Eh? Backwards projection of thought, from the future to the past? No, that's sci-fi too. I don't see how we could test it, and I don't know what it means. I mean, I understand the concept, but what are we talking about? What exactly are we assuming to be true? What gets sent back and received, and how is it perceived - verbal information? Chemical and electrical neural activity? Some sort of 'vibe'?
Time travel... Is it possible, and if so, how...???
- Thread starter Ragnarok
- Start date
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
I think the theory behind it, though I'm very sketchy on the details, has to do with the wavefunctions associated with the chemical transmission of thought spreading out temporally in both directions, due to the time symmetry of the Schrödinger equation of motion. The idea is that they smear out in both directions and leave a residue in both the past and the future. I really can't say too much on the mechanics of it, or how it might work, but one experiment designed to test it was in one of my earlier posts on this thread:
Well the law that says liquid water exists between 0 and 100 degrees:ismile: Basically I think ice would sublimate straight away without going through a liquid phase due to temperature fluctuations. The atmosphere on Mars just isn't right for it in the present day. Just a side note here, I did study this before the Pathfinder mission went to Mars, and after Googling it I believe on this mission they did find evidence of significant amounts of water in the Martian past. Although this doesn't negate the point I was trying to make.
Back on topic, I do believe that the original question made in this thread is perfectly valid for this section of the forum. OK, it might not be the most scientific question, but it does allow some interesting discussion on aspects of physics. I'm fairly sure that I can't have a proper scientific discussion on geology with most members of this forum (ignoring for a second the fact that I've forgotten most of my geology:iwink
due the majority of people on here not being trained geologists, just as I don't think I could have a proper scientific discussion about physics with someone who has studied physics due to my lack of knowledge. So given that on any given scientific topic up for discussion here the vast majority of us a only going to have a basic layman's knowledge, I think that debates are going to end up being sciency rather than actually scientific, if you understand what I mean.Actually, that wasn't very on topic was it...so to answer the original question...yes it is possible...study geology! You can look back billions of years into the past!:ismile:
Back on topic, I do believe that the original question made in this thread is perfectly valid for this section of the forum. OK, it might not be the most scientific question, but it does allow some interesting discussion on aspects of physics. I'm fairly sure that I can't have a proper scientific discussion on geology with most members of this forum (ignoring for a second the fact that I've forgotten most of my geology:iwink
I know just what you mean, but there are a few things it would be useful for everyone to grasp. If a question is asked in good faith then sciency people will give an answer in good faith. So, a question like Can x be done? will be dealt with on its own merits and according to science as it is today, according to the best of the knowledge of whoever is giving an answer, and bringing in irrelevancies like "the science of tomorrow" won't add anything. There are plenty of places on the forum where members can indulge their imagination, but if the answer to a question is no, then that's how it is. I dealt with why time travel is impossible in my first post, and every time I look at the subject, I just find more reasons why it's impossible. As I've shown, I'm happy to discuss the consequences of time travel or any other question, but if a question is being asked in a scientific vein then you'll only look a bit daft if if you throw a paddyfit when the answer isn't the one you want it to be.
Yea...fair enough...I wasn't particularly talking at just you...there were a few people getting a bit wound up "this isn't science!!!". I think the question is valid...even if it is just to explain why the answer is "no", it's a useful scientific exercise, but then the big problem with internet debates is that "no" can be interpreted so many ways, which often results in said paddyfits:ilol:
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
Yes, and I think said paddyfits were had on many sides, a fair number of which were mine, as I've already admitted and apologized for. :iredface:
In fairness, Squagnut, I don't think you really explained the "why" very much, or in any great detail, but more answered the question repeatedly by saying "No. Not possible. 2nd law". Equally, I think some of us on the "yes" camp, myself included, didn't do such a great job either. This, I believe, is why things got a little heated. I don't doubt you know far more physics than I do, but think about it, if you were in a class trying to learn something, kept asking a teacher "why", and felt all you were really getting back is "no, not possible", I think you might end up feeling some of the frustration that myself and others did. This is not to excuse my behaviour, and as I said I am sorry for it, but hopefully it will help you to understand the why that lies behind it...
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
I think it would be a good idea, because even if at times this thread wasn't so rigorously scientific, it did throw up many interesting scientific ideas. Perhaps such threads could include "(Science 101)", or something like it, in the title...?
NotaMongoose
Or am I?
Science 101? I'd like to see anyone write anything of any worth in less than 10000 words! It'd be an interesting topic though, no doubt it'd spark a hell of a lot of a debate.
You could call it "the world according to Squagnut" and prefix it with "everything in this post is 100% right and indisputible"
You could call it "the world according to Squagnut" and prefix it with "everything in this post is 100% right and indisputible"
trancetheory
♥♪♫
Considering there are Scientists all over the world, who spend their entire lives studying these subjects, and many of which do not dismiss the idea of Time Travel, I dont see how anyone on on this forum could then deciede they know everything there is to know and dismiss it as SciFi. Unless theres loads of Physicists on here we dont know about...
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
Another profoundly simple solution would be that if folk either don't like a thread, or find that after a while it fails to satisfy their interest, they could simply not get involved in it or unsubsrcibe. Or start threads more to their liking...?
NB. That was not meant to you personally, Squagnut, but something that applies to everyone.
NB. That was not meant to you personally, Squagnut, but something that applies to everyone.
That's an appeal to authority. I've said why I don't think time travel is possible. If you want to show that I may be wrong, please do so by arguing from what I've said rather than from the fact that better-qualified people than me might disagree. If I have something to learn then I'd like to learn it. As it happens, I know there have been experiments which display time travel, but only for incy wee particles under very certain conditions, and the earliest time it can be sent back to is the start of the experiment, some fraction of a second earlier. Is anybody researching time travel in the sense of people timehopping?
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
This sounds like very interesting stuff, Squagnut, could you perhaps tell us a little more about it...??? Perhaps you could give us all a basic outline of what's involved, or add details of any suggested links on the matter...???
Ragnarok
Rock Molestor
Yes, I did like it, very much! Thanks for the link, Squagnut... :ismile:
Haven't watched all of the follow on clips yet, but the main one throws up many interesting possibilities. I've always liked the Godel model where you rotate space-time around an axis, and thereby tip the light cones in such a way that from the point of view of the outside observer, you appear to travel in time relative to him/her. Fascinating stuff!!
It's interesting too, the idea that if such a time machine were ever created, you could only travel back so far as the time it was first switched on. Food for thought, and no mistake... Can't say there's much I enjoy more than pondering 'cosmic headfucks'... :iconfused:ibiggrin: