Yes, I just noticed that. Thanks.

Time is relative to the direction you are facing. The universe in "anti-time" is an aniti-universe (if it exists).

One of the major points is that space and time are inseparable. If you could warp space to travel faster than the speed of light, it appears you could travel in time as well.

As far as the present being the only "real" time ... seems kinda shallow.

Not really shallow, but irrelevant.

The concept is a concept of NOW, the present. This is the only 'time' that an event can actually happen.

That is why the grandfather paradox does not exist.

The strange language of Scientists....

This is in agreement with what I suspect is the case... in part.

metalwing


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

While I am a long way from getting my head around it, my impression is that this is a great paper and pretty much says that time travel in the manner mentioned in the O.P can't happen -- if this paper is true.

It also solves the conflict between relativity and quantum theory. It eliminates the idea of a determined future and leaves room for evolution within the present.

It also solves the grandfather paradox in that causality works in reverse where the universe on the other side of the big bang going the opposite direction in spacetime is concerned.

To maintain symmetry, the picture is of six universes all moving in different directions in spacetime from origin (big bang). 5/6 of the total universe should be invisible and that is the 5 other universes. These account for the 83.3% of the detectable mass that we know is there, but can't see.

All known anisotropy and violations of symmetry would be solved. It would no longer be necessary for physicists to claim that the direction of time in our universe should be reversible.(Which I always thought was ridiculous anyway)

Let me know if I am close.

It depends upon your perspective. Man may not be able to cause the changes in spacetime necessary to physically go back in time but that doesn't mean that it is impossible, just that if MAY be impossible for us, physically. From the math it appears that there is no prohibition. This concept is the basis of the proposed experiments at CERN. If the big bang did create both matter and antimatter universes, each traveling in opposite time directions, can CERN create enough energy to see a tiny sample of that event.



Well, that concept could be said to be the meat of the paper. In M theory, many of the concepts proven to occur in quantum theory are appearing in cosmic spacetime as the possibly of additional dimensions and universes fall out of the math. If you look at the concept of an electron, which is a massed particle, and give it the ability to exist simultaneously in infinite different positions (locations) around a nucleus of oppositely charged mass, the concept of infinite universes existing simultaneously with each having their own version of energy, mass, and spacetime isn't that far-fetched.

The paper does NOT solve the conflict between quantum theory and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. It merely offers an attempt at a possible solution. I am sure the author would be very happy if the scientific community agreed with you that it solved one of the greatest problems in modern physics.



Perhaps. Ha Ha. The concept of anti-causality may postulate out of such a complicated overall explanation of time related events, but taken aside, it has some problems. He is taken concepts taught by Feynman and expounding them to the extreme. I am not sure this guy is in Feynman's or Einstein's league, but I am not one to judge.



The concept isn't new. Dark matter is mostly thought to be WIMPS by mainstream physicists but it is all a guess since no one knows and there is no physical examples in man's possession. The portions given may turn out to be a coincidence. This all goes back to CERN where they would like to create a small big bang and see if they can create some dark energy, dark matter, dissappearing particles, and such. The quantities of such matter will, if found, tell us volumes. If such matter and energys were produced in quantities that matched this paper, enormous credibility would be added to the concepts offered.





Ha Ha. Well he would certainly be a hero if true, but I think the concept is getting a little overreaching at this point. One of problems with scientific papers is that they are written for an audience that understands the science behind the paper so they "get" the nerd jokes which are sometimes thrown in.

The overall anisotropy and violations of symmetry were solved in an "overall" way by Ed Witten mathematically in 1995 which led to the "Branes", multiverse, alternate universes, eleven dimensions, etc. Time is one of the dimensions used by Ed in his mathematical description but he and others are quick to differentiate it from the physical dimensions required by what we see and the six in string theory. There are a LOT of details to flesh out the ramifications of M theory and this paper is an excellent example of why mainstream physics has embraced it so vigorously. The closer you look, the more questions M theory appears to solve.

Your version of reality only being in the "present" doesn't make any sense to me for the following reason.

Visualize the universe as a giant river. All the matter and events that exist are the events that go on in the river. Timespace is the water; flowing and flexible. The recording of time is the speed the river rushes by from the big bang of the mountain stream flowing to the spread out universe of the ocean where the river slows to a frozen ending. (another analogy could be the evaporation of the ocean as dark energy flowing to the mountain tops to rain feeding the expansion of the universe, but that is for another day.)

Note that fish, given enough energy, could jump out of the river and land slightly upstream. Timespace would be overall unaffected but the fish would have traveled back in time. If he met himself the river would fork.

The events which occur in your time take some amount of time, be it a hello, a hug, or the reading of a complex scientific paper. Each event is your "present" but each event is represented by the river flowing some discernible distance downstream. Your "present" if that were all that existed, would only be represented by an infinitely small slice of the river as it ran. Your concept of "now" is actually a slice of a given width of the river.

I think you are trying to force science to agree with your ideas instead of understanding science and then basing your opinions on what you know and what you think. If a slice of the river that corresponds to a thought has any width other than infinitely thin, then time (the river) becomes a continuum and all of it is as real as any slice. IMO.

The math of M theory appears to support budding universes in an infinite outer existence where individual particles have contact and interaction with one (matter) or more (gravity) branes at a time. These branes may eventually answer many spiritual questions and lead to answers for which mankind has yet to formulate the questions.

Here is the Wiki on Ed Witten ..


Edward Witten (born August 26, 1951) is an American theoretical physicist with a focus on mathematical physics who is currently the Professor of Mathematical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Witten is a leading researcher in superstring theory, a theory of quantum gravity, supersymmetric quantum field theories and other areas of mathematical physics. He is regarded by some of his peers as one of the greatest living physicists, perhaps even a successor to Albert Einstein.[1]

He has also made seminal contributions in mathematics and helped bridge gaps between fundamental physics and various areas of mathematics. In 1990 he was awarded a Fields Medal by the International Union of Mathematics, which is the highest honor in mathematics and often regarded as the Nobel Prize equivalent for mathematics. He is the only physicist to have received this honor.

Thanks for your response.




Why would you think that? In reading that paper that you posted, I was just trying to understand what the guy was talking about. Not knowing the language of science I think I did a pretty good job.

There are a few questions I would pose in regards to his model.

1. If this is infinity, then what am I?

(If by his model, the only venue for events is the present and the present can't really be measured, being infinitely short, then this is infinity and infinity is in this moment/present.)

The answer I came up with was:

I am the universe.

The next question I would ask is why is my specific point of view trapped in this single individual body and not all over the universe?

The only thing I could come up with is that there are more than just six universes.

Perhaps I'm a fractal.

Also, if the universe(s) are bound by laws and yet still random and evolving (not determined) then what is the random factor?

The answer I thought of is it has to be me. (Free choice)

If that is true then his model (if true) could be proof that we are God.(The creators)

As far as the existence of spacetime, yes it does exist because it has to in order to accommodate the unfolding of events. As Einstein said, spacetime (time) exists so events don't all happen at once.

On the other hand, it is also true that "time" does not exist and "space" does not exist, but this truth is perhaps at a different stage or on a different level.

If we are asked to believe that a particle is also a wave, then this should not be difficult to also accept.

Is this your view of time then?

Is what you are saying is that there is an alternate reality (or universe) for every different possibility or choice that forks into an alternate time line? There are way too many problems with this idea.




The above statement is only true from your picture or vision of time being a river that flows, as if time were a 'thing' that moves through space.

Because spacetime is a single unit, I believe it is intimately connected to a certain type (and speed) of perception and observation that is shared by the inhabitants of the universe/reality which exists within a unified field. Also, that probably has something to do with the speed of light within that unified field.

First of all, I give you credit for reading the paper. After your initial comments, I didn't think that likely. I posted his paper to give an overall perspective of how time is viewed scientifically and he gives the perspective of others as well as his views. I believe your comment was "Time does not exist". In all scientific views time exists in either deterministic or probabilistic form, or both.

The "six universes" appears to be something that he just threw in there at he end. The six directions of the three axises of normal space are convenient directions, but there are no other processes of which I am aware where energy would diverge along those lines.

However, the divergence of two particles in opposite directions is common so the concept of + time and - time universes diverging along the concepts of Freynman (which is the main basis of this paper) makes a lot more sense.

Please note all concepts presented in this paper do not agree with each other. His initial comment about all time being in the present is both a general statement about everything that was created in the Big Bang is still here so all time was created at that time (a strange concept). The comment about all time being in the present is in conflict with Einstein's theory of general relativity (in the context presented) so is a bit reaching in the goal to solve the grand question of "how does it all fit together?"

Most of his verbiage is meshing quantum theory with general relativity by describing the whole universe as a wave function. He may be right but more than likely, three physicists who have worked on this problem with greater success probably understood the picture better.

His views of time conflict with Einstein's. I think Einstein was right. The "present" is relative to your velocity and the passing of events.

His extrapolation of Feynman from quantum to universal is a big stretch, but M theory is going along those lines and he is just going with the flow of modern physics.

The concepts of the multiple universes are far better described by Ed Witten who combined incoherent string theory into coherent M theory which is the basis of modern theoretical physics. His comment about the Standard Model being a dead end were well deserved.

You disagree with the infinite diversions of time to create infinite realities (as do others) but many agree that it is the best fit to modern physics and the best comparison of the macro world to quantum physics. His paper gives a very good description of the concept. I see no real difference between the infinite realities and the infinite positions of quantum particles, other than scale.

The current view of M theory universe production would show a large number of universes in hyperspace (perhaps infinite) growing, budding, and existing somewhat like a sea of bubbles. Perhaps the bumping of one bubble into another creates a big bang which expands into another universe such as ours.

A single universe, such as ours, may have infinite divergence into alternate realities and multiple dimensions. One or more dimensions close to our own may ultimately be found to explain the abilities of some people to see into the past or future or other supernatural events. It may also be a portal for multidimensional beings.

There are a lot of possibilities. In 'time' we may find out.

I sort of disagree in the infinite realities existing as universes, but let me explain.

I believe that infinite universes are possible. This is a belief in infinite possibilities, but not in infinite universes. The universes themselves cannot exist without observers. The path must be taken for the universe to manifest.

It may not really exist in respect to duration if you just 'think' about taking that path or making that choice. At that point it only exists for a few minutes, then if you do not take that path, it will fade away.

How does one measure existence or how real a thing is? Duration? Detection? Observers? Measurements? If a path is taken, or a choice made, that reality or universe may be created and appear 'real' to the observer(s). It can exist for a short 'time' or a longer time depending on how much energy it receives from the observers (inhabitants.)

TIME/SPACE

Just because there are infinite directions for time/space, this does not mean that anything will go in that direction. It requires something that will travel in that direction, and go down that path.

Then whether a universe manifests from that depends on the energy involved and the potential for observers and inhabitants.

Yes and I understand that the scientific view is that time exists.

But the whole MEST system is single unit. (MEST =Matter, energy, space time) I agree that system exists. If you remove any single property from that system, the entire system will collapse.

Also, if a person states "time does not exist" what they are saying is that the entire system does not actually exist.

Einstein realized this when he said:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

This is exactly what I mean when I say time does not exist.

Which brings into question, what then, is reality?

I would say that it is a projection, not unlike a dream. It is holographic in nature.

When you dream you create a three dimensional space in which your dream avatar can have the sensation of walking around. A lucid dream makes this reality seem more real, more colorful. A lucid dream can enable you to have more control of the reality.

What makes this thing we call "reality" any more real than that?

answer that one.

Is it because of duration? Measurements? Scientists? Beliefs? Agreement? The five senses?

Can an artificial reality eventually incorporate all of these things?
How long might something like that take to accomplish?

We have infinity after all, so there is no reason to believe that we have not already accomplished it.

Where are all the scientific minds?

OMG last night I may have found the answer to my dilemma about infinity. Its pretty incredible and I am not a mathematician by a very very long shot. It has to do with frequency/vibration and the length of a planck in time. The length of a planck depends on frequency of origin.

I don't know how to type the symbols anyway.

I had been thinking that the length of a planck was infinitely small, hence could not be measured or found. I now believe the length of a planck depends on vibration/frequency. (This is probably not new to scientists.)

But I think the fluctuation between -t and +t has to do with vibration. Perhaps the present moment in time (NOW) has what I call "wiggle room." This wiggle room may account for the popping in and out of existence of particles that scientists say are going forward and backward in time.

Its the "thing" between +t and -t that is very interesting....

Einstein's understanding and description of the world was incomplete
and he would be the first one to admit it.

But time still exists. See? By the time you finished reading this
the clock changed!



Time travel is a misnomer. You don't have to go anywhere to go back
in time. Look at the stars. How long ago do you see?



You can see and experience things which happened long long ago but
you can't alter them.

If you had strategically placed mirrors and microphones and the
right kind of imaging and sound equipment you could watch your
grandfather and grandmother on their first date but you could not
kill them.

Yes and I understand that the scientific view is that time exists.

Then the event is merely recorded. It does not still exist. It is like a holographic movie or recording.

Nonsense. You are watching it happen. Not a recording. You are
experiencing it as it happens. Just from a rather long distance
away.



When you look up at the Supernova where is the recording device?!