Does anyone really want to talk about time travel?

[JamesAnthony]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

While being exceptional, it shows you that even left alone there is an inherant lag to them.

Yes, but you seem to forget that the scientists worked out exactly what the time difference of the clocks should be, before carrying out the experiments. The results matched the expectations with a very small margin of error. The margin of error would have been caused by stopovers and the planes not travelling in a straight line.

James

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Hi James:

A being with it's perception based on sound, could still experience things 'moving faster than sound'. Electricity is not dependent on knowing that light exists, therefore these blind beings could still have a form of telephone which sends signals faster than sound.

I'm not sure I agree. I think you are projecting based on the benefit we have in associating the speed of current flow as approaching the speed of light (depending on the resistance of the medium thru which the current flows). How would these blind beings begin to conceive that electricity travels faster than sound? A shock would not provide this insight, as tactile information travels even more slowly than auditory.

Let me bring the analogy up to our level to help you understand what I am getting at. Since we have both sight and hearing, we know that sound has a lower relative frequency than light. We also know that sound is a mechanical (pressure) phenomenon whose actual speed is dependent upon the propagation medium (usually air). But for the longest time, we have classified electromagnetic waves, which is what light is, as not needing any medium within which to propagate. This lead to the erroneous thought that "all space is empty", which lead to the discarding of the concept of an aether medium. We are now beginning to correct this error, and admit that ALL waves must have a propagating medium. And so the concept of aether is back, and we refer to it as a "superfluid". However, we are still struggling with quantifying the inherent characteristics of this "superfluid". This is because our senses are much too limited to perceive its characteristics. We were easily able to quantify the characteristics of normal fluids, like air, because we had light to compare them too. We struggle with quantifying the "superfluid" because we do not have (or know of) a higher-frequency sense which can be related to light.

I propose the same problem would happen to a blind species. Their highest frequency sense is in the audible range. That frequency response range (to use a technical term), limits any measurements to that range. Because they could not sense in that range, they would not understand how to use high frequency AC to modulate and demodulate their voices on a carrier wave in order to build a telephone. We have the benefit of a oscilloscope for us to visualize waves we cannot hear or see. Since they are blind, an o-scope would do them no good. So you see, even though they could FEEL different air pressures (the medium for sound propagation) they would not be able to characterize that medium to exceed the speed of sound.

I maintain that gravity is the analogy of air pressures to the blind race. We can feel the effects of gravity, and are now beginning to postulate that it may be related to the "superfluid" medium, but our efforts to quantify that relationship are limited in that we only have a frequency response to light.

Thoughts? Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[TheDoctor]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

I think that in terms of trying to understand time travel we have to broaden our horizons and not be blinkered by what we already know. There is so much that we don't understand and in stead of rehashing old theories we should concentrate all our energies into understanding things like superfluids. If we all want to unlock the secrets of time travel (and we do or we wouldn't be on this forum) then this is the way forward.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Isn't it interesting that the language/communication construct we call "analogy" is actually a form of fractal? Self-similarity seems to just show up in everything, physical or not!

Let's try to tie some things together, shall we?

There is so much that we don't understand and in stead of rehashing old theories we should concentrate all our energies into understanding things like superfluids.

So what do you think of my gut-feel that gravity is a resulting effect of mass-interaction with the superfluid? Do you think the self-similar premise appears reasonable?

Time as we know it is arbitrary. That's how we can travel to a different day in seconds by stepping over the international date line. The phenomenon that we call time is unmanipulatable and is constant.

I completely agree. There is a difference between the time a clock tells you, in its mechanical "precision", and the time you experience as an individual. Example: Ever notice how when you are not constantly watching a clock, the passage of time can SEEM to vary depending on how busy you are? When you are busy...doing things, reading things, not paying attention to the clock, time seems to fly. When you are bored, or otherwise unoccupied, time seems to crawl. What is the connection? Why, Matter in Motion, of course. When you are busy, there is a higher level of Matter in Motion being experienced by your consciousness. You are rushing around getting things done...or even if you are sedate and reading a book voraciously. There is "stuff" going on. When you sit and do nothing but stare at the clock, there is very little Matter in Motion going on. Your consciousness registers this as a "stretch" in the rate of time passage. And so which is "right", the mechanical clock, or your PERCEPTION?

And this brings us to another topic I have talked about: Should we blatantly trust our perceptions, or not? And if we blindly trust our perceptions as telling us the "truth", then we must realize that any physical measurement we make is also an act of perception. And so I again point out that one of Einstein's foundations to all of his work is that he believed we had no choice but to trust what our senses were telling us as being the "truth".

So in the case of "time flying when we're having fun", which of our perceptions are we to trust? Do we trust the measurement we make of the clock itself, because when we do, it is at odds with our "gut feel" perception...otherwise, that quote would not be so easy to relate to. Or, do we trust our perception of the passage of time, as somehow being faster than what the clock tells us?

This is similar (self-similar?) to the wave/particle "problem" of light. We know of the experiments where the SAME source of starlight was observed at the SAME time (by atomic clocks) at two different locations on the earth...one perceives that light as a photon, and one as a wave. Which measurement is "true"? How can they BOTH be right? This is, in itself, a paradox. The only real logical answer is: We don't have enough information. Our senses are not telling us the whole story.

Self-similar yet again is the magic trick. You know what your senses are telling you is going on when a magican cuts a person in half, and yet it just CAN'T be possible that the person appears to be in pieces, yet is still alive and comes out without a scratch. And the common thread is again INFORMATION. The magican is skillful at keeping ALL the information you would need to see thru the illusion from your senses.

I submit, for your consideration, that this is the same with gravity, light, the speed of light, and the superfluid. We've got to think BEYOND the paradox that our senses detect, to fill-in the missing information that will explain the paradox.

Comments? Thoughts? See my next thread to continue the superfluid/speed of light discussion.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[TheDoctor]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

I think that we are now making progress. I agree fully with what Rainman suggests about matter in motion. We have more than 5 senses, the others are repressed by technology. By awakening the other senses then we will understand how to do more things. It is exactly as Rainman sugests with the analogy of the woman being sawn in half, we think its possible because we only see some of the facts. We understand it when we see more facts.

The Doctor

 

[JamesAnthony]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

I'm not sure I agree. I think you are projecting based on the benefit we have in associating the speed of current flow as approaching the speed of light (depending on the resistance of the medium thru which the current flows). How would these blind beings begin to conceive that electricity travels faster than sound? A shock would not provide this insight, as tactile information travels even more slowly than auditory.

I was thinking more along the lines of a telephone, or some other form of electronic speaker system. An exposion at one end would be heard on the other end but there would be a delay in the sound of the explosion which traves through the air. Granted, I wouldn't want a blind race experimenting with explosives, but the experiment would show that the speed of sound is surpassable.

This lead to the erroneous thought that "all space is empty", which lead to the discarding of the concept of an aether medium. We are now beginning to correct this error, and admit that ALL waves must have a propagating medium. And so the concept of aether is back, and we refer to it as a "superfluid".

If this aether exists, then we already have proof that it is not malleable by any current existing technology. We can artificially create vacuums and light can pass through these vacuums.

With the existance of this aether, there would be an entirely new dimension to how we perceive the universe - we would occupy the aether but the aether does not move.

As far as I would understand it, this aether would also have to be total uniform across the universe as light does not travel faster and slower depending where it is. If this is the case then the aether does not have much relevance to us - it is uncontrollable but it has no properties of movement itself.

Am I following you correctly?

James

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

If this aether exists, then we already have proof that it is not malleable by any current existing technology. We can artificially create vacuums and light can pass through these vacuums.

Ah, but if the aether escapes characterization from our limited human senses, then did you really create a vacuum? Honestly, this is the stuff that advanced physicists are struggling with. If the superfluid is related to gravity, and spacetime distortion, then the closest thing to a "vacuum" would be intergalactic space, FAR from the effects of mass-induced gravity.

With the existance of this aether, there would be an entirely new dimension to how we perceive the universe - we would occupy the aether but the aether does not move.

Yes, an entirely new dimension...I am with you on that. But as far as motion, again, it does not move so far as our senses can perceive. This is the tricky part. Does "empty space" move? Well, we seem to see the galaxies moving away from each other, and shouldn't their gravity pull them closer together?

As far as I would understand it, this aether would also have to be total uniform across the universe as light does not travel faster and slower depending where it is. If this is the case then the aether does not have much relevance to us - it is uncontrollable but it has no properties of movement itself.

Hang with me here. The concept is that the superfluid is what all Mass, Space, and Time is composed of. The fabric of reality. A sea of energy, if you will. We call condensed energy Mass, so this would say the superfluid is not totally uniform when it is in a mass state. It may be closer to being uniform when it is in its "empty space" state.

Now, when you say "uncontrollable", this is an interesting (synchronistic) choice of words. Because my field of expertise is closed-loop control systems, and there is a characteristic of such systems that defies explanation as to where its energy comes from: It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier. In my business, a closed-loop airplane control system that has a divergent oscillatory mode, when stimulated with a very small input, will continue to oscillate in larger and larger amplitudes, until the airplane tears apart. THAT IS AN AWFUL LOT OF ENERGY!!

The principle behind this is the same one we have discussed under the superfluid analogy thread: It deals with harmonic resonance, frequency, and phase lag. I can add NO NEW kinetic energy (i.e. thrust) to an airplane flying along, and merely by allowing the airplane to break into a divergent control oscillation, large amounts of energy are suddenly apparant in the destruction of the vehicle. While there is no restructuring of the atomic matrix of the mass of the airplane, this cannot explain where the energy comes from. So where does it come from? Given that the primary factor which amplifies (or conversely attenuates) divergent oscillations is FREQUENCY response, and since frequency is related to (inverse) of time....this could tell us that all this energy that is apparant in a divergent oscillation in a closed-loop system comes from the TIME domain.

Another aspect of the superfluid? And this is one that definitely appears to our senses, and yet we cannot truly explain it. We know how to evaluate divergent instabilities, and we even know how to gain/phase compensate for them. But can we explain their physical significance??? Not yet, but I think we are getting close!

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Leot]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Quote -
It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier.




My question:
I've experienced the screech many times. My question is can light follow the same sort of method… and maybe it does. What I'm asking is: Is there a method for light where the same phenomenon occurs (where does the extra energy/light come from?)

 

[jayson]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

video camera aimed at a tv that its playing back through. screen will go white

 

[TimeNot_0]

Atomic Clocks are accurate and used for being about the same as the passage of time from astronomical observation. It is just that the cesium atom vibrates very close and more precise for measurement, but still is off from the actual time that the Earth takes to go around the Sun.
Mind you, it is not off very much, but if one has listened to the atomic clock on shortwave, one would find out, that corrections are made at the end of the year, when a second is added to the atomic clock to keep it in sync with the Earth. This happens on a regular scale, and is also shown at the NIST web site, where the corrections are made. Thus, the atomic clock is used because it can be sub-divided down to allow nanosecond type measurements, and is used for essentially that purpose, because nothing else can be used for a measurement source.

The measurement or passage of time is guaged always by astronomical events, as such.
When the universe is thought of as being around 15 billion years old, that is a passage of time that is thought about and tried to be improved on.

But, just as the speed of light is a limit, would there be the smallest wave (or particle) that allows a measurement for time.
There is a gravitational constant, and to me, there may be such a thing as a time constant.
But then, only experiment will prove it or not, and until some math comes around to determining what that may be, perhaps, only 'time' is the single most important dimension there is.
Curled-up dimensions below the Plank's Constant is like searching in the dark.
Of course, that is driven home by the fact that energy is always discussed as the most required event, but still, to me, energy also needs to have time!
If you open the switch, the energy stops, but where does a person place time? If outside the circuit, as we are, there is still passage of time. Inside the circuit, it is thought that time has stopped, but can we all be sure that entrophy still does not take place, for to me, it still will, so also to me, time has not stopped just because the switch was thrown open, and no energy is flowing??
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[JamesAnthony]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Because my field of expertise is closed-loop control systems, and there is a characteristic of such systems that defies explanation as to where its energy comes from: It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier. In my business, a closed-loop airplane control system that has a divergent oscillatory mode, when stimulated with a very small input, will continue to oscillate in larger and larger amplitudes, until the airplane tears apart. THAT IS AN AWFUL LOT OF ENERGY!!

Granted, I don't know much/anything about airplane dynamics. But the closed loop you described with the microphone and speaker does not 'defy' explanation. The 'loop' in question is not 'closed'. In a typical microphone-speaker system there is also an amplifier. This amplifier has an external power source which exists out the loop. This power is used to amplify the sound coming into the microphone and out of the speakers. This happens so fast that the entire sound cannot escape the speaker before being picked up by the microphone. The sound becomes a high pitched tone constantly receiving energy from the energy supply of the amp.

Can you tell me more about this airplane example or does it also eventually come down to the input of an energy source? Does the same phenomenom occur in gliders?

James

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Granted, I don't know much/anything about airplane dynamics.

And my knowledge of power electronics is somewhat limited...I can read/analyze schematics, but don't ask me to design a circuit! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The 'loop' in question is not 'closed'. In a typical microphone-speaker system there is also an amplifier.

Hmmm. Are you sure the amp is not in the loop? The reason I ask is that the op amps we use to drive electro-hydraulic servovalves on airplanes usually do contain internal feedback, as this helps us shape hi-frequency gain performance. Plus, I thought use of feedback resistors (albeit high impedance ones) was common to limit the voltage gain thru the amp? (See here )

This amplifier has an external power source which exists out the loop.

True enough. But don't the power supply inputs to the amp also (typically) contain current limiting resistors? As I understand it, even with feedback resistors to limit voltage gain, these current limiting resistors are employed in the forward path to prevent the amp from drawing so much power that it hits the voltage rails of the power supply...? Correct me if I am wrong.

The sound becomes a high pitched tone constantly receiving energy from the energy supply of the amp.

Yes, and I believe the only reason it "stops" at that tone is because we artificially limit the frequency response. We do the same thing in airplane controls...we compensate the heck out of the control laws to keep things in the linear range, for no other practical reason than linear controls are much more predictable and easy to analyze.

Can you tell me more about this airplane example or does it also eventually come down to the input of an energy source? Does the same phenomenom occur in gliders?

Yes, it can also happen in a glider if the glider's aerodynamic design has an underdamped "short period" longitudinal (pitch) response. The input energy (thrust and speed) at the onset of the oscillation is the forcing function; however, the throttle can remain fixed and the pitch oscillations will continue to increase in amplitude until structural G-limits are exceeded, and that is when wings start to shear off! :eek: One flight technique taught to pilots who get into "pilot-induced oscillation" (e.g. mismatch of pilot's freq response to airplane dynamics) is to pull thrust to idle, let go of the stick, and allow the natural damping of the airplane to quiet things down.... that is, if the airplane's design is statically stable. If you are in an unstable airframe (F-16 and most other new fighters), you might as well pull the ejection lever! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The point I am getting at here (and guess I should state clearly) is: "What happens BEYOND the linear range that we go to great lengths to force our human devices to obey?" Chaos Theory provides some interesting answers, for when we look beyond the "period doubling route to chaos" (which is equivalent to the screech and the airplane breaking up), what we find is that the chaos eventually goes away, and the system settles into another stable attractor basin...at a HIGHER energy level than the stable attractor basin that it all started at...??? The stock market is another classic example of a chaotic feedback system. After each market crash, we have seen it rebound, and achieve stable ("DC") levels above the previous stable levels.

There's something strange and wonderful about transitioning through a chaotic region. Nature seems to allow higher levels of order (energy) on the other side. And let's not forget the "minor footnote" with regard to the 2nd law of thermo (entropy): This "law" is defined as valid for a CLOSED system (know of any that meet this strict definition) that is far from thermal equilibrium. The very concept of the "dipole" of "far from thermal equilibrium" probably has some interesting implications to advanced energy research.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Can you tell me more about this airplane example or does it also eventually come down to the input of an energy source?

Oh yeah...another good example is the American Airlines flight 587 Airbus crash that happened in New York one month after 9/11. My theory (which other controls engineers support) is that the flight data shows a clearly undamped, stop-to-stop rudder oscillation. It was initiated by the relatively small yaw inputs of passing thru the wake turbulence of a JAL 747. A known synchronization problem (peculiar to this Airbus design) of the dual hydraulic systems that drive the rudder caused a large loss of phase margin. When you couple the yaw disturbance with a degraded (negative) phase margin system, the rudder bangs back and forth until the tail breaks off.

The "official" NTSB position is that the pilot was dancing on the rudder pedals. Not likely, unless the person piloting the vehicle had no experience in flying and use of the rudder. Quite simply, my theory could be shot down if Airbus would publish frequency response data for the rudder control system when subjected to the hydraulic synchronization problem. Not only is the NTSB not asking for such data (although I have put a bug in their ear), but Airbus is not willfully offering it up.

Conspiracy theory, anyone? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Leot]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier.

I put some thought to this and:

I don't understand how you can have a divergent instability. I understand how you can have a CONVERGENT instability. I don't understand how in the 'screech' there is a deviation causing the instability. RT, can you help me to understand?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Hi Leot:

I don't understand how you can have a divergent instability. I understand how you can have a CONVERGENT instability. I don't understand how in the 'screech' there is a deviation causing the instability. RT, can you help me to understand?

What you must understand about the sound example is that final "tone" is actually an oscillatory wave. The frequency of the wave determines the pitch of the tone. But I admit it is hard to think of in this example.

Let's try the example of the airplane. It is more physically visual so perhaps easier to see the divergence. Typically, a closed-loop control law wants the airplane's nose (pitch attitude with respect to the earth) to remain fixed for any steady-state flight condition. Thus, the control laws will have "converged" on a steady-state pitch attitude that performs the needed function (e.g. holds airplane altitude constant). If an external disturbance upsets the airplane (a vertical wind gust) AND the airplane's control system has negative phase margin (a measure of stability), the control laws will command the nose of the airplane to oscillate back and forth (above and below) the previous "convergent" pitch attitude solution. Under the condition of negative phase margin, the amplitudes of the pitch attitude excursions get larger and larger (divergence) as time goes on, until..... the airplane breaks!

It's tough to really get the feel with words. I always "insisted" that my students bring airplane models to class so we could visualize flight concepts together.

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime

 

[Stalker619]

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

the feed back is just a change in frequency. But every thing comes back to this. Does any one want to talk about time travel. I sure do.

Place your self in the middle of 2 kerr black holes. Causing a vac. bubble. Add singularities and a whole lot of x-rays and bam your in another time.

Black holes swirling around you cause the imense gravity field you need. the singularities that phase in and out of exsistance help stable the the gravity around you and then you have x-ray bursts that are a waste product. But don't tell the x-rays that. They are a bit sensitive and have a tendency to have violent out bursts.

But seriously space is full of particals and light travels on molcules that are charged by the sun thus charging the next molcule in a domino effect. This keeps happening even in to a black hole. but the light molcules are streched. Then are consumed or run in to a planet changing its properties. Being scattered and refracted.

Are we traveling the speed of light right now. I bet we are.

also the atomic clocks work better in space where they have less gravity to deal with.