is still moving forward and is creating new content as we speak.
But it's all just in my head of course and I can neither prove nor disprove anything of it.
But since I didn't wanted to talk about if a multiverse is even probable to begin with and it is a prerequisite of my idea, I wanted to know if there are some people who believe this could be a good solution to the problem.
And if they don't, then why. Maybe they don't believe a multiverse to be existant or whatever, that's fine with me.
I just wanted someone to start talking about my "story" rather than my "grammatics & punctuation" if you understand what I mean. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So thanks for the clarification again and well, what do you think about the idea?
P.S.:
@jameswade: Is your post in reply to mine? If yes I'm not exactly sure what you want to say, sorry. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Thanks for the clarification on this. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
It's absolutely understandable that nothing about my theory is falsifiable and that fabricating theories like this is not a good way to prove anything.
But you're all looking at what I wrote a way too serious I believe.^^
It was not my intention to write soemthing that should be tested against any scientific methods etc.
It was just an "idea" that I though about in the past after people said: "Timetravel is not possible since the conservation of law would be broken!".
And then I merely wanted to present a possibility how both could coexist.
I don't believe that the law of conservation was conceived/formulated with the possibility of a multiverse in mind. (Although I don't KNOW that for a fact)
So maybe this physical law still holds true after some mass traveled to the past since it is still all there in the entirety of all the universes?
I know there might never be a way to prove or disprove it, but that's not what I intended.
What I wanted to know was merely who of you believes this could be a possible idea for this problem.
Not because it is possible in general, but because YOU like the idea and lean towards it.
And if NOT, then I'd like to know why specifically you think this could not possibly be.
Not because it's not falsifiable to begin with or sth.
Like: Tell me why you don't like the story I wrote and don't start telling me why my grammar and punctuation etc. is flawed.
I hope this example helps to explain better what I mean. I'm really struggling to get the point of what I'm thinking sometimes. :\
As to the term multiverse and many worlds theory:
I said that because it is what I specifically require for my theory.
I think that every probability has its own universe, simply because it's possible.
Creating a new timeline the very moment we time travel is not what I think.
Instead I believe that every moment of time might already be "played out".
I mean, only because we feel our here-and-now is the now, doesn't mean it is.
It could very well be that a version of me 2 hours or even 2 years in the future feels HE is in the here-and-now.
And since there's no indication to think we are at the writing arrow of time it could very well be that the film of time we're on already has an end.
So all the timelines where a time traveler arrives, they're all existing already, even though some of the travelers didn't even arrive at their departure window yet.
And in general ALL probable timelines exist already, form beginning to end.
Granted, it could very well be that maybe there are indeed some timelines whose "writing arrow" is still moving forward and is creating new content as we speak.
But it's all just in my head of course and I can neither prove nor disprove anything of it.
But since I didn't wanted to talk about if a multiverse is even probable to begin with and it is a prerequisite of my idea, I wanted to know if there are some people who believe this could be a good solution to the problem.
And if they don't, then why. Maybe they don't believe a multiverse to be existant or whatever, that's fine with me.
I just wanted someone to start talking about my "story" rather than my "grammatics & punctuation" if you understand what I mean. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So thanks for the clarification again and well, what do you think about the idea?
P.S.:
@jameswade: Is your post in reply to mine? If yes I'm not exactly sure what you want to say, sorry. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Darby
Epochal Historian
We don't see the motion of extremely distant events because of how our eyes work. Our eyes can distinguish, as I recall, changes as small as about 2 minutes of arc (1/1800th of a degree). But if we're looking at something many light years away it might take several years or even several hundred years for the object at that distance to appear to displace or expand by 2 minutes of arc. It looks static even though it isn't.
Darby
Epochal Historian
dimaggio,
The experiment on first blush does appear to negate conservation of mass. But does it?
You made six trips to the past and brought six "yous" to the present. We'll assume that your mass is 125kg.
It appears that you suddenly created 750kg of mass from nothing. But you can look at from another perspective. You removed 125kg from each of six past frames and planted it all into the present frame. The net change is zero summed over all frames. Mass is conserved if you apply the appropriate summation.
Is this how it "really" works? No one knows. You could be correct, my off the cuff analysis could be correct and we could both be wrong.
The experiment on first blush does appear to negate conservation of mass. But does it?
You made six trips to the past and brought six "yous" to the present. We'll assume that your mass is 125kg.
It appears that you suddenly created 750kg of mass from nothing. But you can look at from another perspective. You removed 125kg from each of six past frames and planted it all into the present frame. The net change is zero summed over all frames. Mass is conserved if you apply the appropriate summation.
Is this how it "really" works? No one knows. You could be correct, my off the cuff analysis could be correct and we could both be wrong.
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
First of all: The timetravel arrows into the past only have two different colors to show exactly where they start and end.
Ok, so at the beginning we have our red dot. This is "our" time traveler whose journey we want to watch.
The first time he goes into the time machine, he's alone (only the red dot on the first travel arrow).
When he arrives, there's already a version of him standing there (black dot) who planned to travel back sometime later himself.
So the second time around, they both travel back (black and red dot on the travel arrow).
And this goes on and on...
Now if the red dot decides after a few travels that the others should stay and only he himself should go on a travel way past the moment when arrived the first time (i.e. arriving at a much earlier point), then this means he will only encounter one other version of himself already standing there and not many (black dot & red dot).
And if these two dots/persons decide NOT to travel from this point on, then there'd be only these 2 dots/persons on that last timeline.
But on the previous parallel timeline the other dot's still exist, just without the red dot.
And on all the other before that all the dots are gone (since all of them are on the second last timeline and the red dot is on the last one).
So now we have 4 universes missing the mass of one dot/person, 1 universe with 3 dots/persons too much and another one with only 1 dot/person too much.
Universe 1: -1 dot
Universe 2: -1 dot
Universe 3: -1 dot
Universe 4: -1 dot
Universe 5: +3 dots
Universe 6: +1 dot
If we add them all up though, we get 0. So in the entirety of all universes the total number of dots/persons/mass hasn't changed.
It only shifted around between them.
And that's the jist of what I wanted to show. Namely that, looking at it this way, the mass is still conserved inside the multiverse, no matter if it's infinite or not.
If there's no multiverse, only one singular timeline on which all of the time travel happens, then this does not hold true anymore of course. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
But then this begs the question if the travel is possible at all. Not because of the conservation, but because of this:
When I never remembered having a visit from a time traveler, but I decide to travel back and tell myself I am a time traveler and I indeed were successful in doing this,
then how come I still have the memory of not having met a time traveler in MY past?
I mean, when the past on a linear timeline is overwritten then this would change my memory so that I would HAVE a memory of meeting a traveler in my past.
This is of course no different to the grandfather-paradox.
But if it would happen this way then the memory wouldn't be changed only after I arrive in the past.
If all of time has already happened then my memory would have to have been overwritten before I even made my first time travel, effectively ALWAYS preventing me from traveling to the past (because I only would've done it if I wouldn't have had a visit).
So you cannot really say, on the one hand you can travel back, but then on the other hand say you can't do this and that because of paradoxa.
I mean, what should hold me back from doing anything I want? The laws of physic don't change to prevent a paradox.
If it is possible to engage in a paradox to begin with then the conecpt on which it is founded cannot be true, can it?
I mean, you can't say traveling abck IS possible, but then paradoxes can occur, since they negate the possibility of the travel to begin with.
So it's either time travel IS possible, but it happens in a way where the question of paradoxes is irrelevant, or you can't timetravel at ALL.
But saying you CAN travel back in time but then only do stuff that doesn't lead to paradoxa is contradictory in my understanding.
I mean the universe doesn't really have a consiousness that's patrolling time and interferes with human time traveling affairs to prevent paradoxes, or not? :D
So isn't it more plausible that "IF" time travel indeed works, it works in such a way where the question of paradoxes can never occur, since they are irrelevant?
Like with multiple timelines?
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
dimaggio,
Not sure how much I am going to wish to engage you on this, and Darby seems to be satisfying you, but let me try a few more answers.
I honestly don't know how to answer that, as I cannot claim either of these with any evidence to validate or falsify them. So let me try the very next question:
I don't know. Do you? And I would suggest you think very, very hard about what "infinite" really means. It doesn't just mean a really, really big number. It means....infinite! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am not trying to be fascetious here. I am trying to point out that whenever one invokes infinity as a "solution" because they cannot properly determine the real solution, many problems are also introduced. The biggest problem is that no "explanation" that involves infinity can ever be falsified. This violates the scientific method as we know and practice it.
We don't even know if there are "multiverses".
OK.
I think it is just as good and valid as any other idea that cannot be falsified. As Darby said, don't take this personal. I am simply adhering to a higher standard...one set by "good science." You are free to put forth any/all ideas you wish. But you are addressing a very scientific concept (Conservation Laws which are results of Noether's Theorem), and I just want to point out that addressing scientific concepts with ideas that do not follow scientific methodology is.... well, not scientific. So as ideas go, it is fine. It is just not scientific. Understand?
I don't go any further than that which I can either validate or at least falsify. You keep talking about timelines and multiverses as if they are a given. That is your prerogative, but I do not have to accept them as given. Read what Darby wrote below your post about misconception about the current thinking about multiverses. This is what happens when scientific thinking gets mixed-up with non-scientific (or should I say "pop-sci"?) thinking. Just because scientists are talking about a "Many World Interpretation" of QM does not mean we should immediately jump to parallel "me's and you's" running around with some things changed and some things the same. Talking about Many World Interpretation on the quantum scale does not necessarily have a complement at the macro (our world) scale. In fact, the probabilities at the quantum level tend to add-up to look like a universe very much like the one we live in...and not another one.
Heck, if there are "parallel universes" out there (and I am not saying there are), we do not even know if the same conservation laws are enforced in them! Noether's theorem (from which all conservation laws arise) arise from differentiable symmetries. For any differentiable symmetry, there is a conservation law that goes with it. In the only universe we know about and can verify things in, we have conservation of energy (not necessarily mass...energy is the appriopriate metric) and conservation of momentum laws. So in a very scientific sense, how do you know that the same conservation laws will always apply in an "alternate timeline/parallel universe" (whatever you want to call it)? You are presuming that it does with your idea, and technically there is no "conservation of mass" law in our universe, because mass (as we understand it) is not symmetrical when it comes to all potential derivatives (i.e. it gets mixed-up with space-time). Since mass can be converted to energy, if you do not account for energy then you could very well violate any potential "conservation of mass" law. Understand?
Sorry, occupational hazard. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif As Darby pointed out, I am a teacher at university... and more often than not I am also a teacher (mentor is the better word) at my regular day job in engineering too. So I do tend to take a very academic approach to things like this. And it seems to pay off, because it appears you were not aware of what falsifiability is all about.
I'll try to be "gentle" as long as you try to not take things personally, OK?
RMT
Not sure how much I am going to wish to engage you on this, and Darby seems to be satisfying you, but let me try a few more answers.
I honestly don't know how to answer that, as I cannot claim either of these with any evidence to validate or falsify them. So let me try the very next question:
I don't know. Do you? And I would suggest you think very, very hard about what "infinite" really means. It doesn't just mean a really, really big number. It means....infinite! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am not trying to be fascetious here. I am trying to point out that whenever one invokes infinity as a "solution" because they cannot properly determine the real solution, many problems are also introduced. The biggest problem is that no "explanation" that involves infinity can ever be falsified. This violates the scientific method as we know and practice it.
We don't even know if there are "multiverses".
OK.
I think it is just as good and valid as any other idea that cannot be falsified. As Darby said, don't take this personal. I am simply adhering to a higher standard...one set by "good science." You are free to put forth any/all ideas you wish. But you are addressing a very scientific concept (Conservation Laws which are results of Noether's Theorem), and I just want to point out that addressing scientific concepts with ideas that do not follow scientific methodology is.... well, not scientific. So as ideas go, it is fine. It is just not scientific. Understand?
I don't go any further than that which I can either validate or at least falsify. You keep talking about timelines and multiverses as if they are a given. That is your prerogative, but I do not have to accept them as given. Read what Darby wrote below your post about misconception about the current thinking about multiverses. This is what happens when scientific thinking gets mixed-up with non-scientific (or should I say "pop-sci"?) thinking. Just because scientists are talking about a "Many World Interpretation" of QM does not mean we should immediately jump to parallel "me's and you's" running around with some things changed and some things the same. Talking about Many World Interpretation on the quantum scale does not necessarily have a complement at the macro (our world) scale. In fact, the probabilities at the quantum level tend to add-up to look like a universe very much like the one we live in...and not another one.
Heck, if there are "parallel universes" out there (and I am not saying there are), we do not even know if the same conservation laws are enforced in them! Noether's theorem (from which all conservation laws arise) arise from differentiable symmetries. For any differentiable symmetry, there is a conservation law that goes with it. In the only universe we know about and can verify things in, we have conservation of energy (not necessarily mass...energy is the appriopriate metric) and conservation of momentum laws. So in a very scientific sense, how do you know that the same conservation laws will always apply in an "alternate timeline/parallel universe" (whatever you want to call it)? You are presuming that it does with your idea, and technically there is no "conservation of mass" law in our universe, because mass (as we understand it) is not symmetrical when it comes to all potential derivatives (i.e. it gets mixed-up with space-time). Since mass can be converted to energy, if you do not account for energy then you could very well violate any potential "conservation of mass" law. Understand?
Sorry, occupational hazard. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif As Darby pointed out, I am a teacher at university... and more often than not I am also a teacher (mentor is the better word) at my regular day job in engineering too. So I do tend to take a very academic approach to things like this. And it seems to pay off, because it appears you were not aware of what falsifiability is all about.
I'll try to be "gentle" as long as you try to not take things personally, OK?
RMT
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
I don't know if the universe is infinite, that's right. I just assume it is, although it's not an established fact.
And I was aware what infinite means, at least I don't think it's just a really big number.
When I think about infinity and the universe then I could ask myself: What if there's suddenly a border?
Well then the next thing I think is: What's behind the border? So it has to go on behind the border as well, and on and on...
Infinity, for me, means you can go on without ever arriving at an end. Because behind the end there's still more.
But ok, an alternative I've always thought about was that maybe if you reach a certain point you end up at the opposite end of the universe and will therefore arrive where you started.
That's not what I believe though.
--
Yeah we don't know if there are multiverses or not, but that's not what I wanted people to give an opinion on.
It was just that, in order for my idea to work, the existance of a multiverse is necessary.
I'm aware that we then first have to check if such a multiverse does indeed exist or not in order to check if my idea is worth considering as a possibility.
--
I didn't want to post a grandiose idea I came up with that could explain it all.
It was just supposed to get people thinking about it who didn't think about it before and then say wether or not they think this could be something they tend to believe is a solution or not.
Like: Yes, I haven't thought about it that way. It sounds good and I agree.
Or: Hmm, sounds interesting, but I don't think so, because....
I mean, I know we can't say most of these things for sure because we have no proof.
But then again, what's this time travel forum for?^^
It was just an idea on which I wanted people to think about and give their opinions.
They can't really say it IS working or not, of course, because of all the reasons you've said.
But then I couldn't have written anything at all.
So please, regard all the presuppositions of my theory/idea as a given (even though we can't know).
Let's play make-believe and pretend they ARE true. And then, under these rules, would you tend to believe that what I said could be a solution to the law of conservation regarding time travel in the multiverse?
And if sometime later it will be known that there isn't a multiverse, only one universe, then my idea was obsolete, that's fine.
But then again, that's not what it was about.
I hope I was able to describe what I tried to accomplish with the idea.
It's like: Let's pretend for a moment there WOULD BE the easter bunny... do you think he steals the eggs from chickens?
Of course you could refuse to give an opinion, because you say: We don't even know if the easter bunny exists or not.
But that was not what it's about, understand what I mean?
Since we don't know if the easter bunny is even real, you could argue that it isn't of any use writing my easter bunny question.
But then again, what's the easter bunny forum there for? Isn't it there to imagine things about the easter bunny, post ideas, questions, etc.?
----
And I understand your academic approach on things like this. But I was aware about the falsifiability.
I've always loved the idea of time travel and "inhaled" many things about it and thought about it for many years.
Not in a mathematical or strict scientifical way, but in a logical way. I'm well aware there are many possiblities for many of the parameters concerning time travel we don't know which of them is true or not.
Like, would it occur only in one and the same timeline? Or would it "create" a new timeline, etc.
I'm not fixed on anything, but, when the underlying conditions would be so-and-so, I thought:
Couldn't it THEN be that mass is conserved THIS way rather than THAT?
Alright, next time I won't write a novel again. It's just that, as I've mentioned earlier, it's sometimes hard for me to get my thoughts into the right words.
I hope you can forgive me. :D
And I was aware what infinite means, at least I don't think it's just a really big number.
When I think about infinity and the universe then I could ask myself: What if there's suddenly a border?
Well then the next thing I think is: What's behind the border? So it has to go on behind the border as well, and on and on...
Infinity, for me, means you can go on without ever arriving at an end. Because behind the end there's still more.
But ok, an alternative I've always thought about was that maybe if you reach a certain point you end up at the opposite end of the universe and will therefore arrive where you started.
That's not what I believe though.
--
Yeah we don't know if there are multiverses or not, but that's not what I wanted people to give an opinion on.
It was just that, in order for my idea to work, the existance of a multiverse is necessary.
I'm aware that we then first have to check if such a multiverse does indeed exist or not in order to check if my idea is worth considering as a possibility.
--
That's exactly what I was trying to do.^^
I didn't want to post a grandiose idea I came up with that could explain it all.
It was just supposed to get people thinking about it who didn't think about it before and then say wether or not they think this could be something they tend to believe is a solution or not.
Like: Yes, I haven't thought about it that way. It sounds good and I agree.
Or: Hmm, sounds interesting, but I don't think so, because....
I mean, I know we can't say most of these things for sure because we have no proof.
But then again, what's this time travel forum for?^^
It was just an idea on which I wanted people to think about and give their opinions.
They can't really say it IS working or not, of course, because of all the reasons you've said.
But then I couldn't have written anything at all.
So please, regard all the presuppositions of my theory/idea as a given (even though we can't know).
Let's play make-believe and pretend they ARE true. And then, under these rules, would you tend to believe that what I said could be a solution to the law of conservation regarding time travel in the multiverse?
And if sometime later it will be known that there isn't a multiverse, only one universe, then my idea was obsolete, that's fine.
But then again, that's not what it was about.
I hope I was able to describe what I tried to accomplish with the idea.
It's like: Let's pretend for a moment there WOULD BE the easter bunny... do you think he steals the eggs from chickens?
Of course you could refuse to give an opinion, because you say: We don't even know if the easter bunny exists or not.
But that was not what it's about, understand what I mean?
Since we don't know if the easter bunny is even real, you could argue that it isn't of any use writing my easter bunny question.
But then again, what's the easter bunny forum there for? Isn't it there to imagine things about the easter bunny, post ideas, questions, etc.?
----
It's not a problem, no harm done. As I've said I'm new and I didn't know if you just have this habit (everyone has one) or if it was specifically because of me.
And I understand your academic approach on things like this. But I was aware about the falsifiability.
I've always loved the idea of time travel and "inhaled" many things about it and thought about it for many years.
Not in a mathematical or strict scientifical way, but in a logical way. I'm well aware there are many possiblities for many of the parameters concerning time travel we don't know which of them is true or not.
Like, would it occur only in one and the same timeline? Or would it "create" a new timeline, etc.
I'm not fixed on anything, but, when the underlying conditions would be so-and-so, I thought:
Couldn't it THEN be that mass is conserved THIS way rather than THAT?
Alright, next time I won't write a novel again. It's just that, as I've mentioned earlier, it's sometimes hard for me to get my thoughts into the right words.
I hope you can forgive me. :D
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
I enjoy and appreciate that you addressed what I was going to say about this:
OK. I accept your "let's pretend there is an easter bunny." But here is the important question: If we are going to start with a premise that we agree is not axiomatic in and of itself, and also one where we have no ability to validate it, who is going to be the arbiter for other things in our discussion as it regards things we may wish to "pretend"?
Do you see what I am getting at? Stated another way: If it is acceptable for you to put forth a "given" at the start, as you have, then it should also be acceptable for me to present any other type of unvalidated "given" later in the discussion. Can you see how the discussion would VERY RAPIDLY diverge into one of mere belief, and not be very useful from a scientific standpoint?
Let me deal with an example on your original premise. OK, so you say "let's assume for now there are multiverses..." and this allows you to develop your idea. If it is OK for us to assume some things are given, then I would say "well, why can't we assume that any given multiverse could have different conservation laws than our universe?" You may wish to argue this assumption with me with some form of logic (at least it seems logical to you). However, I have done nothing that you have not done, namely: introduce something as a "given" without any evidence towards it being reasonable, axiomatic, or validateable.
I realize this may be very tedious to you, as I can sense this from your replies. But I am belaboring this point because it makes an excellent example for why our scientific method works and why it is not adviseable to stray from the scientific method.
So the upshot of all this viz-a-viz your idea is this: If you reserve the right to introduce your basic premise as an axiom, then I should be able to do the same as we discuss it. Right?
a) There is nothing to forgive.
b) I think we all have this same problem, but to differing degrees. Written communication, while able to convey lots of information, is still severely limited from "fuller" forms of communication that can convey more intent.
I think your idea is fine. But I was once taught something by one of my science profs in school regarding falsifiability that has stuck with me ever since: The best thing a person can do who has floated a theory is actively try to falsify it. It may seem counter-productive: shouldn't we be spending time and effort to try and prove it or support it? The answer is no, because as Karl Popper told us, an infinite number of positive specific results will never "prove" a general theorem. The only value is in being able to falsify some theorem. In other words: It only takes one instance where I falsify something and the general theory itself is also falsified. Whereas I can go on testing the truthfulness of a proposition for a very long time, and maybe just be lucky (unlucky?) enough that I never find that ONE case that falsifies it.
This tends to shape how I go about thinking about things, ESPECIALLY things that push our known boundaries of scientific knowledge. I look for the things that could/would falsify a position. We actually learn more when we falsify a prior belief than we ever would by confirming a belief we have always held as true.
It's just the way I roll...
RMT
By saying this:
Another way to say this is that the universe curves back on itself, in much the same way that the earth is not flat, but round, and curves back upon itself. So you have falsified your earlier premise that "if it is not infinite" then it must have a boundary. This is good, and this reflects the type of sharp thinking that I pursue.
And this is a perfect segue into the next thing I wanted to comment on, because what you are proposing is heavily dependent upon personal beliefs...
And now I would like to ask for your patience, because I, too, am trying to get a point across in much the same way you are. Perhaps the best way for me to get my point across is this:
OK. I accept your "let's pretend there is an easter bunny." But here is the important question: If we are going to start with a premise that we agree is not axiomatic in and of itself, and also one where we have no ability to validate it, who is going to be the arbiter for other things in our discussion as it regards things we may wish to "pretend"?
Do you see what I am getting at? Stated another way: If it is acceptable for you to put forth a "given" at the start, as you have, then it should also be acceptable for me to present any other type of unvalidated "given" later in the discussion. Can you see how the discussion would VERY RAPIDLY diverge into one of mere belief, and not be very useful from a scientific standpoint?
Let me deal with an example on your original premise. OK, so you say "let's assume for now there are multiverses..." and this allows you to develop your idea. If it is OK for us to assume some things are given, then I would say "well, why can't we assume that any given multiverse could have different conservation laws than our universe?" You may wish to argue this assumption with me with some form of logic (at least it seems logical to you). However, I have done nothing that you have not done, namely: introduce something as a "given" without any evidence towards it being reasonable, axiomatic, or validateable.
I realize this may be very tedious to you, as I can sense this from your replies. But I am belaboring this point because it makes an excellent example for why our scientific method works and why it is not adviseable to stray from the scientific method.
So the upshot of all this viz-a-viz your idea is this: If you reserve the right to introduce your basic premise as an axiom, then I should be able to do the same as we discuss it. Right?
a) There is nothing to forgive.
b) I think we all have this same problem, but to differing degrees. Written communication, while able to convey lots of information, is still severely limited from "fuller" forms of communication that can convey more intent.
I think your idea is fine. But I was once taught something by one of my science profs in school regarding falsifiability that has stuck with me ever since: The best thing a person can do who has floated a theory is actively try to falsify it. It may seem counter-productive: shouldn't we be spending time and effort to try and prove it or support it? The answer is no, because as Karl Popper told us, an infinite number of positive specific results will never "prove" a general theorem. The only value is in being able to falsify some theorem. In other words: It only takes one instance where I falsify something and the general theory itself is also falsified. Whereas I can go on testing the truthfulness of a proposition for a very long time, and maybe just be lucky (unlucky?) enough that I never find that ONE case that falsifies it.
This tends to shape how I go about thinking about things, ESPECIALLY things that push our known boundaries of scientific knowledge. I look for the things that could/would falsify a position. We actually learn more when we falsify a prior belief than we ever would by confirming a belief we have always held as true.
It's just the way I roll...
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Good job on the graphical analysis. Clean, neat and easy to understand...follow the bouncing dots.
Actually, if there is no multiverse your analysis still holds if you look at each frame independently as you have done above. Just eliminate the alternate universes and keep the mass inside our universe. The later forward moving frames have a "mass deficit" due to people traveling into the past. The ultimate past frame where they all reside has a balancing "mass surplus". Still net zero - admittedly a very weird net zero but the mass-energy is conserved if you eliminate any time dependence from the scenario.
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
I see your point now more clearly (at least I think I do).
That what I'm proposing with the "givens" doesn't really lead to scientific discussions because, when everything can be a given then anything works.
It is then futile when trying to argue, I totally agree on that and admit I haven't thought about that in the beginning.
My intention, though, was not to start a scientific discussion about my idea.
I just wanted to throw out an idea about something in a specific environment.
If THIS environment would be true, wouldn't it then make sense that the conservation would work so-and-so?
Now, you said (as an example):
In response to that: Of course we can assume it, and it's a good point why my idea might not be a good solution.
And that's it. I didn't want to discuss it any further, taking up your example and try to argue against it.
Because I can't really. Just wanted to hear what would pop into other people's mind about it.
I don't want to prove anything at all, and I am not even convinced about the idea. It just was a thought ("maybe...").
It's more like entertainment to me, for the sake of conversation. Having fun talking about time travel in a casual manner without engaging in a serious scientific discussion.
Because then I now all bets (or at least most) are off regarding most of such themes like time travel, multiverse, etc.
It's just a hobby and I it's fun talkling about it, since I'm so interested in it.
And a little bit of hypothesizing and throwing out ideas is what keeps people thinking about it.
Even though it might at first don't withstand the scientific method, it keeps us open minded and the imagination fresh.
And that's all it was about.
Well, but I didn't even remotely think about your concerns/objections when writing it, so I should've been more specific in my initial post.
I didn't really think about it the way you first saw it, but now that I'm the wiser I know I have to a) be sure to use the scientific method when discussing a serious theory I'm proposing or b) be very clear about my intentions if "a)" is not what I intended.^^
As for falsifying:
That's exactly what I learned in school in mathematics with the reductio argument and induction.^^
But it didn't transpire into my general logical thinking.
I have to agree though that it helps a lot to disprove somthing rather than needing all the time and resources to prove it, where it might be very impractical and most probably futile.
Alright. So, all in all, thank you for your patience with a newcomer (to this forum) and for your insights!
If, one day, I happen to be able to travel back in time, I'm sure to prepare a lot of unquestionable evidence, unlike Titor.
But then again, would this be a wise thing to do? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
P.S.: Even though I didn't plan it, the very moment I wrote the last question it began to transform itself into a real question of mine.
So to what do you say?
Would you really prove to other people that you can travel back in time (when you really could, of course)?
Maybe only for certain purposes which are part of your reason for travelling back?
Or because of other reasons?
Or not at all, because...?
I'd really like to hear some thoughts about that. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
P.P.S.: And yeah, sorry for the second novel. :oops:
EDIT:
Sorry Darby, I began writing my post when yours wasn't yet there (I think?).
But now that I saw it, here my response to it^^:
First of all, thanks for the compliment on my graphics, even though I made them in MS Paint. :D
I absolutely agree on what you've said. I didn't realize this at first, but after reading your post it makes sense.
(Sorry for not rehashing exactly what you said, but after writing a lot I got a bit lazy.^^)
Thanks for the input. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
That what I'm proposing with the "givens" doesn't really lead to scientific discussions because, when everything can be a given then anything works.
It is then futile when trying to argue, I totally agree on that and admit I haven't thought about that in the beginning.
My intention, though, was not to start a scientific discussion about my idea.
I just wanted to throw out an idea about something in a specific environment.
If THIS environment would be true, wouldn't it then make sense that the conservation would work so-and-so?
Now, you said (as an example):
And that's exactly what I was aming for. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
In response to that: Of course we can assume it, and it's a good point why my idea might not be a good solution.
And that's it. I didn't want to discuss it any further, taking up your example and try to argue against it.
Because I can't really. Just wanted to hear what would pop into other people's mind about it.
I don't want to prove anything at all, and I am not even convinced about the idea. It just was a thought ("maybe...").
It's more like entertainment to me, for the sake of conversation. Having fun talking about time travel in a casual manner without engaging in a serious scientific discussion.
Because then I now all bets (or at least most) are off regarding most of such themes like time travel, multiverse, etc.
It's just a hobby and I it's fun talkling about it, since I'm so interested in it.
And a little bit of hypothesizing and throwing out ideas is what keeps people thinking about it.
Even though it might at first don't withstand the scientific method, it keeps us open minded and the imagination fresh.
And that's all it was about.
Well, but I didn't even remotely think about your concerns/objections when writing it, so I should've been more specific in my initial post.
I didn't really think about it the way you first saw it, but now that I'm the wiser I know I have to a) be sure to use the scientific method when discussing a serious theory I'm proposing or b) be very clear about my intentions if "a)" is not what I intended.^^
As for falsifying:
That's exactly what I learned in school in mathematics with the reductio argument and induction.^^
But it didn't transpire into my general logical thinking.
I have to agree though that it helps a lot to disprove somthing rather than needing all the time and resources to prove it, where it might be very impractical and most probably futile.
Alright. So, all in all, thank you for your patience with a newcomer (to this forum) and for your insights!
If, one day, I happen to be able to travel back in time, I'm sure to prepare a lot of unquestionable evidence, unlike Titor.
But then again, would this be a wise thing to do? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
P.S.: Even though I didn't plan it, the very moment I wrote the last question it began to transform itself into a real question of mine.
So to what do you say?
Would you really prove to other people that you can travel back in time (when you really could, of course)?
Maybe only for certain purposes which are part of your reason for travelling back?
Or because of other reasons?
Or not at all, because...?
I'd really like to hear some thoughts about that. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
P.P.S.: And yeah, sorry for the second novel. :oops:
EDIT:
Sorry Darby, I began writing my post when yours wasn't yet there (I think?).
But now that I saw it, here my response to it^^:
First of all, thanks for the compliment on my graphics, even though I made them in MS Paint. :D
I absolutely agree on what you've said. I didn't realize this at first, but after reading your post it makes sense.
(Sorry for not rehashing exactly what you said, but after writing a lot I got a bit lazy.^^)
Thanks for the input. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Darby
Epochal Historian
The definition of a gedankenexperiment. You give a scenario that may or may not model "reality", build into the scenario some assumptions and constraints on the environment where the scenario exists (physical laws) and then put the scenario into action and see how it plays out.
dimaggio
Chrono Cadet
Woohoo! You are my hero! That's EXACTLY the word I was struggling with because it didn't pop into my mind! And it is perfect to describe my intention in the beginning!
So the next time, I'll begin such posts of mine with:
"Let's engage in a Gedankenexperiment for a moment..."
Fantastic, thank you very much. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And btw. I edited my earlier post the moment I noticed your post before mine to include a response to your post.
So the next time, I'll begin such posts of mine with:
"Let's engage in a Gedankenexperiment for a moment..."
Fantastic, thank you very much. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And btw. I edited my earlier post the moment I noticed your post before mine to include a response to your post.