NASA scientists ‘may have found evidence of parallel universe where time runs backwards’

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for all the time you must have put into your response, appreciate it very much!

I only try to make sense of observations and things I read, got told and so on. No professional background here, no claim for correctness.

The things explained around CPT theory sound familiar to what I heard. What Turok told Physics World sounds a lot like the things I heard about inventing new particles and concepts to explain something simple. Similar to the statement in your signature.

I have to look into the theories I have floating around here and see if there is an equivalent to CPT mirroring. So far I was thinking into one direction (arrow of time) from the beginning.

Let me give you an example what I mean, we have a pattern and we apply a rule to it. This is the first moment in time, like with the big bang, no clue what started it or how. We will never know I think.

Pattern: ABBA
Rule: Replace B with AB, iterate as long as there are still branches left. When multiple operations can be done on the pattern, it splits into different possibilities, branching out. Some of these branches will be a dead end, some will branch out or condense back. Some might get disconnected or loop into itself thus loose causality. Black holes?


#1 ABBA
#1 AABBA......................................................#2 ABABA....................(and so on)
#1 AAABBA.....#1.1 AABABA......#1.2 AAABABA........#2 AABABA......(and so on)

Where as you have to look from the top down, not along the lines. Each line contains all results from the line above.

I stop here because after line three it really takes off. This is just an example and "ABBA" could be anything really. I know artificial intelligence works on these principles, just as we do. We humans do nothing else than this above for each neuron network that is learning.

Like, if I learn mathematical rules, it is the pattern inside the above construct that I learn, in perspective to the observations I make. This is just the frame and small explanation for what I learned. It took over a year to make it click.

Have you heard about speed reading but with concepts and symbols?

originally posted by: Shibari
Have you heard about speed reading but with concepts and symbols?

I took a course in speed reading, which was based on the idea that we have a little voice in our heads that sounds out the words we read, and if we can get rid of that little voice which is slowing us down, we can read a lot faster. It sort of worked with simple stories of text where I could actually register some comprehension of what I had sped-read much faster than normal. I say sort of because the comprehension was lower than usual at the faster speeds but sometimes that was good enough depending on what I was reading.

But, I never got speed reading to work on equations, because it always took me some time to not only interpret all the symbols, but also to understand their relationships, and what those relationships mean. In fact speed reading didn't work that well on technical material in general, because it wasn't the little voice in the head that was slowing me down with that like reading a simple story, it was all the thinking involved.

The implications of equations can be extensive. For example, when Einstein wrote down his field equations for general relativity, he assumed they couldn't be solved because they were non-linear. But in the following years, others like Karl Schwarzschild figured out ways to solve them, so I think this illustrates why speed reading might not work on equations which can convey complicated concepts using symbols.

This is just an example and "ABBA" could be anything really.

It could be a cat? I don't understand.

There are lots of ideas about the arrow of time, one is that entropy increases in forward time and decreases in reverse time. I can watch a movie of an egg breaking in reverse, but to imagine the broken egg actually re-assembling in a reversed-time universe as something real is hard to do.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I might be able to show you one day what I mean with the speed reading on more than words. Not whole equations at once but they were more sequenced.

It could be a cat? I don't understand.

These letters I used just represent *something*. Not necessary binary (A/B 0/1). It could be images, cells, physical laws progressing, concepts really. I did not come up with the concept of the above, I just try to make sense and navigate around.

I have no background in physics or anything, take what I wrote as philosophy. I am not knowledgeable enough to get all the details correct or relate them together, but a lot of what I read yet, makes a ton of sense.

There is something in your inbox, soon.

New hypothesis about the odd observations. Natural features in the ice may be producing effects which were not accounted for in the interpretation of the radio signals.

In this paper, we study subsurface reflection, which can occur without phase inversion, in the context of the two anomalous up-going events reported by ANITA. It is found that subsurface layers and firn density inversions may plausibly account for the events, while ice fabric layers and wind ablation crusts could also play a role. This hypothesis can be tested with radar surveying of the Antarctic region in the vicinity of the anomalous ANITA events.

Source

Consumer Grade Science

Can you smell time? Or is "time" just a human mental construct to facilitate awareness of our environment.

If time is actually a "thing" perhaps we can save it in a bottle.

a reply to: olaru12
Time is not a mental construct. Time is only evident if something changed and you know the information before the change.

If humankind stopped existing now, time is still around in the sense of that things keep on happening.

I grew to found it typical human to think time is our construct. No bad intent, but we are high-nosed beings, the way we look at and treat other beings, because they are "unter-beings".

Of course we stupid humans must say that time is our construct because it implies once again how smart we are (not).

a reply to: olaru12

If it weren't for time, everything would happen at once.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: olaru12

If it weren't for time, everything would happen at once.

Wrap it all up in string theory and it makes a nice little package for Xmas giving for that special "someone"...
Unless you apply Hardy's paradox to "time" like it was a particle and it makes a mess that someone needs to clean up.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The recent (2018) idea from some Canadian physicists is that that problem can be solved if the big bang did produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but the anti-matter is in another universe with time running backwards, "before" the big bang. The anti-matter universe is the one with backward-running time on the left here, and ours with matter and forward time is on the right:

Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists

The line or point in the middle is the Big Bang.

This is yet another example of an Hourglass Universe where one side has reversed time. It's certainly not a new idea, it dates back to the 90's and I've written threads about the same concept going back to 2014. Even the idea of a twin universe containing anti-matter predates 2018 and has been discussed on ATS before then, but I tend to prefer a twin universe which contains negative mass/energy moving backwards in time because it helps explain dark matter and dark energy. However it remains to be seen whether anti-matter has negative mass or not, we have some very interesting experiments currently underway designed to test the mass of anti-matter by testing how it behaves in Earths gravitational field, so it shouldn't be much longer before we have a conclusive answer to that question. I'm skeptical that anti-matter does have negative mass but I'm certainly not ruling it out because it could solve a lot of problems and there are some hints that anti-matter is particles moving backwards in time.

Turok says he thinks it may be misguided to propose a new particle/field, which admittedly is speculative, but how is speculating another universe better?

I often say that a new particle isn't always the solution to everything, I think that's the sort of point he's trying to make, especially since our search for WIMPs is coming up empty. There are several reasons I consider a parallel or twin universe to be less speculative, as the researchers mention, a universe–antiuniverse pair respects CPT symmetry. More importantly, it respects conservation of energy because the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, assuming one side contains positive energy and the other contains an equal amount of negative energy, which is a fair assumption since a particle moving backwards in time is equivalent to a particle with negative mass. What I find kind of ironic about Turok's proposal though is that they rely on a hypothetical sterile neutrino particle to explain dark matter, after talking about a desire to avoid using unproven particles. If they considered that the anti-verse is able to interact with our universe they would have realized there is a much more natural solution to dark matter which arises from the logic of these types of models.

originally posted by: KiwiNite
Time is a human construct so it's probably less bizzarre than it looks like...

Incorrect, how we measure time is a human construct for sure, but time... time exists on it's own, independent of us and our measurements. Or did you want to explain how a star/planet/person/animals is born, lives, and then dies... without using time as a scale. To say time, something we cant see or hear, is fake is the same as saying gravity is fake. We can see examples of gravity in action, just as we can see examples of time in action, but we can neither see nor hear it working. So is gravity fake just like time, or is time real just like gravity? I'll leave that for you to decide.

originally posted by: Phage
New hypothesis about the odd observations. Natural features in the ice may be producing effects which were not accounted for in the interpretation of the radio signals.

Interesting find. That could be true but since it doesn't involve time running backwards it's not going to create any buzz about Tenet like the OP hypothesis of time running backward.

originally posted by: markymint
I know I'm supposed to say "wow, cool man" and then postulate "why" and spread the message and boost the keywords... But who's to say this isn't just a marketing trick for TENET movie. The movie is about time running backwards (to some extent).

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
What I find kind of ironic about Turok's proposal though is that they rely on a hypothetical sterile neutrino particle to explain dark matter, after talking about a desire to avoid using unproven particles.

Very ironic. Turok is skeptical of new particles in this universe, so he invents a speculative new particle coming from a speculative universe and that's better how?

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge
To say time, something we cant see or hear, is fake is the same as saying gravity is fake. We can see examples of gravity in action, just as we can see examples of time in action, but we can neither see nor hear it working. So is gravity fake just like time, or is time real just like gravity? I'll leave that for you to decide.

If you ask a physicist, he won't use the word "fake" to describe gravity, but he may very well tell you gravity is a "fictitious force" which has a specific meaning to a physicist.

With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct.

Notice how they put "real" force in quote marks, but no quotes for fictitious force. One might casually think fake and fictitious mean the same thing, but this is an interesting topic about one of the mind-bending parts of relativity.

Time is of course another mind-bending part of relativity, since before relativity, it was generally inconceivable that two different observers could see the same three events happen in a different sequence. Because relativity says they can, there is no absolute sequence of events as previously thought, so while time is real enough, it can have some non-intuitive characteristics.

So in answer to your question, maybe you have it backwards by asking "or is time real just like gravity?", maybe you should be asking if gravity is real like time, and if gravity is indistinguishable from a "fictitious force", what does that mean? However, I would still recommend this skydiver pull his ripcord at the appropriate time, because as with other fictitious forces such as "centrifugal force", the effects of gravity seem real enough.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If valence electrons time travel and require purely probabilistic rules to measure tunneling events.
Then we aren't looking at a time we are looking at a probability result.
So time really doesn't mean much in the quantum world.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Honestly, thank you. Way more info than I fully understand at 5am, but thank you none the less. Not to mention I managed to learn a little, always a bonus.

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

Equations that describe the spatial dependence and time evolution of fields are called field equations.
Which means Einsteins field equations always involve spacial dependence and time.

This thread is discussing quantum theory, the example I gave was tunneling time of valence electrons.
We moved beyond the Rutherford Bohr model of the atom 100 years ago.