Time travel, it here... or is that was, will, be, here?

[Rugbypup]

YouTube - CNN: Dr. Ronald Mallett's Time Travel Machine

WOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGrBNtJjsU0&feature=related

 

[Black_Shinobii]

That was quite an interesting concept. I don't quite understand all the physics he was talking about but his example gave me the gist of the theory he was explaining.

Being able to time travel back only how long the machine has been on reminds me of the Prince of Persia video games where if you made a mistake you could rewind time to a certain limit to change how things occurred.

 

[Kimahri]

Omega 13?

 

[HazelGod]

:dunce:

 

[_avg_]

Screw causality!

 

[Viking_UK]

Interesting theory, but it does have a few problems as I understand physics. I'm no expert though, and never could get my head round the more complicated theoretical physics, so I'm happy to be proved wrong. I may be oversimplifying things but given the current laws on conservation of energy and matter, time travel - at least backwards should be impossible. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. It can only be converted to and from matter or into other forms of energy, not created or destroyed. If you send a particle back in time, it's going to exist twice at the same time, unless you've created it to be sent back, in which case, unless you bring it forward again, it's still going to exist twice in the time in which it was created which would mean that in effect there was an increase in the amount of energy in the universe, and actually, the original energy used to create the particle would exist in back time, so there's a contradiction anyway. The same idea holds true for forwards time travel as well, because if you send something forward in time, it disappears from the universe in the meantime, thereby reducing the amount of energy.

Now, if this boffin can rewrite the law of relativity to incorporate that, and come up with proof, I'm willing to revise my view, but I don't think we need to start worrying about time paradoxes and Terminators just yet.

 

[Rugbypup]

Screw causality!

As a dyslexic, I read that as screw casually, lol.

 

[Rugbypup]

Interesting theory, but it does have a few problems as I understand physics. I'm no expert though, and never could get my head round the more complicated theoretical physics, so I'm happy to be proved wrong. I may be oversimplifying things but given the current laws on conservation of energy and matter, time travel - at least backwards should be impossible. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. It can only be converted to and from matter or into other forms of energy, not created or destroyed. If you send a particle back in time, it's going to exist twice at the same time, unless you've created it to be sent back, in which case, unless you bring it forward again, it's still going to exist twice in the time in which it was created which would mean that in effect there was an increase in the amount of energy in the universe, and actually, the original energy used to create the particle would exist in back time, so there's a contradiction anyway. The same idea holds true for forwards time travel as well, because if you send something forward in time, it disappears from the universe in the meantime, thereby reducing the amount of energy.

Now, if this boffin can rewrite the law of relativity to incorporate that, and come up with proof, I'm willing to revise my view, but I don't think we need to start worrying about time paradoxes and Terminators just yet.

Nope, because we are not a universe, we are a multiverse, in paralleled existence. You could travel back to our past, yet from there on out you are creative a whole new paralleled existence of present and consequently, future.

Energy leaving here, would simply be transferred to there... as you say, it can not be here, twice. Your referring to the Grandfather paradox in essence... multiverse theory allows that paradox to exist.

 

[askmenow]

yeah rugbypup,i think your on to something....The big "Universe Next Door "is alwasys a main factor, also the past is gone;there is no past to back to.we are always in the present.

 

[HazelGod]

Nope, because we are not a universe, we are a multiverse, in paralleled existence.

Utter fantastical crap.

 

[Rugbypup]

Utter fantastical crap.

er... no.

 

[HazelGod]

er... no.

Yes. Period.

 

[Rugbypup]

Yes. Period.

YouTube - Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes - BBC science

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Before the Big Bang

Parallel universes make quantum sense - space - 21 September 2007 - New Scientist

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Parallel Universes - Transcript

More likely a yes than a no, hate to pop your bubble.

 

[Rugbypup]

Then again, it wouldn't be scientific in the least to be unable to concede that we may be simply one universe.

Baring in mind, as little as ten years ago, the idea of super massive black holes holding whole galaxies together was laughable. As little as twenty years ago, the idea of life without sunlight was ludicrous, then we find deep sea black smoker stacks, teeming with life. The idea that life in our solar system was possible was totally ridiculed, then we find oceans on Europa...

Much of what we accept in science was laghable to someone, some when... but just think what we may learn tomorrow.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

The multiverse "theory" or "M-Theory" is a purely mathematical exercise and is not, and most likely cannot, be proven scientifcally. It is no less ridiculous to say that M-Theory is more likely true than not, than it is to say that the universe (or multiverse if you'd like) was most likely created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other widely worshipped deity. That is to say branes are certain mathematicians' deities.

It is completely unscientific. Which is probably why it's been on so many "science" programmes.

 

[Rugbypup]

The multiverse "theory" or "M-Theory" is a purely mathematical exercise and is not, and most likely cannot, be proven scientifcally. It is no less ridiculous to say that M-Theory is more likely true than not, than it is to say that the universe (or multiverse if you'd like) was most likely created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other widely worshipped deity. That is to say branes are certain mathematicians' deities.

It is completely unscientific. Which is probably why it's been on so many "science" programmes.

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I happen to be a minister of that church, lol.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

I can't say I'm surprised. It is after all the fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion on Earth.

 

[Rugbypup]

I can't say I'm surprised. It is after all the fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion on Earth.

Amen.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Don't you mean RAmen?

 

[mitchymo]

I don't think looping time would be a great idea, we started with a big bang and so surely would end with one!