Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Europan Ocean on 21/12/2021 07:32:58
-
I recall numerous stories of traveling back in time, and Hawking's idea of a time paradox, with a great volume of light... But I speculate that a time paradox would not happen, and that both the past and present and solid unchangeable realities. If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race... First off I think that history has infinite inertia, the atmosphere would crush the time traveler, and the people could not see him, and would knock him down if the atmosphere did not crush him.
But supposing he could interact with people and change the physical and social world, there would form two realities, distinct from each other, two separate worlds, possibly two planets... and the possibility of a collision or the two existing inside each other, dense and hot. To make another world would use up vast amounts of energy. It can't happen.
From S Hawking:
-
The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase over time. If we were to travel back into time, entropy would still increase. The result is the past would now contain more entropy that it did when it first occurred. Your time travel (machine) will cause entropy to increase. The past would not be the exact same past due to you bring in higher than equilibrium entropy for that point in time. It would hard to tell what would be the implications since the loss of local free energy would make some things not occur.
If there was perpetual motion, and your time machine and you, could somehow generate zero entropy, the past would not change upon arrival. However, perpetual motion does not exist. So we need an innovative way to overcome this.
The vector of time moves from past, to present to future. It does not cycle like a clock. The clock is used to measure increments of time but it does simulate the vector of time. The clock is a better simulation for photons and waves. But time is not a photon or wave since it goes in one direction; x, but not x,y.
Entropy, like time, moves spontaneously in one direction due to the second law. Entropy has to increase, just as time has to move to the future. These two are connected. The movement of time leads to change of state, that does not loop back on itself; aging. You would still age while using your time machine, even if you go to your own past.
In terms of space-time consider this scenario. Say we take a still photo of a dynamic scene within life. The still photo will stop time. With time stopped, all the action in that scene will stop in the photo. The still photo suspends the second law, forces, kinetics and all changes of free energy, These do not work without time.
Even though time has stopped in the photo, space will still appear within the photo. We can see all the details of the scene laid out in space, albeit all the details will be static. Space is not always dependent on time. The concept of space-time has limits which is easy to demonstrate with a still photo. Space exists in the quantum gaps of time and vice versa.
That being said, we could use distance potential; series of still photos, without time, to transport ourselves in a way that suspends the second law. This would be like hopping through a photo album, where we start at the end and go backwards to the past hopping in the gaps of stopped time. We then return by hopping from front to back. These are the gaps between quanta of time potential.
In this case of going back and then forward we starting to get something that looks like cyclic events where free energy appears not to change or age as though time is suspended; photons and electron orbitals.
-
If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race
Nobody said they would.
-
The vector of time moves
Time is still not a vector.
-
Time is still not a vector.
Wouldn't it be amazing if just once PP could learn something on the forum and stop repeating his errors over and over.
-
I'm not sure if banning him would get the message through to him, but it would stop us having to read his tosh.
-
If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race
Nobody said they would.
I thought popular science fiction saw it that way.
-
I thought popular science fiction saw it that way.
This website is not "madfictionists. com."
-
I thought popular science fiction saw it that way.
This website is not "madfictionists. com."
And I disagree with Hawking and popular fiction in my theory.
-
I disagree with Hawking and popular fiction in my theory.
OK
Hawking said
If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race
Popular fiction says the opposite.
And you disagree with both?
That does not make sense.
-
I disagree with Hawking and popular fiction in my theory.
OK
Hawking said
If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race
Popular fiction says the opposite.
And you disagree with both?
That does not make sense.
That's right, my idea is a new theory, from a non scientists.
-
I disagree with Hawking and popular fiction in my theory.
OK
Hawking said
If an American soldier went back in time, and sought to marry young princess Elizabeth, Prince Charles could not cease to exist, or morph into a man of another race
Popular fiction says the opposite.
And you disagree with both?
That does not make sense.
That's right, my idea is a new theory, from a non scientists.
It's not a question of science; it's a question of common sense.
If I say it's raining and Fred (who is here with me) says it is not raining.
You can't disagree with both of us.
Please stop posting nonsense.
-
Why would the people of the past not see him? Has he become invisible? If they knocked him down, they could certainly feel him. Conservation of momentum means that they have to slow down when they run into him, which they would notice.
-
I think that once the event is in the past that it is not changeable, not ever adjustable by a return of some sort. But that the history has gained infinite inertia.
As an aside, time travel backwards, to a past known location, I doubt is possible anyway.
-
I think that once the event is in the past that it is not changeable, not ever adjustable by a return of some sort. But that the history has gained infinite inertia.
That would violate the laws of physics, as I pointed out. You can't knock a time traveler down without transferring momentum and kinetic energy to them. That momentum and energy had to come from somewhere. If those things came from the person of the past who walked into them, then that person would have to slow down in response.
-
I think that once the event is in the past that it is not changeable, not ever adjustable by a return of some sort. But that the history has gained infinite inertia.
That would violate the laws of physics, as I pointed out. You can't knock a time traveler down without transferring momentum and kinetic energy to them. That momentum and energy had to come from somewhere. If those things came from the person of the past who walked into them, then that person would have to slow down in response.
Okay.
-
As a proponent of cyclic universe theory, I have an opinion about time which likely differs from most other peoples opinion. Time is progression, and that progression can be from the centre (big bang) outward, or in a collapsing instance of space-time, it could progress inward toward the big bang. I don't believe it is possible to travel back in time, as no matter which direction time progresses in, cause will still precede effect, IMO the only noticeable difference between space-time contracting toward, or expanding away, from the big bang, would be that in a contracting universe entropy would reverse as the universe contracting toward what would ultimately become a singularity
-
Time is progression, and that progression can be from the centre (big bang) outward
What is the 'center' you are talking about? The universe has no center.
-
its easier to define where the centre of a big crunch or collapsing universe is than where it is within a currently expanding instance of space-time such as the one we inhabit. A universe collapsing from its outermost extent back toward its point of origin will eventually revert to a singularity IE its centre.
The metric expansion of space-time makes determining the centre of an expanding universe impossible, as all points in space-time are expanding simultaneously meaning an observer at any point in space-time will see all objects other than gravitationally bound ones moving away from them. (As indicated by the cosmic red shift.) The more distant an object is the greater the red shift will be due to the cumulative nature of expanding space-time.. An observer at any point in space time might think that they really are at the geometric centre of the universe. But hey, that's relativity for you !!!
-
I see you're new here, but it's preferred for members to start their own threads when they have a new theory instead of adding it into another member's thread.
-
My apologies... the theory isn't actually my own and It isn't currently mainstream, but I sometimes forget that due to finding it infinitely more acceptable than any of the alternative theories, due to it making more sense... Thank you very much for the advice on how to use this site properly, and once again apologies for my over exuberance.
-
and once again apologies for my over exuberance.
Not a problem. I didn't mean for it to be scolding.