Get Out Of This Paradox

T

Twighlight

Quantum Scribe
OK so it's 2036. I hop in my shiny new Titor Mark 1 time machine. I go back to 2010 and get 'me' from this year to hop in. Then I return to 2036.....5 minutes before I left.....and me from 2010 and future me meet another future me....and we all hop in and travel back to 5 minutes before I originally arrived in 2010. There's now 2 time machines. And we all hop in..........etc.....

So now we are exponentially increasing the time machines, and the copies of me..doubling it every time. It actually only takes about 130 such trips......for the number of atoms in all the time machines and copies of me....to be more than the number of atoms in the entire universe !

Clearly that would be impossible.....................so what prevents it ?
 
Maybe its NOT impossible.

If the separating of a linear timeline via use of a time machine creates a new timeline, or in your case a new you, you are in essence creating matter. Maybe it is this creation of matter that is balanced by the instantaneous and equal but opposite creation of of antimatter which causes the universe to expand with acceleration.

Maybe the use of a time machine is actually required to create the expansion properties that are currently being measured?

I should add that I don't believe this to be absolutely true, as my belief is that the universes expansion with acceleration is caused by the power of thought and mental cognation-creation.

That is not to say however that both your parable and mine may not co-exist by the creation of multiple "you's" also creating more succinct thought lines, whihc in turn further the expansion.
 
Maybe its NOT impossible.

If the separating of a linear timeline via use of a time machine creates a new timeline, or in your case a new you, you are in essence creating matter. Maybe it is this creation of matter that is balanced by the instantaneous and equal but opposite creation of of antimatter which causes the universe to expand with acceleration.

Maybe the use of a time machine is actually required to create the expansion properties that are currently being measured?

I should add that I don't believe this to be absolutely true, as my belief is that the universes expansion with acceleration is caused by the power of thought and mental cognation-creation.

That is not to say however that both your parable and mine may not co-exist by the creation of multiple "you's" also creating more succinct thought lines, whihc in turn further the expansion.
Click to expand...

So the expansion of the universe is not by the repulsive force of dark matter?
 
clearly that would be impossible.....................so what prevents it ?
Click to expand...

Answer: He-Man

he-man.jpg
 
Evaporation of Mass Time line theory.

I take about this on a previous thread
but the thread was deleted. Here what
I said.

Say you have some gold and stand in front
of a time machine for 4 hours then
you get into the time machine and go back
4 hours to double you gold. You then open
the door and expect to find gold but you
don't. The reason for this is that the time
line evaporated one time line in favor of another
current time line.

Your existence in coming out of the machine
results in a more current version over the old
version time line thus a new physical divergence
(John Titor - divergence).

Why I am right about mass only being in the present;
consider roll a ball down a hill.
Question does the ball exist still at the top of the hill.
No the ball does not exist at the top of the hill
time moved it. Conclusion mass only exists in the
present and not in the past any more.

You just can't create mass for every tick of the clock.
If you still don't believe me apply conservation mass
energy to the idea then everything becomes obvious.

So mass moves though time and does not accumulate at each
tick of the clock into new and more mass(conservation of
mass theory). So the gold is currently with you in the
time machine and thus can't be outside the time machine.

The reason why the evaporation of mass theory is
right is if you go back in time the old time machine
would collide with the new one moving back in time
in which the only way to get around it is through a
divergence(John Titor term) or evaporation of the old
mass.

With this all said is time travel really possible? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

PS

Other thoughts.

How does this relate to Schrodinger's cat.
I don't know? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Do you need an observer to create mass.
I don't know? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
The reason for this is that the time
line evaporated one time line in favor of another
current time line.
Click to expand...


Hmm......time for an excellent quote from Carl Sagan...

"what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"
 
twighlight

Old mass in the past must disappear
due to the conservation of energy.

And here is my new point.

If mass keeps building up in the past
this would result in gravity allways
going up but as we know gravity is
pretty much a constant on this planet.

Since mass and gravity are proportional
to each other this will result in getting
out of bed each day harder and harder. LOL.

In summery.

You can not keep creating mass this would result
in gravity going up and up. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
My problem with the idea for having
no mass in the past or future and
only in the present is this. It
would be impossible to travel to the
past or future anymore since there
will be no mass to go to; just nothing.

So in effect time travel would be
impossible due to the way the world
is designed.

I am loosing faith in time travel can
anyone help me out here. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
My problem with the idea for having
no mass in the past or future and
only in the present is this. It
would be impossible to travel to the
past or future anymore since there
will be no mass to go to; just nothing.
Click to expand...



The evidence for mass in the past is simple................pictures like the Hubble deep field image.....showing thousands of proto-galaxies in the process of forming, under the influence of gravity. As gravity acts on mass.....there must have been mass, for any of that to have happened.
 
I am loosing faith in time travel can
anyone help me out here. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Click to expand...
Ok I'll help. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Say you have a function m(t) describing all the mass in the universe at time t. Although m(t) can change at any given value of t, the integral of m(t) dt from negative to positive infinity remains constant. So you're just moving mass from one time to another, but it stops existing at the other time you moved it from.

If time travel never occurred in all eternity, then (neglecting transformation of mass to/from energy) m(t) would be constant. That is, m(t) = M. If one were to graph m(t) as a function of time, then you would see the points where time travel occurred. This is because there will be an abrupt change in the value of m(t) between the destination time and the time travelled from. If you skip ahead in time, m(t) will decrease from now until the time you materialize in the future. If you go back in time, m(t) will increase from the time in the past you went to until the future time that you went back.
 
If time travel never occurred in all eternity, then (neglecting transformation of mass to/from energy) m(t) would be constant. That is, m(t) = M. If one were to graph m(t) as a function of time, then you would see the points where time travel occurred. This is because there will be an abrupt change in the value of m(t) between the destination time and the time travelled from. If you skip ahead in time, m(t) will decrease from now until the time you materialize in the future. If you go back in time, m(t) will increase from the time in the past you went to until the future time that you went back.
Click to expand...


There is a fundamental problem with all this.....and it is perhaps THE main reason why time travel could not be possible.

The time traveller is made of atoms. Now...if every atom in the universe was somehow numbered, then before the time trip we could make a list of all the several trillion atoms the time traveller is made of.

So...we travel back to watch some historical event, let's say Columbus setting foot in America. But what's this ? Our super dooper device ( which I just invented ) that tells us the number assigned to every atom in the world......tells us that every atom in the time traveller and his machine ALREADY EXISTS in the world !

As an example, our device tells us that atom number 643900166, part of a grain of sand just beneath Columbus's foot as he steps on America.....is actually the SAME atom that will 500 years later become part of the time traveller. Now that the time traveller has travelled back, you now have TWO atoms numbered 643900166 in the world.

That is clearly impossible. The clear implication is that time travel into the past involves DUPLICATION of atoms that already exist. There is simply no way round this...and I don't see how there ever can be.
 
As an example, our device tells us that atom number 643900166, part of a grain of sand just beneath Columbus's foot as he steps on America.....is actually the SAME atom that will 500 years later become part of the time traveller. Now that the time traveller has travelled back, you now have TWO atoms numbered 643900166 in the world.

That is clearly impossible. The clear implication is that time travel into the past involves DUPLICATION of atoms that already exist. There is simply no way round this...and I don't see how there ever can be.
Click to expand...

Well done, Twilight. I concur. And this is why my consistent position, for lo these many years I have been on this forum, has been that physical time travel as romanticized in fiction will never come to pass. Your type of scenario is also why I continually point out that while Relativity helped us understand that space+time = a contiuum called spacetime, that there is a coming realization which will eventually tell us that mass+space+time = a continuum that I call Massive SpaceTime.

It is only my theory, and in many ways it is not formalized (yet). However, its underpinnings are clearly scientific in that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are laws of physics that we know stem from Noether's Theorem on differentiable symmetries. Both momentum and energy are integrated metrics of a differentiable manifold for which I use the term Massive SpaceTime.

You can never go wrong by building a new theory's foundation upon the solid science of what we already know to be true. And I will go a step further and say that no one will achieve time travel without a solid understanding of the physical laws of nature as we currently understand it. While it may seem intrepid and dashing for people uneducated in basic (undergrad level) science to claim they are going to invent a time travel device in their own garages, I think they will never achieve it for the simple fact they have not come to grips with the fact that their perception of Time, as separate from Mass and Space, is in error. That is a crucial error that keeps them wedded to the romanticized notion of time travel, which is never gonna happen.

RMT
 
I think they will never achieve it for the simple fact they have not come to grips with the fact that their perception of Time, as separate from Mass and Space, is in error. That is a crucial error that keeps them wedded to the romanticized notion of time travel, which is never gonna happen.
Click to expand...


I entirely agree that most people have a misperception of what time actually 'is'. In fact...time 'isn't'....it is not a thing, it is a process.

People talk about ' going back to 1975 '...as if 1975 was somehow 'out there' waiting for us to travel to it. But in fact 1975 no longer exists.....it morphed into 2010. All the atoms that were in 1975 are now in 2010.....so there is no 1975 to go back to !
 
One last point. Matter decays over time so even if you send the matter to the past
be it gold or an apple it will we a counterfeit due to entropy. To make this point
clearer it is no longer the same and is impossible to make it the same and bringing
it back from the future now. Once decade over time no longer the same.

'Entropy defined gain of entropy eventually is nothing nor less the loss of information.'

In conclusion entropy basically mean it is impossible to time travel to the identical
past due to the loss of information over time no matter where you are in the timeline.
 
Space time is a very good accountant. For every debit there is a credit. For every credit there is a debit. You can,t change that.
Click to expand...


Woah ! You're creating timelines from nowhere faster that the Federal Reserve prints money from nowhere.......and spacetime is a good accountant ?

I've never really bought the crazy 'many worlds' idea that just because a single atom has some choice of probabilities somewhere.....that an entire new universe gets created to allow for every probability. That strikes me as absurd. Even our world alone would be spawning zillions of new universes every second....and the universe as a whole would be spawning so many new universes every second that you would not fit the number on a sheet of paper 100 billion light years wide.

The concept is crazy.......that all the energy and mass of an entire universe be created, just to allow for the probablistic outcome for one atom ! This is universal economics gone mad.

And yet, this crazy stuff is the very basis for 'timelines'.
 
Another Idea.

There really is no past how can
there be. Can an event be frozen
in time for posterity. What mechanism
can do that freeze events over time; there
is non. Thing vibrate over time and
constantly loss information.
What John Titor would say the loss of
information results in what is termed
divergence. That's if divergence exists. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
 
Ray,

There actually is research ongoing, especially by Julian Barbour, along the exact lines that you're looking at. It's based on Mach’s Principle.

I believe that the question was stated long before Newton's time but Newton did ponder this problem (as did Leibniz and Descartes):

Take a bucket filled with water. Place it out in space far from any body of ponderous mass. Hang it from a rope, twist the rope, let go and set the bucket/water system to spinning. The water flows to the sides of the bucket and forms a concave space from the middle out. For a time the water has a spinning movement relative to the walls of the bucket but eventually the bucket & water end up spinning at the same rate - but the concave form in the water persists. It's otherwise "at rest" WRT the bucket but it still has that concave aspect. The question becomes one of what frame of reference is the water spinning relative to?

It seems straight forward but it isn't. Newton sidestepped the issue in Principia stating something to the effect that there is such a frame but the answer to what frame would be left to future researchers to answer.

Mach's idea was that the frame is based on the distribution of matter throughout the universe but he put the answer forward as a conjecture rather than a rigorous theory. Barbour is looking at it from a quantum gravity POV and has several papers out suggesting that time may not exist as a such. Rather, the universe is otherwise static in the sense of time and that the only thing that moves are the position relationships between massive objects in configuration space.


Here's the abstract from Barbour's paper "The Nature of Time" that can be found on ArXiv

Abstract. A review of some basic facts of classical dynamics shows that time, or precisely duration, is redundant as a fundamental concept. Duration and the behaviour of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change.
Click to expand...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.3489v1.pdf

It's a very new paper that was posted on ArXiv just over a year ago. In the comments on the ArXiv page is the following:

Comments: 9 pages, no figures. This article won the first prize awarded on 7th March 2009 by the jury in the essay competition of the Foundational Questions Institute (fqxi.org) on The Nature of Time
Click to expand...
 
Darby,

An excellent find, my friend. Thanks for the heads-up. And what is refreshing is that it is accessible to those with high school science backgrounds. You don't even really need any knowledge of calculus to follow the equations. And, of course, it reflects the fact that all scientists inherently know, which is our measurement of time (different from any objective, absolute notion of time) arises from nothing but matter in motion. This is something I always have pointed out here for some of those less scientifically inclined. But it is difficult for such folk to separate their intuition of time based on personal experience from a real scientific proof.

There actually is research ongoing, especially by Julian Barbour, along the exact lines that you're looking at. It's based on Mach’s Principle.
Click to expand...

The genius of Mach is still being revealed, and likely holds even more surprises. Of course we in the aerospace field use his gifts of fluid properties (Mach Number) almost every day! I have been aware of folks working with Mach's Principle doing experimental work for advanced propulsion concepts. Specifically, Dr. Jim Woodward down here near me at Cal State Fullerton has built some interesting test rigs to test his theory of "coupling with the far-off mass in the universe" and applying it as a new means to generate net thrust.

However, I had not been aware of Barbour's work tying Mach's Principle directly to the viability of an objective time. I shall add his name to my google alerts list! Thank you again! :D

And again, I highly recommend this paper to all those on the forum who are seriously interested in answering the question "what is time, really?"

RMT
 
But it is difficult for such folk to separate their intuition of time based on personal experience from a real scientific proof.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

The problem with people's intuitive notion of time goes beyond our Dear Readers here. It's a question that is still troubling theoretical physicists - just what the heck is "time"? It's a fundamental concept of physics that hasn't been solved, even if time as we know it turns out not to be itself fundamental. Is it real? Is it a mathematical construct that isn't a part of physical reality? If it is real is it quantizable at the Planck scale? Is space, at the Planck scale, quantizable? Lee Smolin and other physicists who are exploring loop quantum gravity are looking hard at the last two questions. If time and space are quantizable it means that there are minimum times in which events can occur and minimum spaces that can be traversed. Those are a bizzare notions but it appears that they very well could be the case.

Aside from the Internet hokum-scarum over what CERN is going to create with the LHC the real experiments will be looking to answer those two questions. The possible creation of mini black holes will have nothing to do with time travel. THey want not only to expolre black holes but they also want to create a quantum "microscope". If indeed a black hole's gravitation grossly stretches spacetime toward itself it would have the effect of magnifying the Planck scale to a size where we might be able to see it. We might be able to detect whether or not spacetime is quantizable at that scale.
 
Back
Top