"The future ain't what it used to be."

Hi, I am a new user

Raj

Timekeeper
Hello people,

This is my first time posting here, you have quite an interesting forum here. I registered here around a month ago, but for some reason it would never let me post. Now that is fixed; I migrated from my laptop back to my PC. I am joining because, well, time-travel does not make sense in the slightest to me, that does not mean it is not possible, I am not arrogant, I just need to learn more about it. Hence why I am here.

To me it's like this: The past is an existence that has elapsed, if you could somehow go back, you would cease to exist. Also if you tried to go back to a point in space, call it A if you may, from B, then the position of A relative to B in space/time is not the same as the position of A relative to B from your frame of reference. In other words you cannot go back.

I do however think it is possible to visit similar timelines in parallel dimensions, which is not technically time-travel, but it's the closest I can envisage to travelling backwards in time.

I know time travel forwards is possible, and it makes sense to me. Heck, as you know, we are time travelling forwards everytime. I see this similar as cryo-sleep. When you are in stasis, time elapses, and when you are revived you are at that point in time. Similarily, when you create an automonous zone of space/time, time elapses, and when the effect is over, you are at that point in time.

I do have one main predicament; if time-travel or indeed dimensional travel is possible, why aren't there time travellers visiting us now? We should be flooded with them, if it is possible. Please do not mention John Titor, his story is so ill-concieved, so unbelievable and naive, that it's astonishing how anyone could believe him.
 
To the "How come there are no time-travellers here now?" question -

There are three possible and only logical answers to this -

1) You can't time travel to the past

2) We are the first voyagers of time, therefore, we would have to be the ones to initiate it. We are "in the front of the line", so to speak.

3) If anyone did come to our time, why would they go out of their way to tell us about it? Sure, they could show us their time machine and prove it. We would believe them, but what changes are now made to our timeline? Our entire future will be changed due to the time machine now being introduced in our timeline. Think of it this way - NASA doesn't let just anyone go to space, do they? They are trained professionals that are performing specific missions. Similarly, why would a trained time-traveller give us something we are not prepared for? I am pretty sure, if in the wrong hands, it would be a disastrous machine. If they told only the government, they wouldn't tell us now would they?


In any case, I don't believe it is possible. (travel into the past)

Time is something we have labeled, it is not matter, a particle, or an element. Everything exists, and that's it. The moment passes and will forever remain behind us.
 
4) Time travel exists only from the period of a time machine existing.

5) There is a temporal proctection in effect. ie Time travel still exists on a linear scale. The past cannot be changed. However by travelling to the past you are in fact doing what you were always meant to do. Therefore you will find it impossible to change the past relative to your own perspective. EG If you don't remember a visit from your future self yesterday, then odds are that if your future self travels back to yesterday, he will find it impossible to meet you.

James
 
Hi Knowthyself,

1) You can't time travel to the past

2) We are the first voyagers of time, therefore, we would have to be the ones to initiate it. We are "in the front of the line", so to speak.

The chances of that are so low assuming infinite time lines, and infinite instances in a time line, that it is perhaps more rational to trust point 1. It's similar to the chances of Earth being the only planet in the vast universe to sustain life.

3) If anyone did come to our time, why would they go out of their way to tell us about it? Sure, they could show us their time machine and prove it. We would believe them, but what changes are now made to our timeline? Our entire future will be changed due to the time machine now being introduced in our timeline. Think of it this way - NASA doesn't let just anyone go to space, do they? They are trained professionals that are performing specific missions. Similarly, why would a trained time-traveller give us something we are not prepared for? I am pretty sure, if in the wrong hands, it would be a disastrous machine. If they told only the government, they wouldn't tell us now would they?

Yes, I am well aware of this possibility. However, based on the margin for human error, or deliberate intentions, eventually it would come in the public domain. Responsible governments may not commision inept people for missions, or disclose information of time-travel to the public. Yet an irresponsible goverment or an organization; well, who can say /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hi James,

4) Time travel exists only from the period of a time machine existing.

That is like saying, I will only be able to fly with my wings, when I learn how to open them.
Is there a reason to believe I have wings? Thus, is there a reason to believe that a time machine can be made?

There is a temporal proctection in effect. ie Time travel still exists on a linear scale. The past cannot be changed. However by travelling to the past you are in fact doing what you were always meant to do. Therefore you will find it impossible to change the past relative to your own perspective. EG If you don't remember a visit from your future self yesterday, then odds are that if your future self travels back to yesterday, he will find it impossible to meet you.

Aren't you changing the past by going to a past where you never even existed?
 
Hello Raj, nice to meet you.

The chances of that are so low assuming infinite time lines, and infinite instances in a time line, that it is perhaps more rational to trust point 1. It's similar to the chances of Earth being the only planet in the vast universe to sustain life.

It very well may be that Earth -is- the only planet that can sustain life. The mixture of the elements on this planet, the temperature we experience due to our position in reference to the sun, everything was just perfect that it is truly astonishing that we even exist.
 
It very well may be that Earth -is- the only planet that can sustain life. The mixture of the elements on this planet, the temperature we experience due to our position in reference to the sun, everything was just perfect that it is truly astonishing that we even exist.

This is the most common argument against ETI or life in general beyond terra, it is the argument of sheer astonishment of the extremely low probabilities for life. There is little basis for this, beyond an emotive one, and it in fact an exercise in ignorance, and in itself is self-contradictory.

1: How vast the universe is
2: Is the universe chaotic, or structured
3: Does probability exist on the cosmic scale
4: Does life require fixed conditions


1: The universe is unimaginably vast, and brimming with stars, and galaxies. According to latest estimates, there are over 70 sextillion, or 7000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe. It is unknown if the universe is finite, or infinite, however logically, it should be infinite, as beyond a finite universe, exists an infinite void, which is also a state of existence.
According to a predicate of the Drake equation there should be at least one instance of intelligent life per galaxy, in say 70 sextillion galaxies, there should be 70 sextillion instances of intelligent life.

Even if we mulitply the predicate of the drake equation, to 1 in 10 million galaxies, there would be 70 million billion instances of intelligent life.

2: The sheer probability of existence, and the combined probabilities to the event of life, with blind chance, is so astonishingly low, that it is mathmatically impossible. It makes the single event of life, look like a grain of sand in all the beaches and deserts of the world. If something so impossible can happen, why can't life happen again? This is assuming a chaotic universe, in a structured universe or unblind chance, the possibility for life increases in many orders of magnitude wrt chaos.

The probability of the formation of stars, galaxies, planets, asteroids, and other celestial objects is also low wrt to our scale - yet there are zillions and zillions and zillions of instances of these - so why can't there be zillions and zillions and zillions of instances of life, or indeed intelligent life.

3: If the universe can exist, inspite of the impossibility of it's existence. If self-replicating microrganisms that exist inspite of a probability of 1 in 10^40,000, then mathmatical miracles of chance do not exist on the cosmic scale, and what we percieve to be mathmatical miracles, like the instance of intellient life, are in fact common and abundant in the universe.

In fact, mathmatical miracles on our scale, are abundant too; winning lotteries; being struck by lightning; having an IQ of 200+; contracting a rare disease, astonishing coincidences.

What is the probability of this:

Henry Ziegland thought he had dodged fate. In 1883, he broke off a relationship with his girlfriend who, out of distress, committed suicide. The girl's brother was so enraged that he hunted down Ziegland and shot him. The brother, believing he had killed Ziegland, then turned his gun on himself and took his own life. But Ziegland had not been killed. The bullet, in fact, had only grazed his face and then lodged in a tree. Ziegland surely thought himself a lucky man. Some years later, however, Ziegland decided to cut down the large tree, which still had the bullet in it. The task seemed so formidable that he decided to blow it up with a few sticks of dynamite. The explosion propelled the bullet into Ziegland's head, killing him. (Ripley's Believe It or Not!)

4: Does life require fixed conditions

No it doesn't. We know it doesn't. We have found and observed microorganisms that have adapted at the extremest of temperatures, that even thrive in these conditions; heat-adapted Archaea called hyperthermophiles. These bacteria are not just surviving, they are thriving in the boiling water of over 100ºC. We have life at temperatures of 2 ºC. Living organisms, especially microorganisms, are also present in the frozen soils of arctic and alpine environments. The bacteria, named Psychrobacter cryopegella, can grow at -10 Celsius and can stay alive and even keep metabolizing at an astonishing -20 Celsius.

We have found life that exists in highly acidic environments of pH 1.4, and highly alkaline environments of pH 13. We have found life in the Earth crusts. We have found life that can sustain 1100 bars of pressure. We have found life that does not need oxygen. To top it of, there is the possibility of there being life that is silicon based.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the instance of life does not need perfect conditions, life can adapt and survive virtually anywhere, and thus can exist on other planets too, even if the conditions of that planet are not the same as our own.

To summarize: The argument of "low" probability of life reoccurring in the universe is nonsense, as there is no basis for this statement, other than pessemism. In fact, a point I have kept withdrawn to now - life can survive on two known places in our own solar system - Earth, and Mars, and one that that is likely to harbor life; Europa.

If the universe was infinite(encompassing infinite universes) there is infinite mathmatical probability, all events that can happen, will happen, and if they happen once, they will happen again, and again and again. Now it could be said, that if all events can happen, then the event of only one instance of life can happen. Yes, but the chances of that are so infintesimally small, 1/infinity, and if you support it, you would contradict and ridiculize your initial position - that is rejecting alien life on the basis of "low" probability.

I'll go out on a limb here - but - it is unscientific and irrational to believe, or even contemplate, that we are the only instance of life in this vast universe, despiste of the overwhelming evidence. Even in our own Milkyway, there are 100 billion stars, and it is unknown how many of these star systems have planets, thus the possibility of there being more life/intelligent life in our own galaxy - is a good one.
 
Good post, Raj! Mind if I add to and extend your comments?

Add to your exposition on probabilities that we are a species that is now exhibiting the ability to venture off of this planet where we KNOW life exists in abundance. Thus, if we have been able to achieve this feat, it means that it is not improbable that any other species might also have reached this level of technology.

This plays into one of the technical issues I was considering today, in my professional work to define the requirements for potential manned missions to Mars. The issue of "cross-contamination" is one we are having to look at and address. And this goes beyond the surface issue that one would immediately think of: The potential for a person to return from Mars with some sort of nasty virus, etc. We must think bigger than this limiting case. We must also consider ANY sort of biological cross-contamination.

When you add these two possibilities together (A species achieving interplanetary travel technology, and the possibility of interplanetary cross-contamination), one could envisage the possibility that ALL life as we know it on this planet COULD be the result of an intergalactic "litter bug" who happened to inadvertently leave some biomass of his own on this 3rd rock from the sun as he traveled! Of course, this line of thinking could extend all the way to the potential that we are a "seeded species" that was specifically planted here by......?????

Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
 
Hi Raj,

I think I should have explained myself a bit better:

4) Time travel exists only from the period of a time machine existing.

That is like saying, I will only be able to fly with my wings, when I learn how to open them.
Is there a reason to believe I have wings? Thus, is there a reason to believe that a time machine can be made?

I was actually talking about a 'time machine' based on wormhole technology. Stephen Hawking once proposed a possible device which could be theorethically used to 'go back in time'. It involves charging two identical metal plates to the point of a worm-hole being formed between them. One end of the wormhole could then be taken on a journey close to the speed of light. As the passage of time is relative to movement, one wormhole will experience time at a slower pace - one would be 'younger' than the other. Upon returning the two together, walking through the younger one would theorethically have you emerge at the same age of the second one. Hence time travel. Of course this involves the ability to create, sustain, transport wormholes and add to that the possibility to travel close to the speed of light.

5) There is a temporal proctection in effect. ie Time travel still exists on a linear scale. The past cannot be changed. However by travelling to the past you are in fact doing what you were always meant to do. Therefore you will find it impossible to change the past relative to your own perspective. EG If you don't remember a visit from your future self yesterday, then odds are that if your future self travels back to yesterday, he will find it impossible to meet you.

Aren't you changing the past by going to a past where you never even existed?

You're missing the point. Consider the following scenario. You close your bedroom door for 10mins. Now 30 years later, you discover time travel and decide to travel back to your room during this 10min window. Because the door is closed, your past self has no idea that you did indeed come back, therefore his actions in his future will not be affected. If you decide to open the door after 5mins, and find no-one there, then in the future maybe you find that you can only spend 5 mins in the past or some other reason. However you will find it impossible to interfere with the natural course of time. Time is linear, even the time loops are linear. There is no 'original time-line', there is just this one.

How do you know that your future self didn't die during the black plague? If he dies in the black plague, it's because he always did and he always will. The past is never changed - just fleshed out.

James
 
Hi again,

think I should have explained myself a bit better:

I was actually talking about a 'time machine' based on wormhole technology. Stephen Hawking once proposed a possible device which could be theorethically used to 'go back in time'. It involves charging two identical metal plates to the point of a worm-hole being formed between them. One end of the wormhole could then be taken on a journey close to the speed of light. As the passage of time is relative to movement, one wormhole will experience time at a slower pace - one would be 'younger' than the other. Upon returning the two together, walking through the younger one would theorethically have you emerge at the same age of the second one. Hence time travel. Of course this involves the ability to create, sustain, transport wormholes and add to that the possibility to travel close to the speed of light.

I am sorry, but this theory is too vague, unless you want to elaborate on it. How does this enable time-travel? The difference in time exists only in the two ends of the wormholes, outside of the wormholes, time is the same; like in both ends of a tunnel, no matter how long you stay in that tunnel, when you come out of either end, you are back in the same time. Wormholes, are only bridges from one point of space to another, there is nothing to suggest, they can bridge between points in time.

What you described is this, correct me if i'm wrong. If I leave at time T in the wormhole, one end of the wormhole will have a slower pace of time, while the other will be faster, so say after entering the wormhole I am at in T+10. Now if I enter the younger wormhole, am I back at T? I don't think so, T has always been the same at both ends of the wormhole, it is only within the wormhole that time has been altered. If I re-enter the wormhole, im not back at T - but forwards at T+20.

Think of it as a slinky. The sliinky can be set into motion, and it will move forwards and reach a desired point in say 5 seconds, then if you send it back to its origin, in another 5 seconds, it does not mean 0 seconds, it means 10 seconds has elapsed.

Simiarily, if you moved forward into time from 2004 to 5004 for 3000 years, if you tried to go back, to 2004, it does not mean 0 years, it means a total of 6000 years has elapsed. So you have gone forwards in time another 3000 years to 8004.

I do think however, its possible to enter a worm hole, and traverse vast distances of space, and to reenter, and reach the same point. Just like the slinky example. If we take it from the frame of reference of its starting position, set it into motion, and it moves 5 inches in 5 seconds, set it back, to its starting position in another 5 seconds, then the distance it has travelled is 0 but the time it has travelled, is still 10 seconds.

You're missing the point. Consider the following scenario. You close your bedroom door for 10mins. Now 30 years later, you discover time travel and decide to travel back to your room during this 10min window. Because the door is closed, your past self has no idea that you did indeed come back, therefore his actions in his future will not be affected. If you decide to open the door after 5mins, and find no-one there, then in the future maybe you find that you can only spend 5 mins in the past or some other reason. However you will find it impossible to interfere with the natural course of time. Time is linear, even the time loops are linear. There is no 'original time-line', there is just this one.

I don't quite understand you. If I close the bedroom door, time will not know, if came back? My future presence in the past alone should create an impression on space/time, and thus change it at a minute level, irrespective of my actions in the past.

How do you know that your future self didn't die during the black plague? If he dies in the black plague, it's because he always did and he always will. The past is never changed - just fleshed out.

How do you know you're not a brain suspended in a jar in a lab?
 
Raj' Think I get it.

If before the wormhole entrance is A. then in-state when an object approaches this entrance, this is a state of A always being turned on.

If then C, is the wormhole tube, then when the object enters the wormhole tube, then the state of this object, is always wormhole tube insert C.

When the object comes out of the wormhole at the other exit point and appears there, then D, is in the state of always being there, of present at the exit point.

All states A, C, and D are ever-present at all states of being.

So then sets composed of ACD, are always for the time noted of this appearance, are always understood fio or that time appearance of these sets, are considered multiplistic states?

T, I didn't factor.You can factor T as also understood as distance; however T as a known plug-in variable, I did not use, as we are only considering what composes the sets of ACD?
 
Good post, Raj! Mind if I add to and extend your comments?

Thanks, Rainman. Sure why not!

Add to your exposition on probabilities that we are a species that is now exhibiting the ability to venture off of this planet where we KNOW life exists in abundance. Thus, if we have been able to achieve this feat, it means that it is not improbable that any other species might also have reached this level of technology.

Yes, as it's also not improbable that some other species has reached a level of technology beyond us.

This plays into one of the technical issues I was considering today, in my professional work to define the requirements for potential manned missions to Mars. The issue of "cross-contamination" is one we are having to look at and address. And this goes beyond the surface issue that one would immediately think of: The potential for a person to return from Mars with some sort of nasty virus, etc. We must think bigger than this limiting case. We must also consider ANY sort of biological cross-contamination.

When you add these two possibilities together (A species achieving interplanetary travel technology, and the possibility of interplanetary cross-contamination), one could envisage the possibility that ALL life as we know it on this planet COULD be the result of an intergalactic "litter bug" who happened to inadvertently leave some biomass of his own on this 3rd rock from the sun as he traveled! Of course, this line of thinking could extend all the way to the potential that we are a "seeded species" that was specifically planted here by......?????

That is definitely quite possible. However, can we add to this possibility, the possibility of life evolving naturally too.

I have discussed only biological water-based life - do you think it is possible for life to be other forms, like composed of dark-matter, silicone, or even concentrated energy, that can form naturally and artificially.
 
do you think it posable for these other life forms to interface with a computer and use it to contact you???

Sure, why not. The internet is the biggest communication network in the world, and if any Tom, Dick and Harry can log on to it, why not ETI? I just hope they can tolerate the pop-up ads! :D
 
Raj' Think I get it. If before the wormhole entrance is A. then in-state when an object approaches this entrance, this is a state of A always being turned on.

If then C, is the wormhole tube, then when the object enters the wormhole tube, then the state of this object, is always wormhole tube insert C.

When the object comes out of the wormhole at the other exit point and appears there, then D, is in the state of always being there, of present at the exit point.

All states A, C, and D are ever-present at all states of being.

So then sets composed of ACD, are always for the time noted of this appearance, are always understood fio or that time appearance of these sets, are considered multiplistic states?

T, I didn't factor.You can factor T as also understood as distance; however T as a known plug-in variable, I did not use, as we are only considering what composes the sets of ACD?

creedo299x9

Yes, the points ACD are ever-present in T. It is only at point C that the frame of reference to T appears to differ. However A and D have the same frame of reference to T
The only way of D of having a different frame of reference, is if it was in an alternate parallel universe timeline, that is faster than ours - So say at A its T, and when at D, it's T+10, and T+1 at A. So if you re-enter the wormhole you are you are at T+2 at A, and it's T+20 at D.
 
Back
Top