Scratch

maxskywalker · 2012-01-20 13:05:09

luiysia wrote:
my-chemical-romance wrote:
Even if you had a time machine time travel would be impossible.

Say I wanted to go back in time to see dinosuars, I did that and I saw them, the future me wouldn't want to go back in time because he has no reason to.
What are you talking about? Of course you would want to see them again because they are cool, the end.

LOL I'm not sure whether to take that seriously.

bbbeb · 2012-01-20 13:09:01

Time travel would only be possible if we split the universe into two and intersected them at a point.

AKA impossible.

Alternatives · 2012-01-20 13:09:27

my-chemical-romance wrote:
Even if you had a time machine time travel would be impossible.

Say I wanted to go back in time to see dinosuars, I did that and I saw them, the future me wouldn't want to go back in time because he has no reason to.

Thats backwards though. But I agree that it is impossible.

Haiming · 2012-01-20 14:24:21

The grandfather paradox just simple proves that time travel to the past is impossible.

maxskywalker · 2012-01-20 20:37:52

Haiming wrote:
The grandfather paradox just simple proves that time travel to the past is impossible.

No, it doesn't. Because (a) we time travel all the time when we move (see Time Dilation) and (b) see my theory above.

deatheater · 2012-01-20 22:21:18

I believe that there are multiple timelines, and if you did travel back in time and say kill your grandfather, it wouldn't affect you because it would only affect the new timeline you were in, and if you were to travel back to your timeline then nothing would have changed ^^

wolvesstar97 · 2012-01-21 13:52:08

deatheater wrote:
I believe that there are multiple timelines, and if you did travel back in time and say kill your grandfather, it wouldn't affect you because it would only affect the new timeline you were in, and if you were to travel back to your timeline then nothing would have changed ^^

Thats what I said, but nobody listened!

rdococ · 2012-01-21 14:15:19

I think we should point to my idea.

I think that there is already thousands of "past" mini-universes and one of our "present" mini-universe, which we move to a newly created mini-universe which is now the only present, and the creation depends on what is happening. So, the future is created after the present is defined (and the process continues, and the future becomes the present), and we could possibly time-travel (possibly with normal travel, infact it's possible in the real world).

Because of time dilation, every piece of matter is always "alive" to have real consiousness in either a present or a past mini-universe.

If you did travel back in time and kill your grandfather, you would still exist, because when you're born you're not connected to the consiousness of your parents anymore. Think if your parents died in the present. You would still be alive. Same with them, if their past was dead, their present would be alive. Think of a baby, that is not existant in the past. Then, it exists, and then it's born. Before that, it didn't exist or was "dead" in all kinds. If the baby didn't exist in the past, then with some theories, the baby would die instantly. This is the same with lots of events involving matter. However, this would only be proven biologically, because scientifically everyone has always existed in some form of matter. The universe has a specific number of matter and energy, so matter or energy cannot be made, unless you use energy to make matter, or matter to make energy (which is not possible). Because of that, the paradox is solved and the result is that you're still alive.

Result: Paradox is solved. No need to keep randomizing your atoms anymore.

coolstuff · 2012-04-11 21:12:18

Reopened and moved to the new forums by the request of the topic owner. smile

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 21:31:18

coolstuff wrote:
Reopened and moved to the new forums by the request of the topic owner.

YESSSSS!!!
THANK YOU!! big_smile

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 21:52:23

rdococ wrote:
I think we should point to my idea.

I think that there is already thousands of "past" mini-universes and one of our "present" mini-universe, which we move to a newly created mini-universe which is now the only present, and the creation depends on what is happening. So, the future is created after the present is defined (and the process continues, and the future becomes the present), and we could possibly time-travel (possibly with normal travel, infact it's possible in the real world).

Because of time dilation, every piece of matter is always "alive" to have real consiousness in either a present or a past mini-universe.

If you did travel back in time and kill your grandfather, you would still exist, because when you're born you're not connected to the consiousness of your parents anymore. Think if your parents died in the present. You would still be alive. Same with them, if their past was dead, their present would be alive. Think of a baby, that is not existant in the past. Then, it exists, and then it's born. Before that, it didn't exist or was "dead" in all kinds. If the baby didn't exist in the past, then with some theories, the baby would die instantly. This is the same with lots of events involving matter. However, this would only be proven biologically, because scientifically everyone has always existed in some form of matter. The universe has a specific number of matter and energy, so matter or energy cannot be made, unless you use energy to make matter, or matter to make energy (which is not possible). Because of that, the paradox is solved and the result is that you're still alive.

Result: Paradox is solved. No need to keep randomizing your atoms anymore.

I see a flaw, because even biologically you still would exist before you were born. You were cells, which before were part of the parents, which were part of their parents, etc.

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 22:01:03

So, here goes my theory.

Time travel defies the laws of thermodynamics.

Time travel would be spontaneously creating energy>matter, because when you time travel technically you still exist in the past.

This means that either the laws of thermodynamics are wrong or time travel is impossible.

So, here's a solution:
I think that there's a main universe where time continues from a point, and each instant in time is another smaller universe, and time continues normally from the point in each of the other universes. When you would time travel, you would teleport to the universe from the specific point in time. There would be 'ripples' in spacetime that would signify that an event would be changed, and in the main universe the event would be changed, but in the universe that you changed the event in, it would continue as if you hadnt changed anything, because another 'duplicate' universe would form when you changed an event in the offset universe.

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 22:02:36

By the lack of activity in this thread, I can conclude that a lot of people browsing the forums dont like theoretical physics. sad

TorbyFork234 · 2012-04-11 22:25:50

wolvesstar97 wrote:
By the lack of activity in this thread, I can conclude that a lot of people browsing the forums dont like theoretical physics.

Hey hey hey...
I like thinking about time. Now to confuse you more, I shall break down time for you in my perspective

What is time?
The allowance of motion in the world.
What is motion?
Heat (6th grade Science).

So the fact that we have time means that we can feel warm?

trinary · 2012-04-11 22:38:26

wolvesstar97 wrote:
By the lack of activity in this thread, I can conclude that a lot of people browsing the forums dont like theoretical physics.

I do like theoretical physics.

agscratcher · 2012-04-11 22:41:06

How I reacted to the theory on multiple quantum universes existing:

"Oh, ok."

How I reacted to the theory that thoughts create quantum universes:

"I'm not okay with this. At all." It's not that I hate the idea, it just seems a bit...uncomfortable, somehow. The laws of our universe are infiltrating our deepest thoughts!

Anyway, I came up with an idea for FLT (faster than light) travel. Absolute zero is the key.

You see, we exploit the qualities of something at absolute zero: superconductivity and superfluidity. Using this, we can exclude a magnetic field from the substance and use its superfluidity to creep around it. If we direct the magnetic field in a certain direction, we can control where the substance moves. The vehicle is dependent on the movement of the superfluid. However, for the superconductivity to work, we need to run an electrical current through the substance. This is why plasma supercooled to absolute zero would be the ideal candidate. If we could somehow manipulate the superfluidity to work at extremely fast speeds, you could, in theory, get very close to FLT travel.

If someone wants to refine my theory, please do so.

EDIT: I JUST FIGURED IT OUT, WATSON! I, myself, have refined the theory.

You don't accelerate the superfluid, you accelerate the vehicle. Normal propulsion combined with my method could reach pretty fast speeds. But then, when you're fast enough, you use the electromagnetic field as a sling of sorts, still using normal propulsion. You then inject the supercooled plasma into the fuel. The result is reheating of the plasma and an extra oomf to your speed. BRILLIANT!

EDIT 2: Dangit, I just realized an even better theory.

Electromagnetic radiation (that includes light) contains both electric and magnetic properties. Why not use it as a platform for out absolute zero experiments?

Last edited by agscratcher (2012-04-11 22:51:26)

Dinoclor · 2012-04-11 22:52:54

OK big_smile
Someone explain why having strings inside quarks explains everything!

agscratcher · 2012-04-11 22:54:03

Dinoclor wrote:
OK
Someone explain why having strings inside quarks explains everything!

When the strings vibrate, alternate realities are created.

What is the OK for? My FLT travel theory?

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 23:01:43

agscratcher wrote:
You see, we exploit the qualities of something at absolute zero: superconductivity and superfluidity. Using this, we can exclude a magnetic field from the substance and use its superfluidity to creep around it. If we direct the magnetic field in a certain direction, we can control where the substance moves. The vehicle is dependent on the movement of the superfluid. However, for the superconductivity to work, we need to run an electrical current through the substance. This is why plasma supercooled to absolute zero would be the ideal candidate. If we could somehow manipulate the superfluidity to work at extremely fast speeds, you could, in theory, get very close to FLT travel.

Awesome.

Now we need to find out how to get a substance to 0 Kelvin, and then get the superfluidity to work at increased speeds.

Noting the "very close to FTL travel", if you could use a velocity/intertia system, then by transferring energy, you could get it to faster than light.

However, coliding theories here, the amount of time it would take to get an object about the size of a space ship to the speed neccesary, you would be on the edge of the universe, and would then go into another universe, therefore you already would be in a different time. However, that's only for going back in time, to go forward you would need to go faster than light. So you would have to loop around the universe.

Alternatively, you could create a device which spontaneously creates tachyons, then almost silmountaniously reverses them and destroys them. The reverse is neccesary, as otherwise it would take many years to slow down to a normal speed after you have reached FTL speed.

samtwheels · 2012-04-11 23:02:20

yay Steady State theory! JK. I believe that time travel is possible, but so you won't change anything, as wolvesstar said, you will branch off. Although I don't think it is truly branching, but both universes separate throughout their entire timeline.

agscratcher · 2012-04-11 23:12:28

I have four new updates to my previous theory:

1) I mentioned using light itself as a platform. However, light never goes in a concrete, uniform direction. So, I decided you could move across lasers.

2) I then realized that lasers would be inefficient, as they're weaker than actual light. So, I decided trying to find a method to control light to move in a concrete direction.

3) I then realized that only one thing could be powerful enough to do this: gravity. We need to create a controlled gravity field where the light would be forced to bend into a concrete direction. At first, I thought the thing we'd need to make the proper artificial gravity field would be a miniature black hole, but I though it might be too dangerous. I then decided on dark matter as the candidate. Unfortunately, we don't know what dark matter is. Boo hoo.

4) REJOICE! I looked back on my mini black hole theory and realized it had some truths to it. Remember when everyone was freaking out over the Large Hadron Collider having the potential to destroy the world by sucking it into an artificial black hole? The answer to our problem is a miniature Large (lol oxymoron) Hadron Collider.

Does this make any sense...at all?

Last edited by agscratcher (2012-04-11 23:14:57)

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 23:16:02

agscratcher wrote:
I have four new updates to my previous theory:

1) I mentioned using light itself as a platform. However, light never goes in a concrete, uniform direction. So, I decided you could move across lasers.

2) I then realized that lasers would be inefficient, as they're weaker than actual light. So, I decided trying to find a method to control light to move in a concrete direction.

3) I then realized that only one thing could be powerful enough to do this: gravity. We need to create a controlled gravity field where the light would be forced to bend into a concrete direction. At first, I thought the thing we'd need to make the proper artificial gravity field would be a miniature black hole, but I though it might be too dangerous. I then decided on dark matter as the candidate. Unfortunately, we don't know what dark matter is. Boo hoo.

4) REJOICE! I looked back on my mini black hole theory and realized it had some truths to it. Remember when everyone was freaking out over the Large Hardon Collider having the potential to destroy the world by sucking it into an artificial black hole? The answer to our problem is a miniature Large (lol oxymoron) Hardon Collider.

Does this make any sense...at all?

Yep. That actually makes a lot of sense.
But you wouldnt need a mini of the LHC, the LHC makes black holes on an atomic scale.
A mini LHC would be the smallest unit possible.

But, I think dark matter would work as well, if it could be in a tangible form. hmm

samtwheels · 2012-04-11 23:18:02

wolvesstar97 wrote:
agscratcher wrote:
I have four new updates to my previous theory:

1) I mentioned using light itself as a platform. However, light never goes in a concrete, uniform direction. So, I decided you could move across lasers.

2) I then realized that lasers would be inefficient, as they're weaker than actual light. So, I decided trying to find a method to control light to move in a concrete direction.

3) I then realized that only one thing could be powerful enough to do this: gravity. We need to create a controlled gravity field where the light would be forced to bend into a concrete direction. At first, I thought the thing we'd need to make the proper artificial gravity field would be a miniature black hole, but I though it might be too dangerous. I then decided on dark matter as the candidate. Unfortunately, we don't know what dark matter is. Boo hoo.

4) REJOICE! I looked back on my mini black hole theory and realized it had some truths to it. Remember when everyone was freaking out over the Large Hardon Collider having the potential to destroy the world by sucking it into an artificial black hole? The answer to our problem is a miniature Large (lol oxymoron) Hardon Collider.

Does this make any sense...at all?
Yep. That actually makes a lot of sense.
But you wouldnt need a mini of the LHC, the LHC makes black holes on an atomic scale.
A mini LHC would be the smallest unit possible.

But, I think dark matter would work as well, if it could be in a tangible form.

you could aquire it by using some super-rocket to push a star or large planet, and then using gravity to capture and contain it.

agscratcher · 2012-04-11 23:18:38

wolvesstar97 wrote:
agscratcher wrote:
I have four new updates to my previous theory:

1) I mentioned using light itself as a platform. However, light never goes in a concrete, uniform direction. So, I decided you could move across lasers.

2) I then realized that lasers would be inefficient, as they're weaker than actual light. So, I decided trying to find a method to control light to move in a concrete direction.

3) I then realized that only one thing could be powerful enough to do this: gravity. We need to create a controlled gravity field where the light would be forced to bend into a concrete direction. At first, I thought the thing we'd need to make the proper artificial gravity field would be a miniature black hole, but I though it might be too dangerous. I then decided on dark matter as the candidate. Unfortunately, we don't know what dark matter is. Boo hoo.

4) REJOICE! I looked back on my mini black hole theory and realized it had some truths to it. Remember when everyone was freaking out over the Large Hardon Collider having the potential to destroy the world by sucking it into an artificial black hole? The answer to our problem is a miniature Large (lol oxymoron) Hardon Collider.

Does this make any sense...at all?
Yep. That actually makes a lot of sense.
But you wouldnt need a mini of the LHC, the LHC makes black holes on an atomic scale.
A mini LHC would be the smallest unit possible.

But, I think dark matter would work as well, if it could be in a tangible form.

By miniature, I mean so it could fit on an interstellar vehicle. Otherwise, you'd have a ship the size of Europe exploring the cosmos.

wolvesstar97 · 2012-04-11 23:19:33

samtwheels wrote:
yay Steady State theory! JK. I believe that time travel is possible, but so you won't change anything, as wolvesstar said, you will branch off. Although I don't think it is truly branching, but both universes separate throughout their entire timeline.

And this solves the Grandfather Paradox.

But, if we're agreeing on a theory, we need to deepen it.
Calculations on the laws of this theory.
How does it branch off?
And most importaintly,
Prove it.

Scratch

archived forums

#26 2012-01-20 13:05:09

Re: Theoretical Physics

luiysia wrote:

my-chemical-romance wrote:

#27 2012-01-20 13:09:01

Re: Theoretical Physics

#28 2012-01-20 13:09:27

Re: Theoretical Physics

my-chemical-romance wrote:

#29 2012-01-20 14:24:21

Re: Theoretical Physics

#30 2012-01-20 20:37:52

Re: Theoretical Physics

Haiming wrote:

#31 2012-01-20 22:21:18

Re: Theoretical Physics

#32 2012-01-21 13:52:08

Re: Theoretical Physics

deatheater wrote:

#33 2012-01-21 14:15:19

Re: Theoretical Physics

#34 2012-04-11 21:12:18

Re: Theoretical Physics

#35 2012-04-11 21:31:18

Re: Theoretical Physics

coolstuff wrote:

#36 2012-04-11 21:52:23

Re: Theoretical Physics

rdococ wrote:

#37 2012-04-11 22:01:03

Re: Theoretical Physics

#38 2012-04-11 22:02:36

Re: Theoretical Physics

#39 2012-04-11 22:25:50

Re: Theoretical Physics

wolvesstar97 wrote:

#40 2012-04-11 22:38:26

Re: Theoretical Physics

wolvesstar97 wrote:

#41 2012-04-11 22:41:06

Re: Theoretical Physics

#42 2012-04-11 22:52:54

Re: Theoretical Physics

#43 2012-04-11 22:54:03

Re: Theoretical Physics

Dinoclor wrote:

#44 2012-04-11 23:01:43

Re: Theoretical Physics

agscratcher wrote:

#45 2012-04-11 23:02:20

Re: Theoretical Physics

#46 2012-04-11 23:12:28

Re: Theoretical Physics

#47 2012-04-11 23:16:02

Re: Theoretical Physics

agscratcher wrote:

#48 2012-04-11 23:18:02

Re: Theoretical Physics

wolvesstar97 wrote:

agscratcher wrote:

#49 2012-04-11 23:18:38

Re: Theoretical Physics

wolvesstar97 wrote:

agscratcher wrote:

#50 2012-04-11 23:19:33

Re: Theoretical Physics

samtwheels wrote:

Board footer