PDA

View Full Version : The space time continueimnms mm... (rant)

Jeremy G
06-25-2004, 06:54 AM
That last words a doozy.

Anyways, so I remember in 8th grade when me and my friend use to bulls*** about "theories" related to science -- especialy space, time, and the travel of. Now, I've all ways considered myself a master b's'er, and I was just sitting here recalling some memories of "theories" I came up with.

First the the answer to probability: The odd thing about odds and probability is that there are possible outcomes, and rates of outcomes. Ideally you have a 50/50 chance of landing heads from the flip of a quarter. The problem is, it doesn't always work in a finite state. I've flipped a quarter four times before, and gotten tails four times in a row. Now the odds say that It should be 50/50, but I had 100/0 occurence. How can a universal rule not exist in a specific non universal situation? I mean universal implys all incompassing, so something incompassed - four flips- should be accounted for. I think the real, best answer for this is that of a dimensional paradigm. Any occurrance that can occur, must occur with all others at the same moment in order to balance out universal odds. That is to say, when I flip a coin and I see it land on heads, it too also landed on tails, and the edge. What actually occurs is a dimensional fracture. One continuum branches (kinda like a tree) into several new lines -- each with one of the 3 possible occurances as the bases for that new line.

On this theory, we can assume an infintessimal ammount of branches, and dimensions existing. Each dimension differentiated by a trees of probability.

That being said-I believe time travel is possible by simply navigating dimensions. With this theorem, the grandmother/father conundrum does not occur. That problem makes the assumption that we exist on a single looping space time continuum, and killing your parents parents will negate your existance, negating your act. If we rather instead consider the time continuum based on a fractured tree line the problem doesn't occur. Because by killing your parents parents you are adding a new occurence - fracturing the tree at a higher level- the result will be you not being born - but in a different dimensional time line. The original you is not affected.

Now, rather then actually traveling through time, you are traveling through dimensions that are offset by the possible occurance of when time started.... "wtf?" you ask. Well,
Let us consider an arbitrary beginning of time - lets say the big bang. Everything is nice and united into this ultra dense singularity, we will consider it the top of the tree. At this top of the tree, there are already an infinite number of probabilites (tree branches) that are fractured and created-all denoted by one event - when the big bang happened. Lets imagine for a moment a superceeding time line outside of this system just for us to picture the event. Kinda a stop watch, starting at zero seconds.
So at this big bang, there is an event - the bang, and the specific of it - when. It *could* happen at t = 0 (our superceeded time line), it *could* happen at t = 1, t=2, t=3, t=n. Because all occurances must occur, it happens at all t=n. A branch in this time space continuum is created at every possible infintesimle time incriment. So once branch would have a time of t = 1, while another would have a branch of t = 2038348023840234. Lets call these branch continuums line A, and line B respectively.

Lets assume for a second that by the infinite chance of happening-and therefore must happening, that for every event in either line, they shared the same outcome all except for one important one - when the big bang happend. Time line A has a lead on B, it is 2038348023840233 ahead of B. Lets say thats roughly in our imagined time line 20 years. Lets also say that JOE is a man that exists in Line A, and WILL exist in line B in about 5 years (from B relativly). Now, Joe decides to time travel-in order to accomplish this he simply shift phase with a dimension that has a time offset of the correct maginitude from the original point in time of the big bang. Say he goes to B. So now Joe is AT B, before he is born - automaticaly this causes B to diverge into two sub branches - one branch with the basis of JOE traveling and being iN B, and the other where Joe doesn't, and is not in B. The same thing happens in A, one line he is gone because he traveled, and the other line he is still there going about every day business because he did not go to B. Both lines have diverged and created sub branches. While Joe is at B, the B branch where he is there, he decides to kill the father of his father. B once again branches from the possible occurances, Joes grandfather dieing, and not dieing. From this point on, in the death divergence, Joe will not come to exist (as havin be born by the parents) but will continue to exist (as having travled from a different dimension where he does). No other branch in the continuum is affected by this event - A remains unaltered execept from the divergence of his actual traveling. The second divergence of B will be the only affected line - and things will spiral into complete difference because of this event.

The theory answers the question that you can "time travel", you can travel - but you can't affect your original reality.

So thats a breif rant about some ideas I had. Feel free to share, coment, critique, debunk, or even BullSh** with me. I've got lots of time. PUN N TENDED!!

ober
06-25-2004, 07:10 AM
My thoughts: That is simply too much to read. (I'm feeling lazy).

Jeremy G
06-25-2004, 07:12 AM
Don't post then? Yeah.

ober
06-25-2004, 07:19 AM
Ok, you want my opinion? The "big bang" is a load of rubbish and time travel is not possible. I aging can be affected by time spent in outer space (but then again, so is overall health), but beyond that, the discussion is moot. Theories exist, but I don't think it'll be within my lifetime that any of these theories will actually be tested.

Jeremy G
06-25-2004, 07:29 AM
Corrections:
Age isn't affected by being in space. What you misenterprited is that time is relative to speed, the faster you go, the less time passes relative to some one slower then you. It's not the being in space, its the moving at high speeds--that affects aging, and really it doesnt affect age - it just affects.. time...

Space only negatively affects one health- zero gravity is quite unhealthy for you-thats why astronaughts spend most of there days exercising.

And to your belief that it won't be in your life time that the theories are tested, perhaps they wont, and at the same time perhaps they will! It might be 1000 years before time travel is attempted and succeeded and while it isn't in your life time - if the traveler comes to now, it will be - wont it!

Govtcheez
06-25-2004, 07:54 AM
First the the answer to probability: The odd thing about odds and probability is that there are possible outcomes, and rates of outcomes. Ideally you have a 50/50 chance of landing heads from the flip of a quarter. The problem is, it doesn't always work in a finite state. I've flipped a quarter four times before, and gotten tails four times in a row. Now the odds say that It should be 50/50, but I had 100/0 occurence. How can a universal rule not exist in a specific non universal situation? I mean universal implys all incompassing, so something incompassed - four flips- should be accounted for. I think the real, best answer for this is that of a dimensional paradigm. Any occurrance that can occur, must occur with all others at the same moment in order to balance out universal odds. That is to say, when I flip a coin and I see it land on heads, it too also landed on tails, and the edge. What actually occurs is a dimensional fracture. One continuum branches (kinda like a tree) into several new lines -- each with one of the 3 possible occurances as the bases for that new line.I read to this and realized you have a horrible grasp on probability, so I stopped.

DavidP
06-25-2004, 08:01 AM
>time travel is not possible

I disagree

>zero gravity is quite unhealthy for you

I have always known that to be true, but I have never known why it is true. Would you please care to explain?

>Age isn't affected by being in space. What you misenterprited is that time is relative to speed, the faster you go, the less time passes relative to some one slower then you. It's not the being in space, its the moving at high speeds--that affects aging, and really it doesnt affect age - it just affects.. time...

I have heard that, taking this account into effect, if we were to go to Jupiter and stay there for awhile, and then come back, much more time would have passed on earth than on jupiter or something like that.

Jeremy G
06-25-2004, 08:12 AM
>time travel is not possible

I disagree

>zero gravity is quite unhealthy for you

I have always known that to be true, but I have never known why it is true. Would you please care to explain?
[quote]
Bones grow weak. The body builds up defenciencies. I don't know technical medical reasons but I read about it in articles. Try nasa.com - maybe theres better information on it there.
[quote]
>Age isn't affected by being in space. What you misenterprited is that time is relative to speed, the faster you go, the less time passes relative to some one slower then you. It's not the being in space, its the moving at high speeds--that affects aging, and really it doesnt affect age - it just affects.. time...

I have heard that, taking this account into effect, if we were to go to Jupiter and stay there for awhile, and then come back, much more time would have passed on earth than on jupiter or something like that.
It's very perplexing indeed. I had a hard time wraping my brain around the concept when I was taking my physics class. As far as the jupiter thing goes - I don't have the exact speed of the planets orbit on hand nor do I feel like searching for it. However, I can tell you that two clocks perfectly synchronized at the same spot on earth, if you took one and put it on jupiter and the other remained on earth for an extended period of time - the watches would have different times. But not a lot by what you are imagining. Remeber its porportionate to the speed of light - so you have to move incredibly faster then the object you are relating to to get a measurable time difference.

LuckY
06-25-2004, 01:08 PM
time travel is not possible
Yes it is.

aging can be affected by time spent in outer space
You misunderstand them, but the actual events occurring to individuals who travel to outer space prove that time travel is possible because it is itself time travel. Given it is not in the sense most people think of, but time travel is merely the ability to travel to a different point in time at a different rate than everyone else. If an astronaut travels outward from earth at the fastest speed possible for a few hours then straight back to earth, it may have been a few dozen hours, for example, but everyone on Earth may have lived through several days.

I have imagined the possibilities since I was a young boy and have thought about so many different quite possible ways time travel might be possible. Something to ponder: if you jetted around the earth in circles at the same speed the earth spins then landed at the same point, will you have travelled through time?

DavidP
06-25-2004, 01:15 PM
>Something to ponder: if you jetted around the earth in circles at the same speed the earth spins then landed at the same point, will you have travelled through time?

Are you jetting the same way the earth is rotating or jetting in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation?

If you had a spinning disc with an angular velocity of 5 m/s, and a toy rocket ship flying around the disc with an angular velocity of 10 m/s, the rocket ship is not traveling in time compared to the spinning disc....or at least as far as i know....

Govtcheez
06-25-2004, 01:16 PM
Something to ponder: if you jetted around the earth in circles at the same speed the earth spins then landed at the same point, will you have travelled through time?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? The earth doesn't travel fast enough for that, unless we're talking an EXTREMELY small scale. If that's the case, then geosynchronous satellites are time machines. Also, we travel through time just by walking, since we are moving faster that the earth is rotating at that point.

Zach L.
06-25-2004, 01:17 PM
Flipping a coin is nowhere near 50/50... I read a study somewhere where strobe photography was used to watch coins when they were flipped. A good bit of the time, they never actually flipped once, they just wobbled and looked like they were flipping... Apparently people don't flip well.

Anyways, that's as far as I got with your post.

axon
06-25-2004, 01:26 PM
time travel is not possible

and then

Yes it is.

you can't say definitively either way - there are arguments that go for and against but you surely can't be so positive about either answer.

BTW, haven't we discussed this topic before? ... on many occasions?

Clyde
06-25-2004, 01:50 PM
... ok.. so where to start.

How can a universal rule not exist in a specific non universal situation? I mean universal implys all incompassing, so something incompassed - four flips- should be accounted for.

What exactly do you mean by this?

I think the real, best answer for this is that of a dimensional paradigm. Any occurrance that can occur, must occur with all others at the same moment in order to balance out universal odds. That is to say, when I flip a coin and I see it land on heads, it too also landed on tails, and the edge. What actually occurs is a dimensional fracture. One continuum branches (kinda like a tree) into several new lines -- each with one of the 3 possible occurances as the bases for that new line.

This sounds very much like Everett's multiple world interpretation of quantum mechanics (infact it's identical to De Witt's variation). Which essentially states that every possible out come exists in a meaningfull way (it should be noted that this hypothesis was presented to solve problems in interpreting the meaning of quantum mechanics which is very different from the problem (which i'm not convinced exists) that you are attempting to solve.

Time travel - hmm who knows, i'm skeptical, both Hawking and Penrose don't buy it, and one wonders where all these time travellers are. But hey i really don't know enough about it.

Theories exist, but I don't think it'll be within my lifetime that any of these theories will actually be tested.

That is not necessarily true, Steve Weiner has shown that if non-linearity is present within quantum phenomena some of the different interpretations including the many worlds interpretations can be tested. Certainly there is evidence for the big bang, and several experiments which could in principle rule out or possibly confirm some of the bigger theories within theoretical physics will take place within the next decade, so i would certainly make no claims over what may or maynot occur within say the next 50 years.

I have always known that to be true, but I have never known why it is true. Would you please care to explain?

One reason is osteoperosis (sp?), basically your body forgets it needs bones and starts dissolving them, this can be combatted with centrifgues or chairs that rock you back and forwards but i'm not sure how effective these measures are. I'm sure there are other reasons but i don't know of them. (perhaps celluar replication gets a little screwy?) I do know that the amount of radiation you are exposed to is significantly more than down on Earth so that is a hazard involed with space travel but not directly due to the lack of gravity.

Something to ponder: if you jetted around the earth in circles at the same speed the earth spins then landed at the same point, will you have travelled through time?

No more so than you are travelling in time right now (which in a sense you are).

LuckY
06-25-2004, 01:58 PM
Are you jetting the same way the earth is rotating or jetting in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation?
Think about what happens in any situation. If you travel at 66,000 mph (which is roughly the speed of the earth's rotation) and land where you started, the location of the earth in orbit will be in the same place and the rotation of the earth will be such that the sun hasn't moved an inch from the pov of those on terra firma from the time when you left, yet to you a bit of time did pass, and thus, you travelled back in time.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The earth doesn't travel fast enough for that, unless we're talking an EXTREMELY small scale. If that's the case, then geosynchronous satellites are time machines. Also, we travel through time just by walking, since we are moving faster that the earth is rotating at that point.
As to how I arrived at that conclusion, read above. The speed of the earth doesn't matter. The point is that the earth will seemingly stand still because, whatever its speed, you travel faster than it. Geosynchronous satellites travel with a fixed point over the earth, they do not outrun it. Do you walk at 66,000 miles per hour? If you did then you might be travelling through time, but however athletic you might be, I doubt you can walk that fast.

you can't say definitively either way - there are arguments that go for and against but you surely can't be so positive about either answer.
I can say definitively. It doesn't matter that there are arguments against, once something has been proven possible arguments stating it's not are meaningless. For proof, look again at the astronaut example. (but I suppose it does depend on your definition of time travel)

Govtcheez
06-25-2004, 02:16 PM
> Do you walk at 66,000 miles per hour?

No, but the earth doesn't spin that fast, either. It revolves around the sun at that speed, but if it rotated at that speed, we'd go through almost three days in an hour.

> Geosynchronous satellites travel with a fixed point over the earth, they do not outrun it

Their actual speed is faster than the earth's rotational speed, because it's a larger radius.

> the location of the earth in orbit will be in the same place and the rotation of the earth will be such that the sun hasn't moved an inch from the pov of those on terra firma from the time when you left, yet to you a bit of time did pass, and thus, you travelled back in time.

What are you talking about? Because you take off and land from the same spot, you've time travelled? Time will pass the same (again, except for very minute relativistic differences) for you in the spaceship, and whoever's on the ground.

DavidP
06-25-2004, 02:20 PM
If you were travelling at the same speed the earth rotates, you would simply travel around the earth in 1 hour.

JaWiB
06-25-2004, 02:22 PM
>>I have imagined the possibilities since I was a young boy and have thought about so many different quite possible ways time travel might be possible. Something to ponder: if you jetted around the earth in circles at the same speed the earth spins then landed at the same point, will you have travelled through time?

Think about it....Just jump and there ya go! After all, you are already traveling along with the planet, so what are you talking about?

LuckY
06-25-2004, 02:34 PM
No, but the earth doesn't spin that fast, either. It revolves around the sun at that speed, but if it rotated at that speed, we'd go through almost three days in an hour.
No, the earth does spin that fast. It does not revolve around the sun at that speed. We would not go through three days in an hour at that speed because that is the speed we travel. Or at least at the equator it does. How fast do you think it's spinning?

Their actual speed is faster than the earth's rotational speed, because it's a larger radius.
Let's not get too anal here. My simple point is that at whatever speed they are going it is that way because they are at a fixed position over the earth.

What are you talking about? Because you take off and land from the same spot, you've time travelled? Time will pass the same (again, except for very minute relativistic differences) for you in the spaceship, and whoever's on the ground.
Okay, I guess my little example was a bit too simplified. Assume the earth spins at the equator at 66,000 mph as I say it does and you take off and accelerate to a significant rate (let's say 100,000 mph) on the speedometer (remember you are already travelling at the same speed of the earth just by standing on it, but now you're travelling over and above that speed [by twice as much]). Again you would... Ah nevermind.

If you were travelling at the same speed the earth rotates, you would simply travel around the earth in 1 hour.
Forget it.

LuckY
06-25-2004, 02:37 PM
Think about it....Just jump and there ya go! After all, you are already traveling along with the planet, so what are you talking about?
Yes you are, but I was talking about travelling in speed in addition to your present earth speed. It's just like driving in a car.

Look, just forget it. Nevermind. I didn't post that garbage to start an argument. I just thought a little food for thought would be fun to chew on and get the juices thinking about what might and might not be possible.

DavidP
06-25-2004, 02:49 PM
Well here is some food for thought:

Earth's diameter: 12756 kilometers (25,000 miles)

Therefore if the earth rotated at 66,000 miles per hour it would rotate 3 times in one hour. therefore there would be light and dark 3 times in the space of 60 minutes: aka 3 days in 1 hour.

Earth moves around the sun at 67,000 mph.

Earth rotates at just over 1000 mph.

Okay, I guess my little example was a bit too simplified. Assume the earth spins at the equator at 66,000 mph as I say it does and you take off and accelerate to a significant rate (let's say 100,000 mph) on the speedometer (remember you are already travelling at the same speed of the earth just by standing on it, but now you're travelling over and above that speed [by twice as much]). Again you would... Ah nevermind.

Ah, you caught yourself in your own words. You see, a plane does exactly that. A plane is already travelling at the 1000 mph that the earth is rotating at, and then it travels about 300 to 600 mph faster than that while in the air in order to travel.

And do planes time travel? Not any plane that I know of so far...

Don't worry, Lucky. Even though you might be wrong in this instance I still give you major props on having a beautiful asian wife :D .

Govtcheez
06-25-2004, 03:03 PM
No, the earth does spin that fast. It does not revolve around the sun at that speed. We would not go through three days in an hour at that speed because that is the speed we travel. Or at least at the equator it does. How fast do you think it's spinning?
As DP said, a little over 1000 MPH. He pretty much covered everything I was going to say.

If you're right, everyone who's ever been above Mach 1.5 or so has time-travelled. Cool!

Edit: Dammit david, you really did take everything I was going to say :mad:

LuckY
06-25-2004, 03:19 PM
I still give you major props on having a beautiful asian wife
That is the most important thing :) Thanks.

If you are right about that 66,000mph thing I am very confused. That was the one thing I remember getting right and surprising my science teacher with back in 11th grade (10 years ago or so). The logic you've laid out there makes sense, but I have no idea why he told us that back then.

Anyway, forget all the numbers and all that. The very simple thing I was trying to say was that if you could build a rocket that could propel you very rapidly around the earth and arrive relatively quickly after you left you will have travelled through time. It's just another way of looking at that astronaut example. The only difference is they go straight out (not literally straight mind you) and come back instead of just going around Earth.

If you're right, everyone who's ever been above Mach 1.5 or so has time-travelled. Cool!
Thank you. That is exactly the point I was making about astronauts (who travel much faster than that).

Besides, all you need to do is fly a plane through a special cloud and you will travel through time. Ever see that Twilight Zone? Those dinosaurs looked so real!

JaWiB
06-25-2004, 03:23 PM
Another thing I thought of is that (i think) there was an experiment done with two clocks, one at the top of some tower and one at the bottom, and there was a difference between them (they were very accurate clocks). Anyways, I guess that would be because at higher altitudes you would be moving faster, since the earth is rotating--either that or it had something to do with the lessened effects of gravity. Maybe someone here knows?

Clyde
06-25-2004, 03:37 PM
Anyways, I guess that would be because at higher altitudes you would be moving faster, since the earth is rotating--either that or it had something to do with the lessened effects of gravity. Maybe someone here knows?

I think your former answer is correct, the clock at higher altitude travels faster so for it time travels marginally slower, than for the clock at sea level.

vasanth
06-26-2004, 01:54 AM
hmm no wonder people living on mountains live longer [/joke]

bludstayne
06-26-2004, 12:09 PM
I think your former answer is correct, the clock at higher altitude travels faster so for it time travels marginally slower, than for the clock at sea level. I seriously don't think that clocks figure time out by themselves. We set them, they increment. They don't think, they just do. We set them to increment synced to what we consider a second. That's all. Just an incrementer. No matter if you are on a mountain or 20,000 leagues under the sea, your normalized position on earth from the center is the same. 24 hours on a mountain, 24 hours under the sea.

Traveling the speed of earth? Don't you know? You are ALWAYS traveling at the speed of Earth (which I will refer to "the speed of Earth rotation" with here on). What you consider your speed is dependent on a point of reference. If you weren't traveling at any speed at all, you would be sliding on Earth's surface. Gravity forces you to move at the same speed of Earth. Now if you were to travel at the speed of Earth, with Earth as your point of reference, you'd be doing no more than just revolving around the earth at high speeds. It would still take time to travel around the earth. Earth in two dimensions has a circumpherence (sp?) of ~78540 miles. You'd have to travel at ~78540MPH to travel around the Earth in unit time. So what? It still took time to make that revolution. 1 hour. There is an asymtope, however. No matter how fast you spun around Earth, it would still take time. Nothing special would happen. The same amount of time would pass for the other people as passed for you.

If you just want to flame me, go ahead and let me ignore you. Intelligent opinions and arguments are extremely welcome. I just finished my Freshman year of High School, and I haven't had a single physical science class at all, so these are just my own thoughts.

Clyde
06-26-2004, 01:25 PM
I seriously don't think that clocks figure time out by themselves. We set them, they increment. They don't think, they just do. We set them to increment synced to what we consider a second. That's all. Just an incrementer. No matter if you are on a mountain or 20,000 leagues under the sea, your normalized position on earth from the center is the same. 24 hours on a mountain, 24 hours under the sea.

Special relativity (the abbreviated version):

The faster an object travels, the slower time passes for it.

I just finished my Freshman year of High School, and I haven't had a single physical science class at all, so these are just my own thoughts.

Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous.
- Confucius

bludstayne
06-26-2004, 01:59 PM
Special relativity (the abbreviated version):

The faster an object travels, the slower time passes for it.

Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous.
- Confucius
You are speaking from a different viewpoint. I believe time does not exist, that it is just a concept of our mind. Therefore I don't believe it has definable characteristics, like matter and energy which are are very real, and therefore have definable characteristics. I might see things differently when I am educated in this, and I am aware of my ignorance. Please don't turn this into an argument, although I know that it isn't one yet, it may possibly turn into one unintentionally.

Clyde
06-26-2004, 02:06 PM
Define time... not easily dictionary.com gives:

A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future

Which isn't too bad, but presumeably you know what time is. You know what a clock is, and a clock can be considered to measure intervals of time. A clock that is travelling at high speed will run slower than an otherwise identical clock that is travelling at low speed.

Or to put it another way, if i blasted off into space and spent in my estimation 5 years travelling away from earth at speeds close to the speed of light, then turned round and came back at the same speed. On my return I would be 10 years older, but i would find the people i left behind were much more than 10 years older.

Clyde
06-26-2004, 02:12 PM
I believe time does not exist, that it is just a concept of our mind. Therefore I don't believe it has definable characteristics, like matter and energy which are are very real, and therefore have definable characteristics.

You have to be extremely carefull nailing down _exactly_ what you mean when you say you don't think time exists. Even if you doubt that time flows (which actually turns out not be so unreasonable), it seems very hard to claim that there is not some form of non-spacial variable that physical systems depend on that ties into to our psychological sensation of time.

LuckY
06-26-2004, 11:47 PM
Or to put it another way, if i blasted off into space and spent in my estimation 5 years travelling away from earth at speeds close to the speed of light, then turned round and came back at the same speed. On my return I would be 10 years older, but i would find the people i left behind were much more than 10 years older.
Thank you very much. I'm so glad more of an intellectual (and such a knowledgable person) could explain exactly what I have been trying to say so simply.

Sang-drax
06-27-2004, 01:21 PM
How did you arrive at that conclusion? The earth doesn't travel fast enough for that, unless we're talking an EXTREMELY small scale. If that's the case, then geosynchronous satellites are time machines. Also, we travel through time just by walking, since we are moving faster that the earth is rotating at that point.
Yes, they are 'time machines'.
The GPS system (which is based of very, very exact timing) has to take the different speeds to time into account due to the altitude difference of the satellites and the ground.