Killing someones grandparents

This is a discussion on Killing someones grandparents within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; In actuallity time is dimensional -- WHA?? Thats right boys and girls the time line branches... It branches at every ...

  1. #31
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    In actuallity time is dimensional -- WHA?? Thats right boys and girls the time line branches...
    It branches at every significant and insignificant event of time - infinatly
    This is not known, its a possibility but there has been no experiment done that confirms or denies it.

    It is essentially the quantum multiple universe hypothesis that Adrian mentioned earlier, though it should be noted that "time lines" do not split off at a specific time (if you are going by reltavistic block-time there is no passing of time, time is stationary), they start off that way.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    88
    why don't you just go back in time and kill his grandparents?

  3. #33
    Registered User foniks munkee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    343
    But why haven't we encountered visitors from the future?
    There is a current theory (and work is being done on proving this) that time travel can only exist from the point in time that the first time machine is created. This neatly explains the reason why we haven't seen time travellers from the future. The idea is that a gate is created by turning on the time machine for the first time, and as long as the time machine is turned on, it forms a "tunnel" in time, that can be accessed in the future to talk to the past, but never prior to the first time machine. The machine is being created using light, specifically lasers, but I am not sure of the exact principles - something todo with warping time using light.

    Another interesting theory is that of the multiverse. If anyone has seen the old Huygens principal experiment showing the existance of interferance patterns even when you are only sending a single particle at a time, thus showing the uncertainty principle, this offers a bizzare, but interesting explanation.

    Essentially, particles can exist in two places at once, and it is only upon observing the particle that you are certain of it's position (very simplified). The reason for this according to the theory, is that the particles are fluctuating between two very close universes running in parallel. Essentially the interferance patters occur because there are thousands of copies of yourself peforming the experiment in thousands of similar universes that are very close to ours. The only difference is the position the of the light particle, thus the interferance patters are created. The idea relies on the "fact" that for all the infinite universes that are possible, those that are most similar to the one we live in are "closer" physically to ours, and that a quantumn level, particles are in a state of flux between the universes and can interact (thus causing the interferance patterns).

    Anyway, this same guy believes that travelling back in time would involve moving between universes, and anytime you travelled back in time, it would be a different time line. Therefore you could never go back and stop yourself from being born, because you would kill your grandfather in another time line, not the one that you came from.
    Last edited by foniks munkee; 09-06-2003 at 09:45 AM.
    "Queen and huntress, chaste and fair,
    Now the sun is laid to sleep,
    Seated in thy silver chair,
    State in wonted manner keep."

  4. #34
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I watched a program (horizons?) that talked about what you just mentioned, but i wasn't overly impressed, i just hate the way these programs do not distuingish between theories that are widely accepted by the scientific community and wild off-the wall theories that may turn out to be good but are currently viewed with a large amount of trepidation.

    anyone has seen the old Huygens principal experiment showing the existance of interferance patterns even when you are only sending a single particle at a time
    Because "particles" are not little balls, a more accurate description would be "wavicles". You simply send a solitary wave "packet" but it still behaves like a wave and so correspondingly it produces an interference pattern.

    The idea relies on the "fact" that for all the infinite universes that are possible, those that are most similar to the one we live in are "closer" physically to ours, and that a quantumn level, particles are in a state of flux between the universes and can interact (thus causing the interferance patterns).
    I don't like that very much, the uncertainty principle already makes sense given wave mechanics and wave-particle duality.

    I can cope with a multi-universe theory where every quantum possibility is played out, including the different positions of a photon/electron/etc. after interference, but i don't see how they can realistically replace wave mechanics (which is the basis of quantum mechanics) with interactions from other universes.

    If you have any links describing this multi-universe-interaction idea I would be most appreciative .

  5. #35
    Registered User foniks munkee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    343
    This is a very simple explanation, but it's pretty much what I was talking about. Enjoy
    I don't like that very much, the uncertainty principle already makes sense given wave mechanics and wave-particle duality.
    I think that is the point of the multiverse theory, in that the duality explanation seems somewhat of a copout. It is used to provide an explanation for a behaviour of a particle which appears to be neither entirely a wave nor a particle but exhibits characteristics of both. So we are told that it is both - if you think about it, it is no harder to believe this than the multiverse theory.

    Remember particles have been proven to just disapear from one point in our universe and reappear in another point. So where was it inbetween?

    Because "particles" are not little balls, a more accurate description would be "wavicles". You simply send a solitary wave "packet" but it still behaves like a wave and so correspondingly it produces an interference pattern.
    But doesn't it strike you as odd that even a single "wavicle" can produce an interferance pattern when this is caused by two waves interacting and cancelling each other out in certain areas?

    That is where the duality is a problem. The particles are only waves while many are being sent, and when you sending a single one at a time they are particles. Wavicles are an idea that was created to explain an almost unexplainable dilema - but like many of Newtons theories, they'll do for now, but they are not perfect as our understanding of physics hasn't matured enough to fully udnerstand the implications of what we are seeing.
    Last edited by foniks munkee; 09-06-2003 at 07:21 PM.
    "Queen and huntress, chaste and fair,
    Now the sun is laid to sleep,
    Seated in thy silver chair,
    State in wonted manner keep."

  6. #36
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I think that is the point of the multiverse theory, in that the duality explanation seems somewhat of a copout. It is used to provide an explanation for a behaviour of a particle which appears to be neither entirely a wave nor a particle but exhibits characteristics of both. So we are told that it is both - if you think about it, it is no harder to believe this than the multiverse theory
    We aren't told its both, we are told it has properties of both, and even in the multiverse theory it still has properties of both. It still acts as a wave it merely diffracts with a "particle" from another universe rather than itself.

    I really don't see how its a cop out, multiverse theory is interesting and captures the public imagination a lot but the majority view still sides with standard wave-particle duality.

    Remember particles have been proven to just disapear from one point in our universe and reappear in another point. So where was it inbetween?
    You are imagining particles to be little balls that is where your problem lies, if you accept "particles" are not little balls that infact they are nothing like little balls, there ceases to be a problem.

    But doesn't it strike you as odd that even a single "wavicle" can produce an interferance pattern when this is caused by two waves interacting and cancelling each other out in certain areas?
    Not really, because you can get a diffraction pattern with "one" normal wave (like sound or a water wave) in exactly the same way, waves split when they hit multiple slits.

    The wavefunction does exactly the same thing, the wave function is a waveform which governs the probability of finding the "particle" at any point.

    That is where the duality is a problem.
    I don't see a problem.

    The particles are only waves while many are being sent,
    Balls only bounce when they are dropped, the observed charactertistics of an object are often linked to circumstance, in different (but speicific) circumstances different characteristics of a "particle" are observed.

    And single "particles" still act as waves, whether they be a single photon or electron producing a diffraction pattern or the electron in the orbital of a hydrogen atom.

    You can choose to add in the "but their interacting with stuff from other universes", but you don't necessarily need to.

    and when you sending a single one at a time they are particles.
    "Particles"are never ever little balls, they are always objects with wave-like and of particle-like properties: Sometimes they are seen to act like waves, and sometimes they are seen to act like little balls.

    We humans dislike this idea because there is nothing on our scale of perception that matches this behaviour, our brains have evolved to comprehend a world with ranges between grains of sand and mountains, and so things in that range are intuitive and "make sense".

    Wavicles are an idea that was created to explain an almost unexplainable dilema - but like many of Newtons theories,
    Its only been taken up (and its not actually used in the literature very much its just used when attempting to explain some of the ideas in quantum mechanics) as terminology because our traditional concept of particles is fundamentally flawed in light of quantum mechanics.

    they'll do for now, but they are not perfect as our understanding of physics hasn't matured enough to fully udnerstand the implications of what we are seeing
    There is not necessarily a problem with what we are seeing, that doesn't mean that there isn't more to it, multi-universe theory might turn out to be right, BUT it doesn't have to be, the current explanation could be correct, the mainstream view is still that it is.
    Last edited by Clyde; 09-07-2003 at 06:06 AM.

  7. #37
    Registered User foniks munkee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    343
    Mmm, it's a tricky one. I guess I like the idea of the multiverse, because it is slightly more romantic theory. The notion that there are an infinite number of universes (in which one of them I am a really GOOD programmer!).

    But - I guess, we will never know, as in reality, either could be right. When quantumn mechanics are involved all bets are off.

    I know the first time I saw the Huygens principle experiment I flipped. Most others in my class just shrugged (probably because it meant more assignments), but I just felt like we are only seeing the surface of it.
    "Queen and huntress, chaste and fair,
    Now the sun is laid to sleep,
    Seated in thy silver chair,
    State in wonted manner keep."

  8. #38
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I know the first time I saw the Huygens principle experiment I flipped
    When i first was told of quantum mechanics i flipped too, in fact i was convinced it all had be nonsense, that somewhere people had screwed up, after learning that Einstein had initially rejected quantum mechanics i felt vindicated...... except when i actually learning more about it and then actually started studying it i realised my objections were not based on logic arguments but on the false premise that everything in the universe had to be neat and tidy and completely comprehendable. What's more it readily becomes apparent just how well quantum theory actually works, almost all of chemical physics involves aspeacts of quantum mechanics.

    I think quantum mechanics is the most powerfull theory physicists have come up with, it is truly remarkable, and mind bogglingly astounding, there might well be more, but i find the current theory satisfying.

    But - I guess, we will never know
    We might well find out at some point, the technique of "weak measurement" is a relatively new and supposedly allows measurement of quantum superposiiton without causing the wavefunction to collapse, there are other predictions some of the multiverse theories make that may or may not be born out by experiment .

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Killing A Process
    By tommyb05 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 07:41 AM
  2. Bush vs. Kerry
    By jlou in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 11-29-2004, 03:45 PM
  3. CBuilderX is killing me !!
    By Hermitsky in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 11:20 AM
  4. Can you steal someones code ?
    By joeyzt in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-28-2003, 09:14 PM
  5. Killing a process.
    By Brian in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-19-2003, 02:36 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21