time travel
- Thread starter Mikael is God
- Start date
MetalManCPA
Papa Opeth
dune_666
Lord of the Strings
Originally posted by Itay
since 4th dimension is NOT time,
it's impossible.
i agree.
Explain to me how the 4th dimension is not time. I read your earlier post about dimensions and your logic/source is quite flawed. Consider yourself a single point in a 3 dimensional space. Your position can always be represented by ax+by+cz. But that only represents your position in a static sense. The 4th dimension, time, accounts for the variances in your position as you move throughout that space.
if we were in the 2nd dimensional now and we were discussing about the 3rd dimension, you would have say to me:
"Consider yourself a single point in a 2 dimensional space. Your position can always be represented by ax+by. But that only represents your position in a static sense. The 3th dimension, time, accounts for the variances in your position as you move throughout that space."
in the 4th dimension, my position is represented by ax+by+cz+??.
that's why it's not time...
"Consider yourself a single point in a 2 dimensional space. Your position can always be represented by ax+by. But that only represents your position in a static sense. The 3th dimension, time, accounts for the variances in your position as you move throughout that space."
in the 4th dimension, my position is represented by ax+by+cz+??.
that's why it's not time...
dune_666
Lord of the Strings
Yes, at one instance in the continuim of time, your position is represented by ax+by+cz, but having only a 3rd degree polynomial fails to account for which particular point in time. By adding a 4th dimension you can account for your position in time by ax+by+cz+dt.
did you even read what i wrote??
i didn't say that the dimension of time doesn't exist,
i just said that is not the 4th dimension
and i also provided a good example...
i didn't say that the dimension of time doesn't exist,
i just said that is not the 4th dimension
and i also provided a good example...
Satori
Destructosaur
The forth dimension is NOT time? hahah, funny stuff! Your curious lack of an explanation of this claim has lead me to conclude that you don't have one, so I don't take this claim seriously at all and I have already dismissed it.
Time travel being possible or not depends what you mean by "possible". Time travel has already been shown to be a reality for elementary particles. Time, like the preceeding 3 space dimensions, has 2 directions and can be bent/warpped in the exactly the same way and by exactly the same means as we bend space. That's why it's called "space-time", cuz space and time are just as linked together as the 3 space dimensions are linked together and they all behave as a unit. Space cannot be divided from time and looked at individually.
We already know it's possible to travel forward in time (skipping ahead) and humans have already achieved this and proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt way back in the 60's. We can't go very far forward in time though, just a fraction of a second because we simply can't travel fast enough for the more dramatic time warpping to take affect (at about 0.8C, a pretty much impossible speed), but we have traveled forward in time nonetheless and this is so well known and well proven that it's simply ridiculous for anyone to question it. For a more detail explanation, read some Einstein, it's all there and I don't feel the need to back up what I'm saying here cuz it's just so much a matter of scientific fact.
Anyone who says that time travel isn't possible is simply ignorant of the facts in this matter, which is ok, not everyone can be expected to know everything, but perhaps it would be wise not to assert your assumptions in this matter when you obviously have no experimental basis on which to base your assertions.
Sorry if I sound like an asshole, I don't mean to, I'm sick of hearing people assert their feeble opinions fact. Just my opinion, hahahha
Satori
Time travel being possible or not depends what you mean by "possible". Time travel has already been shown to be a reality for elementary particles. Time, like the preceeding 3 space dimensions, has 2 directions and can be bent/warpped in the exactly the same way and by exactly the same means as we bend space. That's why it's called "space-time", cuz space and time are just as linked together as the 3 space dimensions are linked together and they all behave as a unit. Space cannot be divided from time and looked at individually.
We already know it's possible to travel forward in time (skipping ahead) and humans have already achieved this and proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt way back in the 60's. We can't go very far forward in time though, just a fraction of a second because we simply can't travel fast enough for the more dramatic time warpping to take affect (at about 0.8C, a pretty much impossible speed), but we have traveled forward in time nonetheless and this is so well known and well proven that it's simply ridiculous for anyone to question it. For a more detail explanation, read some Einstein, it's all there and I don't feel the need to back up what I'm saying here cuz it's just so much a matter of scientific fact.
Anyone who says that time travel isn't possible is simply ignorant of the facts in this matter, which is ok, not everyone can be expected to know everything, but perhaps it would be wise not to assert your assumptions in this matter when you obviously have no experimental basis on which to base your assertions.
Sorry if I sound like an asshole, I don't mean to, I'm sick of hearing people assert their feeble opinions fact. Just my opinion, hahahha
Satori
dune_666
Lord of the Strings
So what's the 4th dimension then?
Time can be any dimension. Any parameter can be any dimension. By convention time is the 4th dimension, because when describing the behavior of a system, time is usually the next parameter needed after the first 3. As I have said before, any parameter, whether it be time, or the number of hot dogs I've eaten today, can be used as a paramter describing the behavior of a system.
Its obvious to me that you've never actually done any research or done any serious work in describing the behavior of a system, closed or otherwise. Didn't you say the you read this on the net somewhere? Check your sources. I also read on the net that a woman had an alien baby. Or was that the National Enquirer?
Time can be any dimension. Any parameter can be any dimension. By convention time is the 4th dimension, because when describing the behavior of a system, time is usually the next parameter needed after the first 3. As I have said before, any parameter, whether it be time, or the number of hot dogs I've eaten today, can be used as a paramter describing the behavior of a system.
Its obvious to me that you've never actually done any research or done any serious work in describing the behavior of a system, closed or otherwise. Didn't you say the you read this on the net somewhere? Check your sources. I also read on the net that a woman had an alien baby. Or was that the National Enquirer?
Satori
Destructosaur
dune_666, your explanation and thoroughness is commendable and I did not want to let this go unrewarded with a huge thumbs up!
Also, the "4th dimension" already has a definition, and it's called time. If you want to explain this new thing you are talking about, you will have to pick a new lable cuz this one is already taken. I can call my cock a "toaster" but this new lable doesn't change what it actually is or change the fact that a toaster is still a toaster. Find a new lable.
Satori
Also, the "4th dimension" already has a definition, and it's called time. If you want to explain this new thing you are talking about, you will have to pick a new lable cuz this one is already taken. I can call my cock a "toaster" but this new lable doesn't change what it actually is or change the fact that a toaster is still a toaster. Find a new lable.
Satori
i just dont relaly believe in TIME..... the only time is NOW..... and that never exists.... becuase we're always moving forward... i don't think its logical to say that theres a way to visit the future or the past because the future hasnt happened yet and the past is gone .... its gone... its behind us.... it seems people think that every object and particle is on this path... like a movie.... and theres an infinite number of frames.... and that what we did yesterday is somehow still there in the past... but its not there anymore... ... time doesnt exist in that way.....
to me this is time - what time do i get up for school ... when is the party.... not a real life movie...
to me this is time - what time do i get up for school ... when is the party.... not a real life movie...
dune_666
Lord of the Strings
Originally posted by Satori
dune_666, your explanation and thoroughness is commendable and I did not want to let this go unrewarded with a huge thumbs up!
As always, thank you for your gratitude and your ability to clearly convery your thoughts.
now somebody explain to me what solid scientific evidence there is of the ability of objects to travel in this so called TIME that doesnt exist
the whole idea time in its self is a concept that exist on a different level for different beings... as humans we have a well developed brain (not the best one though) and have the ability to have memories through which we get this idea that moments in our life that once happen can live on foreveer through our memories in ourr head... but this is only for humans.. for lets say a gold fish... a goldfish can only retain the last 30 seconds of its life and then it starts fresh... that goldfish's entire concept of time is always within the last 30 seconds only... for all we know there are beings out there even more advanced than us... whos memeries can reach back into their muscle memorie where they can rememebr past lives the information held in their cromozones... we have to stop thinking about humans being the supreme beings in this universe... time is something that we created for ourselves to keep us organized... as far as time goes in the sence of the order of events in our life... i dont so how we could physically go back and visit our history... it is something that happened once within a moment that has passed... everyones past is different everyones memories are different everyones concept of time is different... everyones now is different... just like in spaceballs
||what happen the then? it passed. When? just now? when will then be now? Soooon.||
the now you live in is already gone... this "second" of your life is not recorverable... your sittinf their wasting yout "time" reading my post.. probly thinking about howmuch you dissagree with it... i am not sayig im right... im just suggesting something here... i mean fuck.. in fifty years maybe we will b travilgin in time... 50 years ago how rediculous was space travel... we are developing technology so much so who nows...
||what happen the then? it passed. When? just now? when will then be now? Soooon.||
the now you live in is already gone... this "second" of your life is not recorverable... your sittinf their wasting yout "time" reading my post.. probly thinking about howmuch you dissagree with it... i am not sayig im right... im just suggesting something here... i mean fuck.. in fifty years maybe we will b travilgin in time... 50 years ago how rediculous was space travel... we are developing technology so much so who nows...
Well, after getting pissed that one of my earlier posts (for a different thread) didn't manage to submit properly, I'll submit another, different one.
The problem with time travel on a quantum-level, is that it's unobservable and is wholly mathematical. We deal with physical objects like photons, but can't measure them in any way except mathematical. The question is, is the system we're using advanced enough to give us the correct answer, or is it just a tower of pisa that only begins to noticably tilt as it grows larger? (or in this case, more rigorous). So time travel has in no way been proven, at least no moreso than m-theory has been "proven". Mathematically it works out, but many conflicting theories work in math. And there are different systems of math. Witness the negative curvature geometry that is a competing system with Euclidian. Neg-curv geometry is a complete system and can account for any Euclidian equation, but with dramatically different answers. Our system may not be correct just because it works to a degree. Newtonian mechanics works to a degree., Einstein's thought is required at certain levels. At other levels Einstein's competing theories break down (keep in mind, he had many competing theories, including a fatalistic one where every action is fated for eternity in both positive and negative time directions).
Mikael is God, just because we don't have a firm hold on time as a specific entity, it exists in the same way numbers and language exist. This is just a categorical issue. Aristotle's "categories" should help clear up confusion. We have specific instantiations of numbers and languages, yet we cannot say that number or language exists as an entity unto itself. We simply note its existence via instantiation. The same is true of time. We experience it as it is for us. This is our proof of time. Is it absolute proof? No, but nothing is. On a vulgar level, take the movie The Matrix; the world they see is not the world as it is. But take it a step further -- what if the world they see after taking the red pill is just another fascade? What if it's a second level illusion? What if "existence" isn't real? What if they only think it's real because they've been witness to instantiations of it? Question with no strong answers. However, is it best to avoid radical skepticism in the face of a "reality" that makes its appearance to us in every waking moment and even when we sleep? I vote yes, but that's just my feeling, as I cannot escape from the instantiations in their entirety, and even when I escape from a few, it's a short-lived escape that ends when the instantiations pierce the shell of my distnationation -- not because I did anything different, but because reality seeped through.
-Eric
The problem with time travel on a quantum-level, is that it's unobservable and is wholly mathematical. We deal with physical objects like photons, but can't measure them in any way except mathematical. The question is, is the system we're using advanced enough to give us the correct answer, or is it just a tower of pisa that only begins to noticably tilt as it grows larger? (or in this case, more rigorous). So time travel has in no way been proven, at least no moreso than m-theory has been "proven". Mathematically it works out, but many conflicting theories work in math. And there are different systems of math. Witness the negative curvature geometry that is a competing system with Euclidian. Neg-curv geometry is a complete system and can account for any Euclidian equation, but with dramatically different answers. Our system may not be correct just because it works to a degree. Newtonian mechanics works to a degree., Einstein's thought is required at certain levels. At other levels Einstein's competing theories break down (keep in mind, he had many competing theories, including a fatalistic one where every action is fated for eternity in both positive and negative time directions).
Mikael is God, just because we don't have a firm hold on time as a specific entity, it exists in the same way numbers and language exist. This is just a categorical issue. Aristotle's "categories" should help clear up confusion. We have specific instantiations of numbers and languages, yet we cannot say that number or language exists as an entity unto itself. We simply note its existence via instantiation. The same is true of time. We experience it as it is for us. This is our proof of time. Is it absolute proof? No, but nothing is. On a vulgar level, take the movie The Matrix; the world they see is not the world as it is. But take it a step further -- what if the world they see after taking the red pill is just another fascade? What if it's a second level illusion? What if "existence" isn't real? What if they only think it's real because they've been witness to instantiations of it? Question with no strong answers. However, is it best to avoid radical skepticism in the face of a "reality" that makes its appearance to us in every waking moment and even when we sleep? I vote yes, but that's just my feeling, as I cannot escape from the instantiations in their entirety, and even when I escape from a few, it's a short-lived escape that ends when the instantiations pierce the shell of my distnationation -- not because I did anything different, but because reality seeped through.
-Eric
Satori
Destructosaur
Sorry man, time DOES exist in that way, time is a "real" thing, and your inability to comprehend time does not change this fact.
Time is not a human made concept. It's a type of energy that is able to be bent and twisted quite easily. The earth is bending time right now and time is flowing at a different rate on the 10 floor of a building than it is on the 1st floor. This is not my opinion, it's a scientific FACT which is so well documented and proven with countless experiments that it's really quite impossible to refute. Many have tried, all have failed miserably.
You could dispute the facts of time, but you'd have to be pretty much a genius and spend most of your life in school and involved in extensive research before anyone would even listen to what you have to say, and even then someone else would still probably show you the error in your equations/experiments. I guess nothing can be know with any certainty, hehe.
Keep in mind that what you are saying is disagreeing with Einstein, perhaps the most intelligent human who ever lived. Are you suggesting your opinions are more valid that his years of experimental evidence? That's quite a claim you are making there. You really don't know enough about this to disagree with the concensus and not many people do, and I guess I don't either, hehe. You may as well be saying you believe the world is flat simply because it looks flat and I would be telling you the same things. But then nothing is how it appears so maybe it is flat, who knows? It's just unlikely, heheh
Satori
oh yes i can comprehend it very well.... i can clearly understand the concept of time that everyone believes in...... its not a very hard concept at all.... but please explain to me this scientific evidence... what kind of experiments did they do to prove all that? -- also... im sure if you ask the smartest philosophers out there and they'll agree -- educated or not educated - EVERY opinion applies
Satori
Destructosaur
Eric, are you familiar with experiments in recent years that have pushed photons passed the speed of light from our perspective(which we know is not true, it's relative of course) by adding huge amounts of energies to them which (allegedly) temporarily reverse their flow in time which gives them the impression of surpassing C? If so, can you enlighten us about them? From what I read it seemed pretty damn convincing!
Also, here's why I think time flows in both directions at once and einstein's idea of an event reaching in both directions is valid (I realize you already know what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway just to be totally clear): The split photon polarization experiments clearly show that photons have knowledge of a future event (polarization) in the present (as is my understanding anyway, I'm no physicist and I don't claim to be any more than an idiot in these matters). Therefore, as I have been lead to believe, the effects of the future event (polarization) traveled back in time to the present (since it is ridiculous to assert that the 2 photons are communicating by some instant message with no delay). Given this, einstein's idea of an event's influence traveling both directions in time seems pretty convincing to me and I can't think of a more logical or consistent theory to explain this seemingly impossible phenomenon.
What do you think?
Satori
Also, here's why I think time flows in both directions at once and einstein's idea of an event reaching in both directions is valid (I realize you already know what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway just to be totally clear): The split photon polarization experiments clearly show that photons have knowledge of a future event (polarization) in the present (as is my understanding anyway, I'm no physicist and I don't claim to be any more than an idiot in these matters). Therefore, as I have been lead to believe, the effects of the future event (polarization) traveled back in time to the present (since it is ridiculous to assert that the 2 photons are communicating by some instant message with no delay). Given this, einstein's idea of an event's influence traveling both directions in time seems pretty convincing to me and I can't think of a more logical or consistent theory to explain this seemingly impossible phenomenon.
What do you think?
Satori
What I recall about the fairly recent breakthrough where the photon was accelerated was that the determination of its traveling through time was made by measuring the surrounding energy and the patterns left, since the photon itself shouldn't be measurable lest we take a peek inside the box and destroy the quantum state, but I could be confusing something about particle pairs... I should check, but I'm hoping someone else will for me! I'd be more prepared to buy a phenomenon of space being folded (maybe crinkled is a better term) at certain points, giving the appearance of time travel. Whether or not we could effect this kind of experimentation is wholly beyond me.
Since I mentioned experiments, I thought I'd mention this too -- I believe it was Sklar ("Space, Time, and Spacetime") who deals with arguments against experiments. He fairly convincingly argues that thought experiements that try to prove that time, space, etc. flow straight or that the universe is flat, etc. are confounded by the use of measuring instruments. That if there is a curvature in spacetime, any attempt to measure it, be it through clocks, measuring rods, falling clocks, etc. is ruined because the measuring instruments will be affected by the same external forces that everything else in that part of spacetime is. This has to do with perspectivilism, but if we take the opposite argument, and say that any means we use to show that space is curved is confounded by the measuring instrument, then we're faced with even more unusual possibilities like the use of our presence as the catalyst for change. I'm extrapolating a little here, and Sklar wrote a pretty sizable book on it, so I won't try to truncate it here... just something to think about: How do our instruments affect the outcome of experiments (and with quanta, how does our presence affect the outcome)?
The idea of "spooky communication" between particles that can be galaxies apart is an interesting one to say the least. It's one I'm not terribly well versed in, but I recall someone having a theory of a 2-d saddle-shaped universe with particles that could travel between any of the angles *outside* of the universe such that they would not be subject to the laws of spacetime until coming in contact with their reference particles, tying two particles together so that one's quantum state would affect the other's "simultaneously". I think there was even a reason why the states would have to be exactly opposite unless in a nuetral position, but I can't recall. I can't even recall whose it was. In retrospect, it might have been brought up by my girlfriend during class (we took a course in metaphysics with the mighty mind of Prof. J. Aronson, author of the APA article, "Does Micro-Causation Have a Future?"). I do believe Aronson dealt with the problem of pre-knowledge and how it related to the observers expectations, but I'll have to check my notes for that. I think many of these ideas are still in their infancy and the arguments between physicists and philosophers are growing in complexity. With tacheons being positted as particles that go back in time, anti-particles being dealt with as real objects, and improved mathematics, I think many will go quite far with the ideas. The most common problems being run into right now though are gaps in the mathematics and observer influence. If we can only check mathematically, how can we prove anything? If through experimentation, how can we check the experiment? So far, only with math. When we consider calculus and the consistent disregard for the arbitrarily large and arbitrarily small, one is led to wonder how quickly those "arbitrary" numbers could add up. There was a recent mathematical experiment where arbitrarily small numbers were multiplied exponentially, and an explosion growth moving towards infinity cropped up. Consider quantum computing, DNA replication, arbitrarily small numbers, and a possible deficiency in math as we commonly know it, and we might come up with the answer to origin -- one that has always resulted in either an explicit or implicit ontotheological call to a god.
I've sort of rambled and dealt with nothing solidly, but it was fun nonetheless. The conversation remains intriguing!
-Eric
Since I mentioned experiments, I thought I'd mention this too -- I believe it was Sklar ("Space, Time, and Spacetime") who deals with arguments against experiments. He fairly convincingly argues that thought experiements that try to prove that time, space, etc. flow straight or that the universe is flat, etc. are confounded by the use of measuring instruments. That if there is a curvature in spacetime, any attempt to measure it, be it through clocks, measuring rods, falling clocks, etc. is ruined because the measuring instruments will be affected by the same external forces that everything else in that part of spacetime is. This has to do with perspectivilism, but if we take the opposite argument, and say that any means we use to show that space is curved is confounded by the measuring instrument, then we're faced with even more unusual possibilities like the use of our presence as the catalyst for change. I'm extrapolating a little here, and Sklar wrote a pretty sizable book on it, so I won't try to truncate it here... just something to think about: How do our instruments affect the outcome of experiments (and with quanta, how does our presence affect the outcome)?
The idea of "spooky communication" between particles that can be galaxies apart is an interesting one to say the least. It's one I'm not terribly well versed in, but I recall someone having a theory of a 2-d saddle-shaped universe with particles that could travel between any of the angles *outside* of the universe such that they would not be subject to the laws of spacetime until coming in contact with their reference particles, tying two particles together so that one's quantum state would affect the other's "simultaneously". I think there was even a reason why the states would have to be exactly opposite unless in a nuetral position, but I can't recall. I can't even recall whose it was. In retrospect, it might have been brought up by my girlfriend during class (we took a course in metaphysics with the mighty mind of Prof. J. Aronson, author of the APA article, "Does Micro-Causation Have a Future?"). I do believe Aronson dealt with the problem of pre-knowledge and how it related to the observers expectations, but I'll have to check my notes for that. I think many of these ideas are still in their infancy and the arguments between physicists and philosophers are growing in complexity. With tacheons being positted as particles that go back in time, anti-particles being dealt with as real objects, and improved mathematics, I think many will go quite far with the ideas. The most common problems being run into right now though are gaps in the mathematics and observer influence. If we can only check mathematically, how can we prove anything? If through experimentation, how can we check the experiment? So far, only with math. When we consider calculus and the consistent disregard for the arbitrarily large and arbitrarily small, one is led to wonder how quickly those "arbitrary" numbers could add up. There was a recent mathematical experiment where arbitrarily small numbers were multiplied exponentially, and an explosion growth moving towards infinity cropped up. Consider quantum computing, DNA replication, arbitrarily small numbers, and a possible deficiency in math as we commonly know it, and we might come up with the answer to origin -- one that has always resulted in either an explicit or implicit ontotheological call to a god.
I've sort of rambled and dealt with nothing solidly, but it was fun nonetheless. The conversation remains intriguing!
-Eric
Satori
Destructosaur
Very nice Eric. I'm delighted to be having a discussion of this level and I wish I knew as much as you so I could be a better dialoging partner in that regard. As you can see I'm just a layperson with an opinionated stance and big mouth, but I was a little surprised to see you questioning the curvature of space-time as I thought this was pretty much a most basic assertion which wasn't even an "issue" (as we see planets orbit and such, gravity curving space, gravity warpping time, blah blah).
Indeed, the instruments are totally affected by the curvature as well and for this reason I realize nothing can be known with certainty (it is my sort of motto here as someone pointed out: "reality is subjective"), however, don't you agree that the curvature is by far the most likely explanation we have? Has another been put forth that holds any water at all? Just curious.
I had read about that U-shaped universe appearing flat thing before, but it didn't sit well with me and seemed very complex and suspicious (of course I realize I don't know much so I don't doubt it as a possibility, I'm just saying that personally, as an idiot, I find it too laboured and too inconsistent with other ideas and I'm of the opinion that the simpliest explanation is usually the ("more") correct one). To you personally, do you find it more plausible to think that somehow information is traveling from the future to the present in the split photon experiment? This seem so much more eloquent to me, hehe.
While traveling back in time is suspect as you say, traveling forward (slowing our own time through gravity or speed) is pretty much not in dispute, given the experiments with atomic clocks from the 60's, correct? Has this changed in recent decades? Is the idea that time stops within a singularity ever questioned?
I had read someone theorize about that pushing photons past the speed of light (seemingly) and getting them to flow backward in time (according to einsteinian principles) not only warpped space but inverted it (turned it inside out cuz space was soooo incredibly warpped). Did you ever hear anything about this idea? What is the commonly held idea of what happens to space when C is relatively exceeded? Also, I thought these experiements were done by measuring the speed and distance traveled of the photon and that's how it was deduced that it had exceeded C, so there was no opening of the box and killing of the cat until the experiment was essentially "over". Of course, I realize just by taking the measurement the quantum state is affected, but I didn't know they were actually measuring the state through residual information while the photon was still in flight and the experiment was still in session, I thought it was purely a measurement of time versus distance. (?)
Another thing, what of this teleportation business? What the hell is up with that? That's just completely fucked. I never read about the inner theories of these experiments. If you know anything about the ideas about this, tell me, is there an einsteinian explanation for this? Were they simply warpping (folding) space, or was the photon actually being relocated by going *through* space-time in some manner?
Also.. did you hear about the whacky experiments which could determine the 50/50 life or death status of the cat without actually opening the box by exploiting the properties of split photons to be aware of things they've had no direct contact with? I hope so cuz this one is so completely fucked up that I don't think I could begin to explain how the experiment was set up. However, they seemed to conclude that they were able to accurately determine the state of the kitty without opening the box and killing it. I hope you've heard about this one
Speaking of that elusive feline, I think it's absolutely spooky to think that it exists in both states at once before the box is opened and one of the states becomes reality. What's your thoughts on this? I'm no believer in absolutes or anything by any stretch, but the notion that a given quantum state could remain suspended on the fence until it is observed and the state is destroyed seem just bizarre. After all, fluffy is either alive or dead, there is presumably no 3rd state of suspension between the 2 extremes so how could it exist in this state?
cheers!
Satori the layman
Indeed, the instruments are totally affected by the curvature as well and for this reason I realize nothing can be known with certainty (it is my sort of motto here as someone pointed out: "reality is subjective"), however, don't you agree that the curvature is by far the most likely explanation we have? Has another been put forth that holds any water at all? Just curious.
I had read about that U-shaped universe appearing flat thing before, but it didn't sit well with me and seemed very complex and suspicious (of course I realize I don't know much so I don't doubt it as a possibility, I'm just saying that personally, as an idiot, I find it too laboured and too inconsistent with other ideas and I'm of the opinion that the simpliest explanation is usually the ("more") correct one). To you personally, do you find it more plausible to think that somehow information is traveling from the future to the present in the split photon experiment? This seem so much more eloquent to me, hehe.
While traveling back in time is suspect as you say, traveling forward (slowing our own time through gravity or speed) is pretty much not in dispute, given the experiments with atomic clocks from the 60's, correct? Has this changed in recent decades? Is the idea that time stops within a singularity ever questioned?
I had read someone theorize about that pushing photons past the speed of light (seemingly) and getting them to flow backward in time (according to einsteinian principles) not only warpped space but inverted it (turned it inside out cuz space was soooo incredibly warpped). Did you ever hear anything about this idea? What is the commonly held idea of what happens to space when C is relatively exceeded? Also, I thought these experiements were done by measuring the speed and distance traveled of the photon and that's how it was deduced that it had exceeded C, so there was no opening of the box and killing of the cat until the experiment was essentially "over". Of course, I realize just by taking the measurement the quantum state is affected, but I didn't know they were actually measuring the state through residual information while the photon was still in flight and the experiment was still in session, I thought it was purely a measurement of time versus distance. (?)
Another thing, what of this teleportation business? What the hell is up with that? That's just completely fucked. I never read about the inner theories of these experiments. If you know anything about the ideas about this, tell me, is there an einsteinian explanation for this? Were they simply warpping (folding) space, or was the photon actually being relocated by going *through* space-time in some manner?
Also.. did you hear about the whacky experiments which could determine the 50/50 life or death status of the cat without actually opening the box by exploiting the properties of split photons to be aware of things they've had no direct contact with? I hope so cuz this one is so completely fucked up that I don't think I could begin to explain how the experiment was set up. However, they seemed to conclude that they were able to accurately determine the state of the kitty without opening the box and killing it. I hope you've heard about this one
Speaking of that elusive feline, I think it's absolutely spooky to think that it exists in both states at once before the box is opened and one of the states becomes reality. What's your thoughts on this? I'm no believer in absolutes or anything by any stretch, but the notion that a given quantum state could remain suspended on the fence until it is observed and the state is destroyed seem just bizarre. After all, fluffy is either alive or dead, there is presumably no 3rd state of suspension between the 2 extremes so how could it exist in this state?
cheers!
Satori the layman
