I'm on a diet. The above begins with "IF" and is labeled "abstract" and that stuff is not really on my diet.

Even if I had a degree in physics I don't think I could make heads or tails out of the above gibberish. I sense that the information is grossly incomplete, hence (false) gibberish.



My disbelief is always suspended, but they are a long way from capturing my belief.

I would tend to agree because your personal past belongs to you. It is part of your memory and part of your personal space-time universe.




How is that "obvious?"




These speculations lack a gross amount of real information pertaining to the true nature of reality. Hence they are just random ideas, not even close to "science."

Personally I have never been concerned or troubled by the grandfather paradox.

How is that "obvious?"



Because it wouldn't be the present.



These theories are based on their understanding of how the proven laws of physics and the predominate theories interact mathematically with our universe ... and possible other universes.

The fact that you have no science education make you unable to understand the why and how of what they are doing. It is not gibberish because you do not understand it. Your comments are gibberish because you do not understand it.

The fact that you continually make flat false statements about science, a topic of which you know very little, poses the question; "How could you know the difference between a random idea and science if you cannot even comprehend the idea?

Your comments are as if you are reading a book in a language you don't understand, then pronouncing the content of the book "gibberish".

RE:
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.

My question:
How is that "obvious?"

Metalwing:




That makes no sense. The present is all that actually exists.
Please explain why you think that statement about the present is obvious, and not the present.

As I said, I have never been concerned about the grandfather paradox. I'm glad they finally think they got rid of it.



No it is gibberish because it is incomplete information that probably contains some wrong assumptions and incorrect information.

What I do understand is that it begins with IF and assumes the Big bang. (If and when they actually figure it out, I will then be very happy and interested in sinking my teeth into trying to understand what they are talking about.)

I just sense that they are barking up the wrong tree, and that they are at sort of a dead end; which is okay with me. Maybe they will discover something new to bring to the table.




An idea based on what is currently known or believed scientifically is still an just an idea.

Unless every scrap of information they currently think they know, is absolutely true, and they can prove it, they could easily be way off base. Also, if every scrap of scientific information they are working with were absolutely true, they would have figured it out already, so it is obvious that their information is incomplete and incorrect.



Perhaps. So when I sense that they are on the right track, I may take the time to learn their language.

Till you learn our language you will never know the concepts that are being presented and will have no "sense" of it's meaning.

Everything in science starts with "if" because you have to have a set of parameters to start with.

For example:

If you are talking about the universe in the context of the "big bang", the universe is finite.

If you are talking about the universe in overall scope of existence
in relation to a multiverse, the universe is infinite.

If you are passing judgment on the veracity of a scientific paper where you do not understand the basic concepts, source of the concepts, purpose of the paper, and theories being discussed, you are not making a point. You are showing that you do not understand the subject and have no point to make.

Perhaps if you read beyond the word "if" and studied a little ...

Are you claiming to be a scientist then? Are you claiming to understand that stuff you cut and pasted in here then? If so, do you understand it enough to explain it to an ignorant person like me in language I might understand?

I would appreciate it.



Yes I understand the purpose of IF. I use it a lot myself.




I do understand the purpose of the paper. I have read beyond the word IF.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the consequences of complete time-symmetry.

Its an interesting paper actually, but I never accepted the idea of time-symmetry in the first place. (Reversing time and running events backwards etc.)

As I said, when it looks like they have discovered something worthwhile I will spend the time to learn their language.

If you understand it, I would appreciate it if you would convince me it is worth my time to study that "language."

In the meantime, (sigh) I will read the paper completely and give you my personal opinion if you think it all that important.

Then I'll get back to you later on it.

metalwing,

Meanwhile, I would greatly appreciate your personal thoughts, theories and ideas about time and time travel, seeing as how you are a "scientist" and this is your thread.

Try to use English please. Not cutting and pasting please. Your thoughts please.

Ahhhh. The magic word.

Yes I have had advanced education in physics as a scientist/engineer. Yes I have performed the duties of a scientist in the research of new materials and how they respond to heat, light, pressure, time, and physical abuse. My duties have been more engineering, per se, but if you understood the field you would realize how far the lines between the two are blurred. The math involved is exceedingly complex.

Yes I understand the paper above. I posted it for two specific reasons. It describes the process without a lot of math and it was a specific example of the ongoing direction of physics currently occurring.

If a scientific process in physics can not be explained mathematically then it may be accepted as fact but a constant struggle will continue to develop the math to explain what is happening. It has only been a short time since the math of the Sun's burning of hydrogen fuel was understood since the calculated pressures were insufficient to fuse the hydrogen into helium. Quantum tunneling solved the problem. But no one ever said the Sun wasn't burning because the math didn't work.

Mostly due to the solution of equations involving square roots, two answers can be given; one positive and one negative. In this case two answers are given and the person has to decide which one is the answer and which one is meaningless. However, in physics, the everyday equations of matter, energy, and time work equally well with time being positive or negative.

Positive time would give us the universe we see after the big bang. Negative time would extend backwards from the big bang and use "anti time" with a universe of antimatter. In both cases the math give a solution with about 83.3% of the matter being dark matter which agrees well with observed quantities. Gravitational lensing is offered as a verification of matter location.

The theory of antimatter going backwards in time is old as many of Feynman's students would recognize.

In context, if time dependent particles exist and were caused by the big bang, small amounts of these particles should be created if CERN or Fermilab can get sufficient energies. So far they have been unsuccessful due to broken equipment and not enough juice.

Top physicists like Lisa Randall are designing experiments specifically to watch for conditions where matter either went back in time or "poofed" out of existence to go into another dimension.

Obviously, everyone would like to catch a sample of dark matter or see some dark energy even though they do not know what it is.

I am more interested if you think they would be able to send a message back in time that could be received by persons of the past.

Also I am interested in what you think 'time' actually is and if you think that this universe is multi-dimensional, having other worlds similar to ours that are invisible.

When I first came to Mingle a few years ago, I was surprised that I seemed to be about the only person who was "UP" on M theory. Physics has gradually shifted from the Standard Theory to M theory since the big math breakthrough in the mid nineties that ended the math conflicts between the five string theories and created 11th dimensional math. Since that time, top physicists have been jumping on board due to the number of solutions M theory gives to previously unanswered problems.

I have gone into great detail in various threads that I believe in multiple dimensions and I believe M theory "may" be the greatest advancement in physics since Einstein. Some of it may not be able to be proved but we are a smart species ... sometimes.

There is nothing that I have ever seen that would make me believe that time is not part of space as described by Einstein. Timespace is the fabric of the universe ... this one anyway.

It should be pointed out that the multiple dimensions described by M theory are not dissimilar to the location of the electrons in a quantum field ... where they exist in many locations at once.

"If" M theory isn't the basic direction to the understanding of physics, there doesn't seem to be another direction to go.

M theory interests me, partly because it satisfies my personal beliefs that there is a workable solution binding the spiritual and scientific worlds. M theory DOES that, beautifully!

I've read a lot on the topic and discussed with people who I'd classify as experts. I confess that I struggle with a lot of the details, but am smart enough to recognize my own limits in terms of understanding those specifics. The generalities, however, are clear.

For all I've read, researched, spoken about and watched, I've gotta tell you all that metalwing KNOWS THIS STUFF. I wish I understood about half of what he's forgotten because his scientific expertise is that solid. Read his posts with confidence if you want to gain some good understanding...

I'v been reading that paper and wow it really is way beyond my comprehension.

I find it very difficult to comprehend the manner in which scientists observe and measure time and relativity via the speed of light and I'm not familiar with their terms.

I find instantaneous quantum interactions that only occur in the present easier to understand because I feel that the present is actually the only thing that exists -- regardless how warped spacetime is measured by human observers.

In spite of the paper being way over my head, I am still reading it and I may, hopefully, get a hit of what he is talking about.

Einstein realized that time and space were both intertwined and flexible. The basic concept of "as you speed up, time slows down" shook the world but has been proven in every possible way. GPS would not work without the dilation of time adjustments to the satellites.

A black hole can stretch spacetime faster than the speed of light so the "speed limit" of the speed of light actually only applies to matter in normal space, not to everything.

That said, if force, mass, gravity, and human ingenuity can be combined (way into the future) to warp space enough, a controlled wormhole may be created to move man in time and space making time travel possible. Spacetime may be the only barrier to inter dimensional travel so universe "hopping" may be possible too (but may be a bad idea since our laws may not apply).

As one goes through mankind's history, virtually every scientist who has ever said "that's impossible" has been proven to be wrong. We don't know what is impossible.

I believe that universe hopping is entirely possible and I think that if something is possible then it has probably already been done. Perhaps not by us yet, but definitely by others somewhere else in the universe.

I'm enjoying reading this paper because it is getting closer to the truth. It certainly is not light reading, but Trevor Pitts has said a few things that I absolutely agree with.

I haven't read anything about any actual time travel experiments as is the title of this thread.

Also I am getting the feeling that the anti-matter universe moving the opposite direction from us "in time" does not mean that the universe exists in the past, (our past) but that it is simply moving forward, causation and all, in a different direction in spacetime.

I am beginning also, to get a feel for the two different kinds of definitions of "time." One is strictly related to physics and movement (spacetime) and the other is actually an eternal present where everything happens "now" which is why I have always said that time does not actually exist.

Any ship that is equipped to warp space (warp drive) could travel across the universe (through spacetime) and would not be limited by the speed of light.

Henceforth when I speak of "time" in this universe I will say spacetime and when I speak of our human perception of "time" I will say "time."

I believe that each object, and each human being is surrounded by a unified field that essentially has its own "spacetime."

I'm still reading "Dark Matter, Antimatter and Time-Symetry" by Trevor Pitts.

I need to read it at least three or four times to be able to reach the point where my mind can understand it. I am having to call on my higher (subconscious) mind to help me since I don't 'know' the language.

RE: Question taken from the O.P.


"...why do some particles have more mass than others? "

Answer:

..because it eats more.

It is a proposed experiment at CERN, discussed early in the thread. The paper discusses time symmetry which is the basis of the experiment.

Note the bold paragraph above.

Question:
by "other dimensions" does this include the dimension of "time?"

If so, does this mean that according to M theory, physical time travel is not possible?