Time travel

[pantherx12]

I agree with silkstone, traveling in a different dimension is unlikely to remove any paradoxes. Even if you traveled to an alternate universe, you'd still have the same problems.


].

That's assuming that travelling to a different "time line" doesn't create a whole new one

I.E If went back in time to do a specific task and I did it, normally people would say that would cause a loop of me going back and doing it. ( which I imagine it does at the same time as -->) how ever it would surely create an entire new time line were the actions I took happened.

 

[BinaryMage]

ofc, i was using the person i was responding to's words. but yes, we know the energy exists, we just can "get at it" yet. Another interesting thing about matter and energy is how the laws of thermodynamics are actually not complete as we know that both matter and energy can just "pop" into existence quite randomly so energy actually can be created and destroyed.

Technically, yes, but if you consider matter to be another form of energy, the laws of thermodynamics hold. The amount of matter and energy in the universe can change, but the must be proportional to each other. Let us hope that holds, or our universe will eventually cease to exist if energy can decrease without a corresponding matter increase or vice versa.

 

[wahdangun]

I dunno, there is plenty of power, as power is just mass and visa-versa , and there is a helluva lot of mass in the universe.

yup once we found out how to contain antimatter then we can have near perfect convertion from matter to energy

 

[BinaryMage]

That's assuming that travelling to a different "time line" doesn't create a whole new one

I.E If went back in time to do a specific task and I did it, normally people would say that would cause a loop of me going back and doing it. ( which I imagine it does at the same time as -->) how ever it would surely create an entire new time line were the actions I took happened.

That is a whole other theory altogether, which delves into whether anything in the universe is truly random, or if the future is already determined. I hope our future isn't already determined; then living seems so much more pointless.

yup once we found out how to contain antimatter then we can have near perfect convertion from matter to energy

We can contain it, just not for very long. Yet.

 

[silkstone]

Technically, yes, but if you consider matter to be another form of energy, the laws of thermodynamics hold. The amount of matter and energy in the universe can change, but the must be proportional to each other. Let us hope that holds, or our universe will eventually cease to exist if energy can decrease without a corresponding matter increase or vice versa.

Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it

 

[wahdangun]

ofc, i was using the person i was responding to's words. but yes, we know the energy exists, we just can "get at it" yet. Another interesting thing about matter and energy is how the laws of thermodynamics are actually not complete as we know that both matter and energy can just "pop" into existence quite randomly so energy actually can be created and destroyed.

what do you mean "pop" into existence?
The theory that matter or energy can't be destroyed still used by scientist.

Yes we "get it" now its called antimatter, if we collide antimatter and matter then their will be canceling out and produce pure energy, but there still a problem to contain the antimatter, maybe if we can found how to create anti gravity device

 

[BinaryMage]

Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it

I don't think anyone completely understands it. All science is unprovable, though, because it all depends on the assumption that our world is real, which cannot be proven. Astrophysics is certainly more speculative that many other sciences, however, which I think makes it all the more interesting. It is one area of knowledge in which the human species is rather clueless. Try reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". If you can get through it, it's quite an interesting book.

 

[pantherx12]

I hope our future isn't already determined; then living seems so much more pointless.

But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life.


I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

 

[silkstone]

I don't think anyone completely understands it. All science is unprovable, though, because it all depends on the assumption that our world is real, which cannot be proven. Astrophysics is certainly more speculative that many other sciences, however, which I think makes it all the more interesting. It is one area of knowledge in which the human species is rather clueless. Try reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". If you can get through it, it's quite an interesting book.

i did 3 years of astrophysics at uni, but i could never get through his book. i would try to analyse everything and reference it to my teachings.. i should really pick it up again as what i did read was quite interesting.

But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life.


I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

In creating the whole new timeline, it would in a way infer that the "old" timeline still existed if that existed, why no an infinite amount of other timelines, making each timeline pre-determined.

 

[pantherx12]

i did 3 years of astrophysics at uni, but i could never get through his book. i would try to analyse everything and reference it to my teachings.. i should really pick it up again as what i did read was quite interesting.

Could never get through as is, didn't finish?

Lil tip, simply read it first (like you were reading fiction) then go go back and analyse it, makes it easier.

 

[BinaryMage]

But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life.


I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

I wasn't saying that I don't believe in it, only that I hope it's not the case. I think time is something that really cannot be visualized or accurately depicted by the human brain at this point, but a point may come at which we can more clearly understand it.

Loops are interesting. I think it is possible that different time-streams may be separated from each other, and unable to be affected by the other time-stream, which would potentially stop loops from occurring. That wasn't a clear explanation, but essentially what I'm saying is that I think, er, hope, loops are unlikely.

 

[wahdangun]

Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it

basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

 

[silkstone]

yea, i couldn't read the book to the end.. too much of it was about what i was studying and it was not something i could read to relax.

 

[silkstone]

basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

 

[BinaryMage]

basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates.

yea, i couldn't read the book to the end.. too much of it was about what i was studying and it was not something i could read to relax.

Yeah, that would make it harder. I just read it for fun. It really is a fun read if you can relax and enjoy it.

Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

Schroedinger's theories are really only to turn things we can do nothing with into something we can understand and use. Particles actually do exist, but for our purposes it makes sense to treat them as probabilities.

 

[silkstone]

You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates.

That would be like a perpetual motion machine, i don't think, theoretically it is possible to create antimatter using less energy than what is expended? it would be a matter of harvesting it, surely? smashing matter into energy on the other hand might be more feasible.

You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates.



Yeah, that would make it harder. I just read it for fun. It really is a fun read if you can relax and enjoy it.



Schroedinger's theories are really only to turn things we can do nothing with into something we can understand and use. Particles actually do exist, but for our purposes it makes sense to treat them as probabilities.

but particles only exist if you observe them to exist! It's that kinda stuff which is confusing and can only be understood mathematically. I do actually understand the concept, but the reasoning behind it can't be expressed in understandable terms that isn;t mathematics.

One example would be if a "gas" or were contained in a perfect vessel. There were no physicalo way for the gas to be contained, you would still find a quantity gas outside of that vessel. I think the experiments have been done, but rather than "gas" they were looking at electrons in electron clouds travelling across barriers that there was no physical way for them to cross.

 

[BinaryMage]

That would be like a perpetual motion machine, i don't think, theoretically it is possible to create antimatter using less energy than what is expended? it would be a matter of harvesting it, surely? smashing matter into energy on the other hand might be more feasible.

Yeah, it would only make sense to harvest existing antimatter, but the whole system is essentially a perpetual motion machine in perfect equilibrium; not ever creating anything out of nothing, but not ever destroying anything either. We just need to convert things to what we want them to be in order to utilize them.

but particles only exist if you observe them to exist! It's that kinda stuff which is confusing and can only be understood mathematically. I do actually understand the concept, but the reasoning behind it can't be expressed in understandable terms that isn;t mathematics.

I think we agree with each other, we're just saying the same thing in different ways. I don't think anyone would complain if we went mathematical.

 

[wahdangun]

Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

 

[silkstone]

do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

no. Dark matter is just matter that we can't see (yet) they weighed the universe, then looked at the amount of matter, and the 2 didn;t add up, so people theorized that there must be "Drak matter" that we cannot see.

Light cannot escape from a black hole as black holes bend the fabric of space time, creating their own little "bubble" or near-infinite swirl of space time.

The concept is that matter (and energy) will just appear randomly in space, if i remember correctly, they have actually observed it to happen, tho don't quote me, and it doesn;t exist for very long before popping out of existence again

 

[BinaryMage]

do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

Hawking radiation doesn't "escape", because it never entered the black hole in the first place. According to Wikipedia,

no. Dark matter is just matter that we can't see (yet) they weighed the universe, then looked at the amount of matter, and the 2 didn;t add up, so people theorized that there must be "Drak matter" that we cannot see.

Light cannot escape from a black hole as black holes bend the fabric of space time, creating their own little "bubble" or near-infinite swirl of space time.

Light cannot escape if it passes beyond the event horizon, yes. Everything with mass bends the "fabric" of spacetime, which is why the Earth spins around the Sun and doesn't fly off into space.

 

[silkstone]

vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.

Tat is sort of related to particles popping into and out of existence. One antiparticle pops into existance, gets sucked in, and destroyed, then there needs to have been a (positive) particle, to balance the overall energy, which escapes.

 

[silkstone]

Hawking radiation doesn't "escape", because it never entered the black hole in the first place. According to Wikipedia,


(Sorry for the long quote, but I think it makes the reason for the radiation fairly clear)



Light cannot escape if it passes beyond the event horizon, yes. Everything with mass bends the "fabric" of spacetime, which is why the Earth spins around the Sun and doesn't fly off into space.

Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time, right?

Edit - sry for double posting, it's late i wasn't paying attention

 

[BinaryMage]

The concept is that matter (and energy) will just appear randomly in space, if i remember correctly, they have actually observed it to happen, tho don't quote me, and it doesn;t exist for very long before popping out of existence again

Dark energy accounts for 73% of the mass-energy in the universe according to our current estimates. By appear, do you mean that dark matter/energy are converted into real matter/energy and switch back again?

Tat is sort of related to particles popping into and out of existence. One antiparticle pops into existance, gets sucked in, and destroyed, then there needs to have been a (positive) particle, to balance the overall energy, which escapes.

I don't know if "popping" is the right term, but that makes sense.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time.

Light travels at 299 792 458 m/s and exceeds the escape velocity of the suns gravitational pull. So it doesn't get stuck around the sun.

However, with black holes the gravitational force is so strong that it sucks up all surrounding light into its center.

 

[BinaryMage]

Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time, right?

Light is affected by the Sun, it just travels too fast to be pulled in. But the path of the light particle is slightly bent as it passes the Sun.

Light travels at 299 792 458 m/s and exceeds the escape velocity of the suns gravitational pull. So it doesn't get stuck around the sun.

However, with black holes the gravitational force is so strong that it sucks up all surrounding light into its center.

There won't be any "surrounding light", but yeah; the black hole will "suck in" any light that gets too close.