The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Would travel backwards through a wormhole require duplication of your atoms?  (Read 6849 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3917
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice. If they never made the return journey then the mass of the universe would increase. This could potentially be repeated infinitely many times. In essence matter would appear to be created from nothing. This is a violation of the laws of physics. Therefore time travel into the past is impossible.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 08:21:50 by chris »


 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Time travel paradox
« Reply #1 on: 11/06/2015 23:35:48 »
Would that person not be traveling a wave and disapear at the moment he goes back.. So only ones? ;) i tought the did timetravel a particle before? Just hear something like that I believe on television that the did acomples that..yes on discovery not the scify chanal...So you Jump from a position to a other? Without traveling the distanse. Just trying some idea if time is growing biger and more complexed You have to goback to the older state of time that good only happen if you leave the newer one. By folowing it backwards. Reverse engenering or something. Sounds pretty difficult. To exactly calculate the path backwards following the footstaps of time. You have to know the past till the futher exactly to pull that off. So returning to a unknown past would be imposible if you dont have a way to create that info. I dont think it just a direction like back. So if the did do it it would only be a small second or something not 1766. 1766 is just a state on a calendar not the state of the universe or like back. O yes just remeber time travel has to do with going faster then light thats not a time thats just a direction how far you have to be able to control in some way how do you see determination of that? I supose you could just excelarate till where you want to be bit dangerus or not. Maybee you travel outoff excitance..I supose there are windows so you can see where you are no just being bid funny no harm intended. Year sorry I can talk till ears fall off... If time and matter are one particle following a complexed pattern thats growing or expanding you would never excist twice. But you would not be able to go back. Or you excite twice till invinity oke your proberly wright if you believe that. But maybe one is not a state but a number. The number is coming frome a pattern that the universe follows one, two, three are meseurments one a state without two has no numbers or sizes. So maybee your logic is missing time. You are only ussing matter to your logic. If there is somthing called time and something called matter use them both to create logic. To be more clear maybe time apple and matter pear are not called one and two. So maybe our langeus need some improving. But I am just some dumber person that likes to talk to much no sientist I am. You see how my spelling is yes. I always say everthing I say is borrowed poorly copyed from some past I was in so maybee Its not realy me talking but time itself funny again..so maybe I am not a scientist but a state of time and matter. Just being nice to myself we all know I am that moron. Litle butterfly fly and cange the pad of matter. No one learns for other people you listen to your own questions and find the answer your self so do great scientists come to great discoveries I am proberly lucky if I find my own body parts in this live time funny not.. Lets say I am blessed with ignorres and no social skils.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 01:58:14 by jeroen »
 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Time travel paradox
« Reply #2 on: 12/06/2015 02:10:49 »
newbielink:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2420239/Professor-Brian-Cox-time-travel-IS-possible--want-to-future.html [nonactive] maybee he is helping your vision. [8D] I realy thought the shoot a particle treu time with the particle excelaration machine but I proberly hear it wrong. I never pay atention to things. But I did try to give you a different perspective but proberly did not help at all thats because I am just quesing. If that was your answer also your finished and can go spent time differently yes? I Am always trying to be funny but now succes. You see you changed my perspective answered al my questions need to learn first before talking go sleeping not chacing my tail anymore.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 02:53:29 by jeroen »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time travel paradox
« Reply #3 on: 12/06/2015 02:16:12 »
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice. If they never made the return journey then the mass of the universe would increase. This could potentially be repeated infinitely many times. In essence matter would appear to be created from nothing. This is a violation of the laws of physics. Therefore time travel into the past is impossible.
That's correct. I myself have pointed this out in the past when in those (infrequent) instances where I discuss time travel.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time travel paradox
« Reply #4 on: 12/06/2015 06:32:58 »
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice. If they never made the return journey then the mass of the universe would increase. This could potentially be repeated infinitely many times. In essence matter would appear to be created from nothing. This is a violation of the laws of physics. Therefore time travel into the past is impossible.

''time'' travel is impossible, you can neither travel to the past or the future, we live in the moment of the now, which each moment becomes a different reference frame of space. Things are always in motion travelling a distance every second,being displaced of space.
The evidence suggests we can slow this moment down, ''time dilation'', but we can not jump back or forward in ''time''.  Time travel is fiction, and is not worth a mention in science.
You are never travelling backwards, or can not travel backwards, left to right or right to left is still forward, but forward is also arbitrary. Backwards is no different to falling back to earth.  Travelling away from gravity means a body can live a bit longer, ''time'' slows down for the body, time being relative to decay of the body and emittance of energy. 
Reality works.


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Time travel paradox
« Reply #5 on: 12/06/2015 09:37:18 »
Quote from: Thebox
''time'' travel is impossible, you can neither travel to the past or the future, we live in the moment of the now, which each moment becomes a different reference frame of space. Things are always in motion travelling a distance every second,being displaced of space.
That's not known at this point. That'd be like saying that wormholes cannot exist and that's far from certain. And we can travel into the future because we're doing it all the time. To travel one second into the future requires that we wait one second. Or we can travel into the future at a faster rate by traveling near light speed.
 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
About not learning from other theories but from your own anwsers. If the apple fell of a three the scientist ask a question what happend he answers gravity. ;D just jumpt from one point to the other its time travel I left out thousends of steps funny..
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 09:53:46 by jeroen »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
   The time clock moves forward. As I see it the universe is really three universes of the past, the present, and the future.  If we look at the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the electron is in a particular position which is the past. At present it is traveling toward the future. When it reaches the future it will be right back where it started from. For this case, the past, present, and future all coexist within a split second of each other. For the universe as a whole, the past is constantly erased and the future is constantly forming. If you try to travel to the past, you are traveling to what has been erased. In New Theories I explain that the entire universe is erasing into dark matter/energy. To travel into the past is to become part of dark energy/dark matter.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice.
Jeffery, could you expand on this please? All the popular descriptions of wormholes makes them sound like a tube connecting A to B along which the, presumably indestructible, traveller would pass.
What is the mechanism for duplication?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
It's not just wormholes that cause this problem. Try working out what happens if someone travels round a closed time-like curve, and meets herself at the beginning.  From there it really gets to be fun.
 

Offline jeroen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
   The time clock moves forward. As I see it the universe is really three universes of the past, the present, and the future.  If we look at the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the electron is in a particular position which is the past. At present it is traveling toward the future. When it reaches the future it will be right back where it started from. For this case, the past, present, and future all coexist within a split second of each other. For the universe as a whole, the past is constantly erased and the future is constantly forming. If you try to travel to the past, you are traveling to what has been erased. In New Theories I explain that the entire universe is erasing into dark matter/energy. To travel into the past is to become part of dark energy/dark matter.
Are you saying that time is a circle a decay of the atom where is timespace matter in this theory I only see matter in there. O sorry missed part of darkmatter the errease part can you say what is being erreased energy I supose Chaos maybe? What is errease or what does it mean Is the chaos being orderd? Pushed in submission by darkmatter? What is the purpose of erreasing matter or ordering? I supose I need to know the bohr theory to understand what your saying better. But I believe the answer is always in the question. Or do you think the ordered part is info about rules of behaviour of the new matter? So thinks are not just action reaction it seams a bit strange just rolling the dice like evolution theory is claiming. It sounds my to much like sourcery farry tale behaviour. I feel there is more logic rules and order needed to make a continium universe of matter. Would matter like a glass be able to behave anyway it likes in different parts of the universe should it not be linked together to behave simuliar? Or tolled how to behave a like in the new time in all places. To make that posible it should change instancely in all timematter so distance should be relative then. Or a illussion created by looking at the unvierse from only matter point of vieuw. Yes I am a fan of the relativity theory feel that distance and dimentions only excits from the matter perspective that makes things relative so no big or small inside darkmatter engine or light and dark no sizes or dementions inside darkmatter and that just a illussion created by looking from only matter perspective to universe. I FEEL we look at relativety theory from matter perspective the light it self not the darkmatter where it is traveling treu. So the question should be how fast light can travel treu darkmatter like a pipe.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 17:31:46 by jeroen »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Jeffrey
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice. If they never made the return journey then the mass of the universe would increase.

It's not as simple as that.  Every point in spacetime is a unique and immutable spacetime event.  No such event can change. If someone travels to a point in the past and meets his younger self, that point cannot occur with and without both versions of the time traveller.  The same applies to atoms.  There would not be an increase because all the atoms present after the TT event must have been there before it.  What is perhaps even worse, they must have been in the form they are in after the TT event.  There is, in fact, no before and after, there is only ever one immutable spacetime event.

Get out of that without killing your grandmother! :)   
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Bill S
It's not as simple as that.  Every point in spacetime is a unique and immutable spacetime event.  No such event can change. If someone travels to a point in the past and meets his younger self, that point cannot occur with and without both versions of the time traveller.
That doesn't follow from your premise. Although each event in spacetime is unique it doesn't mean that someone can't travel into the past. Being and not being at a point in spacetime doesn't change its uniqueness. An event is defined as a time and place. It's not defined by what happens there.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
I must be really stupid or missing something here in this thread?

Remove everything that is of matter from space, this leaves a void with no '''fabric'', no ''time'', and no physical presence.   How does your imagined ''worm hole'' fit into a void situation?

Space itself  does not have properties that can alter , nothing can bend or twist or contort, because there is simply nothing there to do anything, space is the nothing that is passive for the something.

 Travel backwards is the same as travelling forward except the opposite way.  Maybe an object odes not move through space, maybe the space passes through the object.



 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
Remove everything that is of matter from space, this leaves a void with no '''fabric'', no ''time'', and no physical presence.   How does your imagined ''worm hole'' fit into a void situation?
It doesn't because you can't have a wormhole without the matter that creates it.

Quote from: Thebox
Space itself  does not have properties that can alter , nothing can bend or twist or contort, because there is simply nothing there to do anything, space is the nothing that is passive for the something.
You're quite wrong about that. The geometrical properties of space can be altered using matter. If the mass density is large enough then the universe has the geometry of a 3D spherical surface. That means that if a spatial geodesics goes off in one direction then it will come back to the point where it started.

You're going to have to wait until you learn general relativity to understand this. But before that you have to learn that you absolutely can not use your intuition to reason about space and time on this level. Our minds didn't evolve with such things in our experience so the uneducated assumes that it can't exist or happen. If you have any plans of learning physics as well  as a physicist then you're going to have to keep an open mind. So far I don't see that happening because you've constantly insisted on using the intuition that you had before you started to learn physics and that just won't do. Doing that means not opening your mind to new possibilities.

Exactly what did you think physicists meant when they say that to become a physicist you have to open your mind to new possibilities anyway?
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Pete
An event is defined as a time and place. It's not defined by what happens there.

The Great Guru, Wiki might beg to differ on that one.

Quote
In physics, and in particular relativity, an event indicates a point in spacetime (which for a given inertial frame of reference can be specified by position and time), and the physical situation or occurrence associated with it.

This seems to suggest that the "goings-on" are part of the event.  There is something else lurking in my memory, I think it was from Richard Wolfson. I'll try to find it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
Remove everything that is of matter from space, this leaves a void with no '''fabric'', no ''time'', and no physical presence.   How does your imagined ''worm hole'' fit into a void situation?
It doesn't because you can't have a wormhole without the matter that creates it.

Quote from: Thebox
Space itself  does not have properties that can alter , nothing can bend or twist or contort, because there is simply nothing there to do anything, space is the nothing that is passive for the something.
You're quite wrong about that. The geometrical properties of space can be altered using matter. If the mass density is large enough then the universe has the geometry of a 3D spherical surface. That means that if a spatial geodesics goes off in one direction then it will come back to the point where it started.

You're going to have to wait until you learn general relativity to understand this. But before that you have to learn that you absolutely can not use your intuition to reason about space and time on this level. Our minds didn't evolve with such things in our experience so the uneducated assumes that it can't exist or happen. If you have any plans of learning physics as well  as a physicist then you're going to have to keep an open mind. So far I don't see that happening because you've constantly insisted on using the intuition that you had before you started to learn physics and that just won't do. Doing that means not opening your mind to new possibilities.

Exactly what did you think physicists meant when they say that to become a physicist you have to open your mind to new possibilities anyway?


My mind is a very open mind, and possibilities being the word, if something is not logically possible, then it can not be true, so to learn something , I have an open mind, but it also has got to be logically possible.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
....but it also has got to be logically possible.

I tend to think along those lines as well, but we all have to remember that our "personal" logic may not always be correct.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
My mind is a very open mind, and possibilities being the word, if something is not logically possible, then it can not be true, so to learn something , I have an open mind, but it also has got to be logically possible.
You have a great deal to learn about what it means for something to be "logically possible/impossible" in physics. Logic is about constructing arguments utilizing propositions. The propositions which are assumed to be true are called the premises whereas the proposition which is deduced as a result of the argument is called the conclusion. No logical argument can be constructed to arrive at all conclusions which means that some premises must be axioms. Therefore axioms can neither be called logical or illogical.

As an example you have always insisted that the properties of space cannot be altered. You consider this to be illogical. Your problem is that you've only used your intuition to arrive at this belief. You've never even attempted to construct a logical argument to prove that its illogical. Nothing in nature which is observed can ever be illogical. Once you learn to accept that you'll be on the road to having an open mind. So far you're a long way off. You only believe you have an open mind. In reality you're still grasping onto old concepts of reality which modern physics proved wrong close to 100 years ago.

Listen to Bill. He hit the nail right smack on the head just now when he wrote
Quote from: Bill S
I tend to think along those lines as well, but we all have to remember that our "personal" logic may not always be correct.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
My mind is a very open mind, and possibilities being the word, if something is not logically possible, then it can not be true, so to learn something , I have an open mind, but it also has got to be logically possible.
You have a great deal to learn about what it means for something to be "logically possible/impossible" in physics. Logic is about constructing arguments utilizing propositions. The propositions which are assumed to be true are called the premises whereas the proposition which is deduced as a result of the argument is called the conclusion. No logical argument can be constructed to arrive at all conclusions which means that some premises must be axioms. Therefore axioms can neither be called logical or illogical.

As an example you have always insisted that the properties of space cannot be altered. You consider this to be illogical. Your problem is that you've only used your intuition to arrive at this belief. You've never even attempted to construct a logical argument to prove that its illogical. Nothing in nature which is observed can ever be illogical. Once you learn to accept that you'll be on the road to having an open mind. So far you're a long way off. You only believe you have an open mind. In reality you're still grasping onto old concepts of reality which modern physics proved wrong close to 100 years ago.

Listen to Bill. He hit the nail right smack on the head just now when he wrote
Quote from: Bill S
I tend to think along those lines as well, but we all have to remember that our "personal" logic may not always be correct.
  Interesting Pete, I personally do not use personal logic, I use objective logic, when considering space, that is empty space, I consider no logic is needed to conclude that empty can not change or twist or curve etc. I consider that an axiom unless anyone here can tell me what of empty space can alter?
Travelling backwards through empty does not change the empty.
In comparison science is saying I can enter a Maelstrom and time travel, 

« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 08:58:13 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3917
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If someone were to travel backwards in time through a hypothetical wormhole then all the atoms that make up the person would be present twice.
Jeffery, could you expand on this please? All the popular descriptions of wormholes makes them sound like a tube connecting A to B along which the, presumably indestructible, traveller would pass.
What is the mechanism for duplication?

If I were standing on a street in the year 2014 and then traveled back in time to stand next to myself then not all the cells in my body would be made of the same atoms. However, the food I ate to become my future self would be present in other forms containing the same atoms. I just hadn't eaten them yet. Therefore there is an increase in the mass of the universe.

There is another possibility. If a wormhole only moved things into the future then neither violation of conservation laws or time paradoxes would arise. If a wormhole existed from one second into the past to the present moment then the distance over which it would operate would have to be that traveled by light in the same time. Thus no violation of light speed. The light still arrives at the point in time it would have if the wormhole did not exist. What use is this? Well if the wormhole was large enough then it could give high resolution images of the past universe. A resolution unobtainable with current technology. This would not be time travel though and is very hypothetical.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile

If I were standing on a street in the year 2014 and then traveled back in time to stand next to myself then not all the cells in my body would be made of the same atoms. However, the food I ate to become my future self would be present in other forms containing the same atoms. I just hadn't eaten them yet. Therefore there is an increase in the mass of the universe.
Thanks, I misunderstood what you were saying. I was thinking mass is moved from one area of spacetime to another, hence mass is conserved within spacetime, no net change.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Thebox
Interesting Pete, I personally do not use personal logic, ...
There's no such thing as "personal logic." I'm referring to a formal subfield of philosophy called "Logic." See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

Quote from: Thebox
I use objective logic, ..
Again, there's no such thing. You need to look up the terms you use like this before engaging in an argument where your reasoning is based on it as it is here.

Quote from: Thebox
when considering space, that is empty space, I consider no logic is needed to conclude that empty can not change or twist or curve etc.
And that's why you're wrong. I assume that you're familiar with geometry, right? Contrary to popular belief, geometry is not a branch of mathematics but a branch of physics. Using geometry one can arrive at various conclusions based on certain axioms. One axiom is the parallel axiom which states that no two straight lines (i.e. geodesics in space) which start out parallel will ever cross or diverge. In some cases that's true and in other cases that's false. It depends on the geometry of the space in which the lines are in. That geometry is determined by matter. This is the conclusion reached by Einstein when he invented general relativity and which is born out by experiment.

Quote from: Thebox
I consider that an axiom unless anyone here can tell me what of empty space can alter?
I can't count the times that I've explained how this has been your problem all along. You keep insisting on using intuition which your mind evolved with and which you grew up experiencing. You'll never understand nature until you can open up your mind and right not its very closed. You have it if there's nothing in space then there's nothing that can be altered. I.e. your mind is stuck saying "How can you alter nothing?" and thus you can't get out of that mode.

Here's how physicists like Einstein etc. understand this; Think of space as it would be described by a Cartesian coordinate system. The problem that idea is that it relies on drawing parallel lines and there's no reason to assume that it can be done. In fact around a black hole it can't be done in anything other than a small finite region of space. But let's say that space is empty and devoid of matter. At least for several tens of light years in any direction. Then within a billion miles or so it can be done very precisely. We can even imagine it as spanning the entire universe in all directions. Under certain circumstances that too can be done. However in either a spatially closed or spatially open universe it can't be done. In a closed universe, caused by too much matter, the geometry is analogous to a spherical surface. Suppose we take a look into the universe of two dimensional beings (like ants moving on a flat table). We could imagine them existing in an infinite flat plane, moving around back and forth carrying on with their daily lives. Other than these beings there is no matter. However we can also imagine that their two dimensional universe is the surface of a balloon. Still there is no matter in this universe and the 2D beings can move around on this surface. However if two of them start off walking side by side in one direction, each moving parallel to each other, then even though they're moving on "straight lines" (i.e. spatial geodesics in a curved space) their paths will cross. This is the same thing that would happen it two people are on the equator walking initially parallel to each other will end up at the exact same point, i.e. the North Pole. This space is still two dimensional but this space is curved.

We can also start with a flat space and move matter into the region and measure the physical properties of the space and we'll see that spatial relations have changed. And that's the thing that's changed, i.e. distances between points.

Do you understand this now? If not then there's no hope that you ever will and I won't make another attempt ever again.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
This is not the Wolfson quote I was looking for, but it does seem to suggest that an event is more than just time and place.  The underlining is mine.

"....there is no such thing as a universal ‘present’.  There is, for me, the present event – namely, whatever is occurring here and now." 
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Pete
This is the same thing that would happen it two people are on the equator walking initially parallel to each other will end up at the exact same point, i.e. the North Pole. This space is still two dimensional but this space is curved.

It took me some time to come to terms with this idea, and I really found nothing in Pop Sci literature that helped.  The explanation you give is great, but it doesn’t address the one question about parallel lines that many “hitch-hikers” want to ask.

If you define parallel lines as lines that are the same distance apart at any given point along their length, in what sense can you define lines that form great circles on the Earth as being parallel?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length