Heavy Science. Time Travel.

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
There are lots of misconceptions about Time Travel, And I'm not here to Shake Tables, Who really has the time to be a negative outburst type of person anyway? So, Here is the thing. It seems at least according to some physicists. That Time travel is now, Once again, Possible. Scientists say time travel is possible and explain how

So things to know about Time, Is that in the eyes of a lot of relativity based physicists. Time is only a concept that we created as a means to understand something we couldn't comprehend in the first place. In short, Einstein thought Time was an illusion, That events and moments, Were only separated by space-time. And that. If we could somehow. manipulate space-time. That all moments in time would transpire in sync with all other events in time, Meaning, Childhood you, could literally walk up to adult you and shake your hands.

My deal is this. Let's push aside all the physics of this for a moment. What are the Ethics Of time travel?
Consider for a moment. on some small scale, You travel back in time and Save someone from their fate, That's all fine and good. But What happens when this technology is in everyone's hands. and everyone can travel back and change what they want about the past? It's a safe bet. Not everyone who bends space time to revisit the past has the purest intentions.

What would a Time Traveling Criminal Do, Or more yet? What could a time-traveling criminal do to change the past that could cause some sort of apocalypse? Because. someone somewhere at some point would do this, Be it on purpose or by complete accident. Is the eventuality of time travel something to be feared?

Moreso, What will become of concepts like causality. Alternate timelines. if such a thing as time travel does become possible? Would each change we made, create an entirely new timeline? With the original events playing out for us. And the new changed timeline playing out only for the Time Traveler? How would the mechanics of traveling backward in time, Change the foundation of the originally established timeline? Or would it even change it at all, It could very well, Just create an entirely new timeline?

Just thinking about these things. What are your thoughts on this Guys?

General_relativity_time_and_space_distortion_extract.gif
 

Black Angus

Honorable
One of my favorite subjects and i have a very large folder of links about the topic.

I'll post my commentary on the premise it is possible.

17991141_10158669773875037_174166620394542890_n.jpg


From my perspective nothing changes but perspective.

The universe can be measured on two Axis, distance and duration.
Space and time
Right now we have no issue with the first axis, we can move around on it at will. The other one we cant move in we are stuck like flys in amber in the moment of now.
But if we could travel on both Axis, our view of the universe changes.
It all becomes our playground. we can breakfast at the big bang, and eat dinner at the restaurant at the end of the universe.

If it can be done then any species with a strong survival drive will find a way, because in the big picture you cant survive otherwise.

Either the heat death of the universe steamrolls over the top of you in time, or the Big crunch does.

To the time traveler these events dont matter, just make sure you dont wind up at those time space co-ordinates and you are fine. you have true eternity to play in. Infinity in a finite system.

And yes you can have infinity inside a finite system.

Take the number one, its a finite number.
Divide it in half, throw away half and keep half.
Take that and divide it in half. throw away half and keep half
Rinse and repeat to infinity. as long as you keep half it can be divided in half.
And just for fun if you express that in numbers the number gets longer and longer, the smaller it gets.

And if you can step outside of time, the big crunch is no problem either. Eventually the big crunch spawns another big bang, you step down into real time and its a whole new universe to explore.

And my hatstand then makes perfect sense
13592417_10157190758125037_3016029175175276146_n.jpg
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
One of my favorite subjects and i have a very large folder of links about the topic.

I'll post my commentary on the premise it is possible.

17991141_10158669773875037_174166620394542890_n.jpg


From my perspective nothing changes but perspective.

The universe can be measured on two Axis, distance and duration.
Space and time
Right now we have no issue with the first axis, we can move around on it at will. The other one we cant move in we are stuck like flys in amber in the moment of now.
But if we could travel on both Axis, our view of the universe changes.
It all becomes our playground. we can breakfast at the big bang, and eat dinner at the restaurant at the end of the universe.

If it can be done then any species with a strong survival drive will find a way, because in the big picture you cant survive otherwise.

Either the heat death of the universe steamrolls over the top of you in time, or the Big crunch does.

To the time traveler these events dont matter, just make sure you dont wind up at those time space co-ordinates and you are fine. you have true eternity to play in. Infinity in a finite system.

And yes you can have infinity inside a finite system.

Take the number one, its a finite number.
Divide it in half, throw away half and keep half.
Take that and divide it in half. throw away half and keep half
Rinse and repeat to infinity. as long as you keep half it can be divided in half.
And just for fun if you express that in numbers the number gets longer and longer, the smaller it gets.

And if you can step outside of time, the big crunch is no problem either. Eventually the big crunch spawns another big bang, you step down into real time and its a whole new universe to explore.

And my hatstand then makes perfect sense
13592417_10157190758125037_3016029175175276146_n.jpg

I love doctor who By the way., :) I'm still waiting for the new episodes :) While I was reading your post. I had this thought. What If. The bending of space-time is a naturally occurring event, Like on a massive scale. I'm not saying heat death does not occur. Naturally, That is the way entropy interacts with matter. So heat death would be the absolute end, But. What if, some phenomenon toward the end. Causes time or space-time, To invert, You mentioned an axis. What if at a certain point Space time inverts on itself and it literally rewinds or resets?

To help entertain this notion. I present the Immortal Jellyfish. Its natural response to Harm. or stress is to revert to it's earlier stages in development.

While I don't assume this ability of the Jellyfish is connected with space-time. I present this unique ability as a means to illustrate that The idea of renewing or reverting to an earlier stage is found in nature :)

And if you really give this some thought. As far as time itself is concerned. To ever exist even for a brief moment, Is to exist eternally. Because that location in space-time was occupied. and is therefore eternally occupied.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
Well...

It depends on whether you believe in the "many worlds" interpretation.

If you believe in that - time travel creates a fork and you return to a different future.

Let's say you do something in the standard linear time one universe scenario (which isn't really linear time - but close enough) in the past that delays the discovery of time travel.

You would never have left the future. What happens to you?

There was a sci fi novel about a guy sent back to retrieve things. Only the machine went both back and sideways. He brought back Moby Dick - but had to kill the leviathan eating him first.

He went back to the middle ages and found werewolves.

The past was never quite right for some reason.
 
This has always been a favorite topic for me as well. This is our most popular Physics Frontiers podcast so far:

150x150_11765087.jpg

The Physics of Time Travel

A brilliant theoretical physicist named Itzhak Bars has a theory he calls 2T Physics, where our universe is described as having 2 dimensions of time, and 4 dimensions of space, but the action is constrained by a specific gauge symmetry which produces the illusion of a 4D universe (1 time dimension, and 3 space dimensions). One of the things I like about this theory is that if this gauge symmetry could be broken, say, through some kind of exotic technology, then time would be a plane, instead of a line. And if it's a plane, then it might be possible to go back in time, change an event, and generate a new independent timeline from the first. You could think of it like drawing a straight line across a sheet of paper, and then doubling back along a curved line to an earlier point in time, and then heading off in a new forward direction in time. An infinite variety of new futures could become available this way, and causality is still preserved because the original timeline still exists from a higher-dimensional perspective, and a clear chain of causality is maintained from this view as well since the line is uninterrupted - it just has an additional degree of freedom. So a new global definition of causality would be defined, and conserved, within the context of this new 2-time perspective.

But if we're living in a 4D universe, which seems to be the case, although Dr. Bars offers some compelling theoretical arguments to support his model, then it's a different story. I'm writing a paper about a new interpretation of the special theory of relativity, which is actually a new and broader theory altogether, and what I found was very disappointing to my hopes for a time travel technology. This theory is telling me that at least in terms of pure kinematics, time travel to the past is impossible - and moreover, the future already exists so free will is actually a kind of illusion: not only can we not change the past, we can't change the future either - everything is going to happen exactly way it's going to happen like clockwork. And if we think we're going to thwart this pre-existing order of events by, say, taking the long route to work in the morning instead of the usual route, then we were always going to do that - it's in our nature, so to speak. It's a kind of chilling view of reality, because it basically means that our consciousness is like a prisoner forced to witness a sequence of predetermined events that can't be changed: the entire 4D history of the universe is like a solid immutable object, and we're just experiencing consecutive points as we move along its surface.

This concept actually resolves all of the quantum weirdness too: if the future boundary conditions are as fixed as the present and past boundary conditions, quantum field theory suddenly becomes very elegant and symmetric, and effects like quantum entanglement make sense because the future and the past are shaping the present in tandem all the time: both "ends" of the wave equation are predefined and self-resolve into the reality we observe.

So the fact that this new theory eliminates the causality paradoxes in the superluminal regime of the special theory of relativity, and also completes quantum field theory in an elegant manner that resolves all of its weird paradoxes as well, convinces me that it's correct.

So it pains me to abandon my aspirations for becoming a time-travelling vigilante, but the laws of physics seem to prohibit it, so I guess I'll just have to keep making podcasts instead.

Haha - apparently that is my fate after all - you posted this comment before I could reply:

I love doctor who By the way., :) I'm still waiting for the new episodes :) While I was reading your post. I had this thought. What If. The bending of space-time is a naturally occurring event, Like on a massive scale. I'm not saying heat death does not occur. Naturally, That is the way entropy interacts with matter. So heat death would be the absolute end, But. What if, some phenomenon toward the end. Causes time or space-time, To invert, You mentioned an axis. What if at a certain point Space time inverts on itself and it literally rewinds or resets?
The most fascinating paper that we've ever read for our podcast is called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time," which is about a new theory of time and cosmic structure, and they touch on this exact idea. They found that time would move forward, driven by factors like cosmological complexity and structure, and that at some point these factors would reach a maximum value, and forward time would stop. Then the universe would play itself backwards to the Big Bang and the cycle would repeat (though presumably with a new sequence of future events).
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Well...

It depends on whether you believe in the "many worlds" interpretation.

If you believe in that - time travel creates a fork and you return to a different future.

Let's say you do something in the standard linear time one universe scenario (which isn't really linear time - but close enough) in the past that delays the discovery of time travel.

You would never have left the future. What happens to you?

There was a sci fi novel about a guy sent back to retrieve things. Only the machine went both back and sideways. He brought back Moby Dick - but had to kill the leviathan eating him first.

He went back to the middle ages and found werewolves.

The past was never quite right for some reason.
With as tight of a grasp of causality as I can understand. I am heavily leaning on the many worlds theory. But this doesn't mean that this is the only possible solution, It just means I can't think of a better one :p
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
This has always been a favorite topic for me as well. This is our most popular Physics Frontiers podcast so far:

150x150_11765087.jpg

The Physics of Time Travel

A brilliant theoretical physicist named Itzhak Bars has a theory he calls 2T Physics, where our universe is described as having 2 dimensions of time, and 4 dimensions of space, but the action is constrained by a specific gauge symmetry which produces the illusion of a 4D universe (1 time dimension, and 3 space dimensions). One of the things I like about this theory is that if this gauge symmetry could be broken, say, through some kind of exotic technology, then time would be a plane, instead of a line. And if it's a plane, then it might be possible to go back in time, change an event, and generate a new independent timeline from the first. You could think of it like drawing a straight line across a sheet of paper, and then doubling back along a curved line to an earlier point in time, and then head off in a new forward direction. And infinite variety of new futures could become available this way, and causality is till preserved because the original timeline still exhibits from a higher-dimensional perspective, and a clear chain of causality is maintained from this view as well since the line is uninterrupted - it just has an additional degree of freedom. So a new global definition of causality would be defined, and conserved, within the context of this new 2-time perspective.

But if we're living in a 4D universe, which seems to be the case, although Dr. Bars offers some compelling theoretical arguments to support his model, then it's a different story. I'm writing a paper about a new interpretation of the special theory of relativity, which is actually a new and broader theory altogether, and what I found was very disappointing to my hopes for a time travel technology. This theory is telling me that at least in terms of pure kinematics, time travel to the past is impossible - and moreover, the future already exists so free will is actually a kind of illusion: not only can we not change the past, we can't change the future either - everything is going to happen exactly way it's going to happen like clockwork. And if we think we're going to thwart this pre-existing order of events by, say, taking the long route to work in the morning instead of the usual route, then we were always going to do that - it's in our nature, so to speak. It's a kind of chilling view of reality, because it basically means that our consciousness is like a prisoner to a sequence of events that can't be changed: the entire 4D history of the universe is like a solid immutable object, and we're just experiencing consecutive points as we move along its surface.

This concept actually resolves all of the quantum weirdness too: if the future boundary conditions are as fixed as the present and past boundary conditions, quantum field theory suddenly becomes very elegant and symmetric, and effects like quantum entanglement make sense because the future and the past are shaping the present in tandem all the time: both "ends" of the wave equation are predefined and self-resolve into the reality we observe.

So the fact that this new theory eliminates the causality paradoxes in the superluminal regime of the special theory of relativity, and also completes quantum field theory in an elegant manner than resolves all of its paradoxes as well, convinces that it's correct.

So it pains me to abandon my aspirations for becoming a time-travelling vigilante, but the laws of physics seem to prohibit it, so I guess I'll just have to keep making podcasts instead.
2T Physics, I'm going to need to study this. It sounds interesting. I am assuming The discovery of supersymmetry would all but prove this true. See a lot of people don't know, That, Supersymmetry is not just a theory. We predicted it. Like the Higgs boson, That's what the LHC is currently looking for is Supersymmetry, We expect to find it soon :)
 
With as tight of a grasp of causality as I can understand. I am heavily leaning on the many worlds theory. But this doesn't mean that this is the only possible solution, It just means I can't think of a better one :p
People often talk about the many-worlds interpretation as new universes branching out from each quantum mechanical event, but that's not accurate: the many-worlds interpretation postulates that all possible outcomes actually happen, and so there are infinities upon infinities of alternative universes co-existing as a multiverse. So all of those universes always existed as all of the variations possible within the one cosmic wavefunction. Frankly I hate this model, because it strikes me as a complete inversion of Occam's razor: Everett is supposing that infinite variations of this universe exist, just to explain quantum indeterminism. It's the least economical explanation in the history of theoretical physics.

And it's also unclear where all of these universes are supposed to exist. Since they're all an expression of the one cosmic wavfunction, one would presume that they all co-exist somehow. And yet they'd have to be causally independent from one another. So how can an infinite variety of universes exist right on top of one another? It makes no sense to me. He doesn't postulate any extra physical dimensions for them to reside in, so the question remains: where are they all hiding then?

2T Physics, I'm going to need to study this. It sounds interesting. I am assuming The discovery of supersymmetry would all but prove this true. See a lot of people don't know, That, Supersymmetry is not just a theory. We predicted it. Like the Higgs boson, That's what the LHC is currently looking for is Supersymmetry, We expect to find it soon :)
Supersymmetry is a 4D theory, so the discovery of supersymmetric particles wouldn't prove his idea, but such particles also exist quite naturally within his theory, so it would be consistent with his theory.

And supersymmetry is a purely aesthetic extension, unlike the Higgs which was a phenomenological necessity for the Standard Model. So it's not really as much a prediction of the Standard Model, as a pretty augmentation of it. Best as I can tell, most supersymmetry theorists expected to see at least one supersymmetric particle in the LHC data at the energies they've explored, but they came up with donuts. That doesn't bode well for supersymmetry, but maybe something will come up after the new upgrade.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
People often talk about the many-worlds interpretation as new universes branching out from each quantum mechanical event, but that's not accurate: the many-worlds interpretation postulates that all possible outcomes actually happen, and so there are infinities upon infinities of alternative universes co-existing as a multiverse. So all of those universes always existed as all of the variations possible within the one cosmic wavefunction. Frankly I hate this model, because it strikes me as a complete inversion of Occam's razor: Everett is supposing that infinite variations of this universe exist, just to explain quantum indeterminism. It's the least economical explanation in the history of theoretical physics.

And it's also unclear where all of these universes are supposed to exist. Since they're all an expression of the one cosmic wavfunction, one would presume that they all co-exist somehow. And yet they'd have to be causally independent from one another. So how can an infinite variety of universes exist right on top of one another? It makes no sense to me. He doesn't postulate any extra physical dimensions for them to reside in, so the question remains: where are they all hiding then?


Supersymmetry is a 4D theory, so the discovery of supersymmetric particles wouldn't prove his idea, but such particles also exist quite naturally within his theory, so it would be consistent with his theory.

And supersymmetry is a purely aesthetic extension, unlike the Higgs which was a phenomenological necessity for the Standard Model. So it's not really as much a prediction of the Standard Model, as a pretty augmentation of it. Best as I can tell, most supersymmetry theorists expected to see at least one supersymmetric particle in the LHC data at the energies they've explored, but they came up with donuts. That doesn't bode well for supersymmetry, but maybe something will come up after the new upgrade.

The 4th dimension is time. In string theory. While supersymmetry (SUSY) Is space or the expansion of space, it's a theory that proposes a relationship between two basic classes of elementary particles: Bosons, which have an integer-valued Spin, and Fermions, which have a half-integer spin. Supersymmetry - Wikipedia In a small sense it applies to the 4th dimension, But it's not specifically a 4d theory as it is a 3d one. However. S Particles, Superpartner - Wikipedia Known as Sparticles. Are in fact a Hypothetical Super Symmetrical particle, Superparticles would interact at a subatomic level And here is an article from CERN, Predicting Super symmetrical particles. Stating that Sparticles was our next expected discovery,

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184953-lhc-confirms-weve-definitely-discovered-the-higgs-boson-and-sadly-it-behaves-exactly-as-the-standard-model-predictsery. here is a youtube video about Sparticles However, I stress that Sparticles are somewhat hypothetical at the moment.
 
Last edited:

CasualBystander

Celestial
With as tight of a grasp of causality as I can understand. I am heavily leaning on the many worlds theory. But this doesn't mean that this is the only possible solution, It just means I can't think of a better one :p

Part of the problem is time doesn't run at the same speed anywhere.

Time is zero at the lip of a black hole.

Time is fastest in motionless free space with the lowest gravitational potential.

How you would set coordinates to go back to a previous place in time with a "time machine" just eludes me.

The proposed method in the OP link requires warping the fabric of space - which means you have to:
1. Leave the planet (to avoid beer-canning the earth).
2. Go back in time.
3. Figure out where the hell you are and where earth is.
4. Go back to earth.
5. Try to land a space ship in, say 30 AD, in a way that Jesus and all his followers don't run the hell away from you, or scare the hell out of the Romans, which would permanently change history.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Part of the problem is time doesn't run at the same speed anywhere.

Time is zero at the lip of a black hole.

Time is fastest in motionless free space with the lowest gravitational potential.

How you would set coordinates to go back to a previous place in time with a "time machine" just eludes me.

The proposed method in the OP link requires warping the fabric of space - which means you have to:
1. Leave the planet (to avoid beer-canning the earth).
2. Go back in time.
3. Figure out where the hell you are and where earth is.
4. Go back to earth.
5. Try to land a space ship in, say 30 AD, in a way that Jesus and all his followers don't run the hell away from you, or scaring the hell out of the Romans, and permanently changing history.
I know you deeply understand the Subjects. So I will skip ahead of a bunch of explanation on this one, Relativity is the current theory we are working with yes. But. Relativity isn't proven, And in some cases has been broken. It's almost impossible to confirm anything with 100% accuracy...
 
The 4th dimension is time. In string theory. While supersymmetry (SUSY) Is space or the expansion of space, it's a theory that proposes a relationship between two basic classes of elementary particles: Bosons, which have an integer-valued Spin, and Fermions, which have a half-integer spin. Supersymmetry - Wikipedia In a small sense it applies to the 4th dimension, But it's not specifically a 4d theory as it is a 3d one. However. S Particles, Superpartner - Wikipedia Known as Sparticles. Are in fact a Hypothetical Super Symmetrical particle, Superparticles would interact at a subatomic level And here is an article from CERN, Predicting Super symmetrical particles. Stating that Sparticles was our next expected discovery,
Honestly that paragraph is a something of a mess. Time is the fourth dimension in all of our current model of physics (although I prefer to think of it as the first dimension, since nothing can exist without time). The Standard Model and quantum field theory are 4D theories: since the advent of quantum electrodynamics the special theory of relativity (SR) has been incorporated into particle physics, and SR is a 4D Minkowski spacetime theory.

However, I stress that Sparticles are somewhat hypothetical at the moment.
Yep. It's possible that sparticles will be discovered in the future - and supersymmetry would resolve some big questions in the Standard Model like the hierarchy problem (why the various forces have such different coupling constants). But there may be other solutions to those problems. Many physicists hope that sparticles will explain dark matter, for example, but there are all kinds of theoretical approaches to the problems of dark matter and dark energy. Some theorists are looking at alterations to general relativity, and others are looking at new interpretations of the virtual particle field, to name a couple. This is an exciting time in physics - there are all sorts of competing theories being considered to explain big issues like dark energy and dark matter; when we figure it out, we'll have made a huge step forward in theoretical physics and our understanding of the universe.

Relativity is the current theory we are working with yes. But. Relativity isn't proven, And in some cases has been broken.
Huh? whussat? In what cases has relativity been broken? Because that would be news to me - every experimental observation that I'm aware of confirms SR and GR. Dark energy and dark matter may or may not point to a flaw in one or both, but that's not the predominant view in the physics community. So what are you talking about when you say that relativity has been "broken?"
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Honestly that paragraph is a something of a mess. Time is the fourth dimension in all of our current model of physics (although I prefer to think of it as the first dimension, since nothing can exist without time). The Standard Model and quantum field theory are 4D theories: since the advent of quantum electrodynamics the special theory of relativity (SR) has been incorporated into particle physics, and SR is a 4D Minkowski spacetime theory.


Yep. It's possible that sparticles will be discovered in the future - and supersymmetry would resolve some big questions in the Standard Model like the hierarchy problem (why the various forces have such different coupling constants). But there may be other solutions to those problems. Many physicist hope that sparticles will explain dark matter, for example, but there are all kinds of theoretical approaches to the problems of dark matter and dark energy. Some theorists are looking at alterations to general relativity, and others are looking at new interpretations of the virtual particle field, to name a couple. This is an exciting time in physics - there are all sorts of competing theories being considered to explain big issues like dark energy and dark matter; when we figure it out, we'll have made a huge step forward in theoretical physics and our understanding of the universe.


Huh? whussat? In what cases has relativity been broken? Because that would be news to me - every experimental observation that I'm aware of confirms SR and GR. Dark energy and dark matter may or may not point to a flaw in one or both, but that's not the predominant view in the physics community. So what are you talking about when you say that relativity has been "broken?"

No, I get it. You like to debate physics. But. The thing is A lot of what physics is. Isn't really open to interpretation, Time according to superstring theory. is the fourth dimension. I obsessively study these areas of physics. While I am often wrong. My understanding of time and symmetry are superlative. To truly understand these subjects. We can most certainly think outside of the box, But when we forsake science as the base of our work. Then we begin saying things. Like, I like to think of time as the First Dimension. Dimensional hierarchy is very mathematical. While the First second and third dimensions are Height width and depth. The fourth is time. In a way. That's like saying. Like to think of the color blue. As Pink just as a lark. I love to debate physics. With anyone. At any time. But I caution If my sentences seem a mess. It may be because you like to think of the 4th dimension as the first.

I never boast. at least, Not in modern times. But I can absolutely guarantee. There is nothing half-assed about any of my science ;) Although, Hypothetical. And theoretical it may be, Next. I will show you how Relativity has been broken,
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
No, I get it. You like to debate physics. But. The thing is A lot of what physics is. Isn't really open to interpretation, Time according to superstring theory. is the fourth dimension. I obsessively study these areas of physics. While I am often wrong. My understanding of time and symmetry are superlative. To truly understand these subjects. We can most certainly think outside of the box, But when we forsake science as the base of our work. Then we begin saying things. Like, I like to think of time as the First Dimension. Dimensional hierarchy is very mathematical. While the First second and third dimensions are Height width and depth. The fourth is time. In a way. That's like saying. Like to think of the color blue. As Pink just as a lark. I love to debate physics. With anyone. At any time. But I caution If my sentences seem a mess. It may be because you like to think of the 4th dimension as the first.

I never boast. at least, Not in modern times. But I can absolutely guarantee. There is nothing half-assed about any of my science ;) Although, Hypothetical. And theoretical it may be, Next. I will show you how Relativity has been broken,
Relativity breaks inside a black hole. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-...vity-break-down-at-the-center-of-a-black-hole

It also breaks when a supercooled magnet floats on a metal track.


It also breaks at the bose-einstein condensate and the transition of helium into a superfluid.


More examples of relativity breaking. Spontaneous symmetry breaking - Wikipedia

These events defy predictions of relativity. And still, defy explanation.


I could go into great detail about How these events don't just seemingly break relatively. But they completely defy understanding.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You know, I love science, With a passion. People who know me know this, I'm passionate about it. But I want it known, I mean no harm in my physics debates. I would also like to add. Superfluid is really neat. anyone whos interested should study it. Superfluid, A a fluid in a superstate because it's been cooled to near absolute zero. It possesses Quantum properties and can quantum tunnel through its container as if the container weren't even there. Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia What's so neat about it is. It has absolutely zero viscosity If you stir it in its container. It will spin forever because it does not lose kinetic force. Or until the fluid changes, it states back to normal matter. Superfluidity - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
No, I get it. You like to debate physics. But. The thing is A lot of what physics is. Isn't really open to interpretation, Time according to superstring theory. is the fourth dimension. I obsessively study these areas of physics. While I am often wrong. My understanding of time and symmetry are superlative. To truly understand these subjects. We can most certainly think outside of the box, But when we forsake science as the base of our work. Then we begin saying things. Like, I like to think of time as the First Dimension. Dimensional hierarchy is very mathematical. While the First second and third dimensions are Height width and depth. The fourth is time. In a way. That's like saying. Like to think of the color blue. As Pink just as a lark. I love to debate physics. With anyone. At any time. But I caution If my sentences seem a mess. It may be because you like to think of the 4th dimension as the first.
It's completely arbitrary which number one assigns to the dimensions of space and time. The math doesn't change: they're all simply inputs into the equations. So I have no idea why you think it matters: it doesn't. The ordering is a purely philosophical choice. And in fact, all dimensions can be measured in units of time via the speed of light, so we could say that all dimensions are dimensions of time - one light-second equals 3 x 10^8 meters, for example (this is how natural units work) and one would still get all the right answers with our physics equations. Anyone with a theoretical physics background would know this, and refrain from debating pointless preferences regarding the ordering of spacetime units.

No that's not accurate. General relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT) haven't been modeled under a single theoretical umbrella yet, so the singularity itself is an unphysical concept. QFT doesn't permit a physical singularity because that violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So the general theory of relativity doesn't break at the singularity, rather, the postulate of a true point-like mass is a false description of the singularity. So "incomplete" is not equivalent to "broken."

It also breaks when a supercooled magnet floats on a metal track.
No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superconductivity because GR is a theory of gravity, not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about superconductivity.

It also breaks at the bose-einstein condensate and the transition of helium into a superfluid.
No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superfluidity because GR is a theory of gravity not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about superfluidity.

More examples of relativity breaking. Spontaneous symmetry breaking - Wikipedia
Spontaneous symmetry breaking isn't the same as relativity breaking. You're trying to apply GR to realms beyond its applicability.

These events defy predictions of relativity. And still, defy explanation.
GR isn't a quantum mechanical theory, so it has nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The phenomenon you've cited are, however, well-explained by QFT.

I could go into great detail about How these events don't just seemingly break relatively. But they completely defy understanding.
No, QFT explains those phenomena quite well. The perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, for example, was accurately modeled mathematically by the BCS theory back in 1957, which precipitated a Nobel Prize in 1972.

You know, I love science, With a passion. People who know me know this, I'm passionate about it. But I want it known, I mean no harm in my physics debates. I would also like to add. Superfluid is really neat. anyone whos interested should study it. Superfluid, A a fluid in a superstate because it's been cooled to near absolute zero. It possesses Quantum properties and can quantum tunnel through its container as if the container weren't even there. Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia What's so neat about it is. It has absolutely zero viscosity If you stir it in its container. It will spin forever because it does not lose kinetic force. Or until the fluid changes, it states back to normal matter. Superfluidity - Wikipedia
I'm more or less obsessed with physics as well; I've devoted my life to studying it and advocating for a clear understanding of it. Which is why I take exception to reckless claims about relativity being broken, or claims that known physical effects defy understanding. Such statements do a grave disservice to the state of modern physics, and lead people to reject our very powerful and effective physical theories and instead embrace crackpot theories that hold no scientific value. We haven't figured everything out yet, but that's a far cry from saying things like "relativity is broken" or "quantum mechanics can't explain quantum phenomena" - that's simply untrue. There's still work to be done (thank God - life would be boring otherwise), but creating the impression that modern physics is clueless, when it's simply incomplete, is bad, and counterproductive. Science progresses by expanding what we know and understand, not by demeaning the very powerful physical theories that we have.

Superfluidity is really cool (pun not intended). Many quantum mechanical effects are fascinating. But they've been modeled quite successfully, and each step of progress brings us even deeper levels of understanding.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
It's completely arbitrary which number one assigns to the dimensions of space and time. The math doesn't change: they're all simply inputs into the equations. So I have no idea why you think it matters: it doesn't. The ordering is a purely philosophical choice. And in fact, all dimensions can be measured in units of time via the speed of light, so we could say that all dimensions are dimensions of time - one light-second equals 3 x 10^8 meters, for example (this is how natural units work) and one would still get all the right answers with our physics equations. Anyone with a theoretical physics background would know this, and refrain from debating pointless preferences regarding the ordering of spacetime units.


No that's not accurate. General relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT) haven't been modeled under a single theoretical umbrella yet, so the singularity itself is an unphysical concept. QFT doesn't permit a physical singularity because that violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So the general theory of relativity doesn't break at the singularity, rather, the postulate of a true point-like mass is a false description of the singularity. So "incomplete" is not equivalent to "broken."


No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superconductivity because GR is a theory of gravity, not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about superconductivity.


No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superfluidity because GR is a theory of gravity not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about supercfluidity.


Spontaneous symmetry breaking isn't the same as relativity breaking. You're trying to apply GR to realms beyond its applicability.


GR isn't a quantum mechanical theory, so it has nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The phenomenon you've cited are, however, well-explained by QFT.


No, QFT explains those phenomena quite well. The perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, for example, was accurately modeled mathematically by the BCS theory back in 1957, which precipitated a Nobel Prize in 1972.


I'm more or less obsessed with physics as well; I've devoted my life to studying it and advocating for a clear understanding of it. Which is why I take exception to reckless claims about relativity being broken, or claims that known physical effects defy understanding. Such statements do a grave disservice to the state of modern physics, and lead people to reject our very powerful and effective physical theories and instead embrace crackpot theories that hold no scientific value. We haven't figured everything out yet, but that's a far cry from saying things like "relativity is broken" or "quantum mechanics can't explain quantum phenomena" - that's simply untrue. There's still work to be done (thank God - life would be boring otherwise), but creating the impression that modern physics is clueless, when it's simply incomplete, is bad, and counterproductive. Science progresses by expanding what we know and understand, not by demeaning the very powerful physical theories that we have.

Superfluidity is really cool (pun not intended). Many quantum mechanical effects are fascinating. But they've been modeled quite successfully, and each step of progress brings us even deeper levels of understanding.
It seems we disagree on QTF, I do however Agree That QTF doesn't fit neatly into General relativity. That's why we have Special Relativity. And honestly. It will never all fit neatly into one package. But. I keep pulling up all these facts and links, Which really are Wikipedia posts. so, Calling them facts is pushing it, And I keep getting nothing but No's from you brother. You can't deny all of Theoretical Physics and expect to hold any kind of conversation on the subject. Though, I do like you. You are exactly the kind of person I look for in a physics debate. However. You say relativity isn't broken then you change the model of relativity from general to special on me, Of course, it's not broken is GR, This is the very point And Reason Einstein changed special relativity to General.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
It seems we disagree on QTF, I do however Agree That QTF doesn't fit neatly into General relativity. That's why we have Special Relativity. And honestly. It will never all fit neatly into one package. But. I keep pulling up all these facts and links And I keep getting nothing but No's from you brother. You can't deny all of Theoretical Physics and expect to hold any kind of conversation on the subject. Though, I do like you. You are exactly the kind of person I look for in a physics debate. However. You say relativity isn't broken then you change the model of relativity from general to special on me, Of course, it's not broken is GR, This is the very point And Reason Einstein changed special relativity to General.
I will say this Thomas, Every time, Without fail. Always question everything I post science related. It's how I learn, and the method works. I think I may learn from you.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
It's completely arbitrary which number one assigns to the dimensions of space and time. The math doesn't change: they're all simply inputs into the equations. So I have no idea why you think it matters: it doesn't. The ordering is a purely philosophical choice. And in fact, all dimensions can be measured in units of time via the speed of light, so we could say that all dimensions are dimensions of time - one light-second equals 3 x 10^8 meters, for example (this is how natural units work) and one would still get all the right answers with our physics equations. Anyone with a theoretical physics background would know this, and refrain from debating pointless preferences regarding the ordering of spacetime units.


No that's not accurate. General relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT) haven't been modeled under a single theoretical umbrella yet, so the singularity itself is an unphysical concept. QFT doesn't permit a physical singularity because that violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So the general theory of relativity doesn't break at the singularity, rather, the postulate of a true point-like mass is a false description of the singularity. So "incomplete" is not equivalent to "broken."


No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superconductivity because GR is a theory of gravity, not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about superconductivity.


No, GR isn't broken in the realm of superfluidity because GR is a theory of gravity not quantum mechanics. GR doesn't have anything at all to say about supercfluidity.


Spontaneous symmetry breaking isn't the same as relativity breaking. You're trying to apply GR to realms beyond its applicability.


GR isn't a quantum mechanical theory, so it has nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The phenomenon you've cited are, however, well-explained by QFT.


No, QFT explains those phenomena quite well. The perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, for example, was accurately modeled mathematically by the BCS theory back in 1957, which precipitated a Nobel Prize in 1972.


I'm more or less obsessed with physics as well; I've devoted my life to studying it and advocating for a clear understanding of it. Which is why I take exception to reckless claims about relativity being broken, or claims that known physical effects defy understanding. Such statements do a grave disservice to the state of modern physics, and lead people to reject our very powerful and effective physical theories and instead embrace crackpot theories that hold no scientific value. We haven't figured everything out yet, but that's a far cry from saying things like "relativity is broken" or "quantum mechanics can't explain quantum phenomena" - that's simply untrue. There's still work to be done (thank God - life would be boring otherwise), but creating the impression that modern physics is clueless, when it's simply incomplete, is bad, and counterproductive. Science progresses by expanding what we know and understand, not by demeaning the very powerful physical theories that we have.

Superfluidity is really cool (pun not intended). Many quantum mechanical effects are fascinating. But they've been modeled quite successfully, and each step of progress brings us even deeper levels of understanding.

I do strongly desire to ask you though. In your area that you specialize in. would something Like a physical manipulation of space-time be possible? with exotic materials. And this part is key, Would the Person or object only experience the time travel effect as long as the machine was powered on or active? My assumption is. The person or object would be obliterated or thrown back to it's original position in time if the machine was powered down. :/
 

Ron67

Ignorance isn’t bliss!
I do strongly desire to ask you though. In your area that you specialize in. would something Like a physical manipulation of space-time be possible? with exotic materials. And this part is key, Would the Person or object only experience the time travel effect as long as the machine was powered on or active? My assumption is. The person or object would be obliterated or thrown back to it's original position in time if the machine was powered down. :/
Loving this thread,barely understand it but loving it none the less!
 
Top