It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by tauristercus
Are you saying time travel is forbidden by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? If so I don't agree with that but I would like you to elaborate on why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle prohibits time travel if that is what you believe.
link
Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.
link
Why, then, can we look back at the past but not into the future? Prof Rovelli, along with Alain Connes at the Collège de France in Paris, have argued this flow of time is an illusion. They liken it to the sensation of temperature. What we mean by temperature is molecular motion. A hot cup of tea teems with more energetic water molecules than a cold one, but the temperature we feel somehow gives us an average of all that turmoil. In a similar way, when our brains average what our senses detect, what emerges is a sense of passing seconds, minutes and hours. Time's flow is a measure of our ignorance. This chimes with earlier work of Julian Barbour, an independent thinker, who warned that when we unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, time will be seen as a trick of the mind.
link
Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.
....
There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.
im all for theoretical discussion, but dont start getting theory envy and turning it into a war sheesh!
I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.
I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.
I personally do not subscribe to notions of time as a dimension of travel, which for me is probably why I'm having trouble grasping your concept.
Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.
But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.
First off, I did back up my claims but you said this:
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics
link
If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.
....
Physicist Lawrence Krauss and Case Western Reserve colleagues think they have found the answer to the paradox. In a paper accepted for publication in Physical Review D, they have constructed a lengthy mathematical formula that shows, in effect, black holes can't form at all. The key involves the relativistic effect of time, Krauss explains. As Einstein demonstrated in his Theory of General Relativity, a passenger inside a spaceship traveling toward a black hole would feel the ship accelerating, while an outside observer would see the ship slow down. When the ship reached the event horizon, it would appear to stop, staying there forever and never falling in toward oblivion. In effect, Krauss says, time effectively stops at that point, meaning time is infinite for black holes. If black holes radiate away their mass over time, as Hawking showed, then they should evaporate before they even form, Krauss says. It would be like pouring water into a glass that has no bottom. In essence, physicists have been arguing over a trick question for 40 years.
link
I have not proved that the universe is, in fact, a digital computer and that it's capable of performing universal computation, but it's plausible that it is.
....
In this metaphor we actually have a picture of the computational universe, a metaphor which I hope to make scientifically precise as part of a research program.
....
Of course, not everybody's willing to go out and do the experiments, but for the people who are willing to go out and do that, - if the experiments don't work, then it means it's not science.
link
Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.
link
Why, then, can we look back at the past but not into the future? Prof Rovelli, along with Alain Connes at the Collège de France in Paris, have argued this flow of time is an illusion. They liken it to the sensation of temperature. What we mean by temperature is molecular motion. A hot cup of tea teems with more energetic water molecules than a cold one, but the temperature we feel somehow gives us an average of all that turmoil. In a similar way, when our brains average what our senses detect, what emerges is a sense of passing seconds, minutes and hours. Time's flow is a measure of our ignorance. This chimes with earlier work of Julian Barbour, an independent thinker, who warned that when we unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, time will be seen as a trick of the mind.
link
Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.
....
There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.
link
If what I'm saying is based on these things that you just throw out, then what's the point? Of course you're not going to understand or grasp what I'm saying.
It's like the article you linked to said this:
Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.
link
A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated arguments more than 30 years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe, and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties, but if quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about probabilities-the timeless picture is plausible.
Do you know where relativity comes from? Einstein
It also said this:
But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.
Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.
Why don't you call up theese people and say I want to discuss your theory but first we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.
It's just idiotic.
This actually supports what I'm saying about randomness and uncertainty.
link
Another way of stating this principle, using relativity in the formulation, turns out to be that one gets another version of the uncertainty principle. This relativistic version states that as one gets to know the energy of an elementary particle very well, one cannot at the same time know (i.e., measure) very accurately at what time it actually had that energy. So we have, in quantum physics, what are called "complimentary pairs." (If you'd really like to impress your friends, you can also call them "non-commuting observables.")
link
A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must accurately be defined, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy.
A new universe will form where you just measure the location instead of the momentum so heisenberg's uncertainty principle is secure.
link
THE INEVITABLE NONLINEARITY OF QUANTUM GRAVITY FALSIFIES THE MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS*
There are fundamental reasons why there should exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical space–time manifold. It follows that quantum mechanics as we know it is a limiting case of a more general nonlinear quantum theory, with the nonlinearity becoming significant at the Planck mass/energy scale. This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We illustrate this conclusion using a mathematical model based on a generalized Doebner–Goldin equation. The non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian in this norm-preserving, nonlinear, Schr¨odinger equation dominates during a quantum measurement, and leads to a breakdown of linear superposition.
link
Phillip: Does the theory not allow for an infinity of possibilities?
Paul: Absolutely right, it does indeed. In the more general situation there are infinite possible outcomes of a scattering event or some other atomic process, and we must imagine an infinite number of alternative realities — or contenders for reality — superimposed upon each other; a superimposed reality. In this amalgam of possible worlds, each individual contender is a sort of ghostly half-reality — it is less than real, in the sense that true reality comes only when we look and see what is actually happening. Only when an observation is made can we be sure as to which of these outcomes has actually taken place. So I would refer to these contending realities, these alternative universes, as merely potential worlds, not actually existing worlds.
I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.
I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.
I personally don't subscribe to the notion that the universe is some gigantic quantum computer.
I personally do not subscribe to notions of time as a dimension of travel, which for me is probably why I'm having trouble grasping your concept.
Sirnex, it's obvious that your ATS ego was bruised and you're actually trying to overturn quantum mechanic, Einstein, Information theory and theoretical physics on a message board without a shred of evidence.
A person would have to be a fool to listen to anything you're saying. Around 30% of our GDP is due to technologies connected to quantum mechanics and you are silly enough to think people will throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics and more because of your wild speculation?
The sad thing is, everybody on this thread is debating physics and you're trying to convince people that your wild and silly speculation means they should just throw out Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, Heisenberg, Shannon, Maxwell, Dirac, Shannon, Kaku and more. You have to be insane if you think people are going to throw these things out because of a debate on a message board and your wild speculation.
Again, your problem is you're trying to debate your belief system instead of the thread and instead of physics. There will always be theories out there for different point of views but none of these links you are quoting says we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics and more.
What are these links you're posting supposed to support?
Do any of these links say we should throw out everything from Einstein to quantum mechanics?
It boils down to this. Are you here to debate what I said in the original post or are you here trying to show people that your silly speculation is correct.
Now back to my thread.
You said you don't get or understand what I'm saying because you throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics, Einstein and more.
So far none of the links that you have quoted have said they throw these things out nor have that provided a shred of evidence to throw these these things out.
Now I backed up what I'm saying but you said you throw out the things that what I'm saying is based on.
So I want you to tell me what I didn't explain at the start of this debate?
It's not that I didn't back my claims, the problem is you don't want to debate my claims, you want to debate your silly speculation.
This is why I say your a troll.
You want to make this thread about you when it isn't about you.
Everyone else on this thread has debated everything from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to Dimensions and you're you quoting links that have nothing to do with anything I'm saying or anything to do with your stated silly position.
1. Show me in any of these links you posted where they say throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, information theory and theoretical physics.
2. Show me the equations, tested theories, and peer reviewed papers to back your entropy is everything theory and that's why we should throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, Einstein and more.
3. Tell me what I didn't explain and back up to you. I backed up what I'm saying and you said you could grasp or understand what I'm saying because you throw out Einsten and Quantum mechanics. If you throw these things out how are you going to understand or grasp what I'm saying since what I'm saying is based on things like Quantum mechanics, Einstein, Theoretical Physics and Information theory?
You're a troll that's trying to debate your personal, silly views instead of the thread.
So again, what didn't I explain to you? Your own words show you're lying.
I had to explain these things to you in order for you not to understand or grasp what I'm saying.
I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.
I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.
I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.