Closed-Timelike-Curves
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
'Time' is just an arbitrary measurement, like a 'meter'. In fact, a second is defined as the duration it takes light to travel exactly 299,792,458 meters. A meter is defined as the distance light will travel in 1/299,792,458 second. The smallest defined distance is a Planck length. The shortest defined duration is Planck Time. Are there negative Planck lengths and negative meters on the reverse side of positive planck lengths? So tell me, if 'time' flows backwards, does light also travel backwards, back to its source? Does 'time' flow backwards at the identical rate it flows forward, keeping the speed of light the same? Would the brain of a person travelling 'backwards' in time systematically lose all the knowledge of the future she just left as the photons her eyes had recieved over positive time travelled back to their orgins? If she travelled back to a 'time' before she was born, would her brain be blank with no knowledge of speech or anything she had learned over the 'time' she had existed?
Not at all....
Time is not ARBITRARY if the observer is a part of what is observed. This is, beleive it or not, a prediction of special relativity.
You cannot have a movement in time, withot the observer specificating that movement.
Plnck Lengths (1.616 x 10^-33) or a planck time (5.88 x 10^-44) have nothing to do with this, if we are resorting timelike-curves.
Edit? Unless we resort to the same values predicted.
Time is not ARBITRARY if the observer is a part of what is observed. This is, beleive it or not, a prediction of special relativity.
You cannot have a movement in time, withot the observer specificating that movement.
Plnck Lengths (1.616 x 10^-33) or a planck time (5.88 x 10^-44) have nothing to do with this, if we are resorting timelike-curves.
Edit? Unless we resort to the same values predicted.
So, the universe was in a terribly mixed state until Homo sapiens evolved, as none of the prior creatures, such as Homo erectus, could collapse the wavefunction, correct? What was the distinguishing feature to evolve between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Both were intelligent.
But I am trying to help you. Matter in the quantum realm seems to be affected by the measurements we make of it, not observation. As an anology, we can stick a pin into the ocean and separate a drop from the ocean when we pull the pin out. We have affected both the ocean and our pin by our activity. When we interfere with the wavefunction by our measurement, we collapse the wavefunction into a particle.
Yes. Matter, even though i would presume that at least 40% of reality had collapsed due to normal decoherence, would still require a large chunk of reality to be defined via observation.
Dr. Wolf explains, that when the 1st observer came into the picture, reality was very lame. Even Dr. Hawking, admits this fact. I have nothing more to say.
If you are trying to help me, then don't. I am very adiment about what i am saying. I am very sure about this reality being profound to reality of percpetion.
But you are right... We collapse a single particle, then we must be able to collapse entire systems.
Dr. Wolf explains, that when the 1st observer came into the picture, reality was very lame. Even Dr. Hawking, admits this fact. I have nothing more to say.
If you are trying to help me, then don't. I am very adiment about what i am saying. I am very sure about this reality being profound to reality of percpetion.
But you are right... We collapse a single particle, then we must be able to collapse entire systems.
What isn't science. I've been trapped into a little corner by your lackies. They keep asking me what's this, and how about that... I wasn't discussing any of those things. I want to talk about time-travel and CTC's.
Put my work back please. I've asked nicely, and delete any posts that are off-topic. Couldn't you have at least done that?
I am asking nicely.
Put my work back please. I've asked nicely, and delete any posts that are off-topic. Couldn't you have at least done that?
I am asking nicely.
Reiku:
You asked me to look at this thread to see whether it is appropriate for the Physics forum. I will stick to reviewing your first post for now:
It is not clear to me whether you are talking about the Lagrangian "action" here or quantum mechanics.
What is your source for claiming that a photon "travelling from the past" takes every possible path?
Also, please cite the source in which Hawking says that a particle can travel at superluminal speeds.
Please cite or link to a source which says this.
Please cite or link to the source where Dr Hawking says this.
Who calls it "sinusoidal"? Please link to or cite a source for this statement.
It appears you don't exactly understand what a light cone is.
On the contrary, a light cone doesn't move in time at all. In fact, in the relativistic picture, time doesn't flow.
Pathological in what way?
You asked me to look at this thread to see whether it is appropriate for the Physics forum. I will stick to reviewing your first post for now:
It is not clear to me whether you are talking about the Lagrangian "action" here or quantum mechanics.
What is your source for claiming that a photon "travelling from the past" takes every possible path?
Also, please cite the source in which Hawking says that a particle can travel at superluminal speeds.
Please cite or link to a source which says this.
Please cite or link to the source where Dr Hawking says this.
Who calls it "sinusoidal"? Please link to or cite a source for this statement.
It appears you don't exactly understand what a light cone is.
On the contrary, a light cone doesn't move in time at all. In fact, in the relativistic picture, time doesn't flow.
Pathological in what way?
I'll assume tat if i answer all of these questions and give source, you will agree this is physics-worthy.
1. ''It is not clear to me whether you are talking about the Lagrangian "action" here or quantum mechanics.''
The wave function of quantum mechanics can answer how a thing must attentively sort through all conditions before one actually emerges. In other words, a particle that travels across the galaxy in a mixed state, and upon arrival here on earth, the wave function collapses, and a definate worldline is created.
2. ''What is your source for claiming that a photon "travelling from the past" takes every possible path?''
There is, to answer this question, the famous work known as the 'Wheelers Choice Experiment,'' which proves that an action made in the present (such as an observation) determines the past state of a system. Again, in short, the collapse.
Ref. Dr. Wolf ''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,'' pg 225
Ref. ''Delayed Choice Experiments and the Bohr-Einstien Dialogue'' paper read at a Joint Meeting of The American Philosophical Society and the Royal Society, June 1980, London.. Cat. card no. 80-70995, 1980
3. ''Please cite or link to a source which says this.'' and
''Please cite or link to the source where Dr Hawking says this.''
Prof S Hawking. ''Black Holes and Baby Universes: and other essays'' - Bantam Press 1993
(You'lll find both comments)
4. ''Who calls it "sinusoidal"? Please link to or cite a source for this statement.''
Ref. Dr. Wolf ''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,'' pg. 235
5. ''It appears you don't exactly understand what a light cone is.''
I do. But for arguements sake, i'll say i don't right? That way you can't hold a tiny thing like that against the work i have provided.
6. ''On the contrary, a light cone doesn't move in time at all. In fact, in the relativistic picture, time doesn't flow.''
You can argue that time does have a flow however: A double flow, as found in Johns Transactional Interpretation. In this interpretation, time flows forward as there are wave that also move backwards.
7. ''Pathological in what way?''
Neither have i ever fully understood the true pathology. Dr. Wolf says that the pathological behaviour, (which is what we call CTC's), is found to be a path that moves through space and time. Even Tipler refers to it as a pathological nature or prediction of relativity.
Now - that should be more than what is needed to see i know what i am talking about. Not only that, but being stuck in psuedoscience takes away the essence of what could potentially be discussed here.
In fact, nothing about it is pseudoscientific at all from a relativistic picture.
1. ''It is not clear to me whether you are talking about the Lagrangian "action" here or quantum mechanics.''
The wave function of quantum mechanics can answer how a thing must attentively sort through all conditions before one actually emerges. In other words, a particle that travels across the galaxy in a mixed state, and upon arrival here on earth, the wave function collapses, and a definate worldline is created.
2. ''What is your source for claiming that a photon "travelling from the past" takes every possible path?''
There is, to answer this question, the famous work known as the 'Wheelers Choice Experiment,'' which proves that an action made in the present (such as an observation) determines the past state of a system. Again, in short, the collapse.
Ref. Dr. Wolf ''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,'' pg 225
Ref. ''Delayed Choice Experiments and the Bohr-Einstien Dialogue'' paper read at a Joint Meeting of The American Philosophical Society and the Royal Society, June 1980, London.. Cat. card no. 80-70995, 1980
3. ''Please cite or link to a source which says this.'' and
''Please cite or link to the source where Dr Hawking says this.''
Prof S Hawking. ''Black Holes and Baby Universes: and other essays'' - Bantam Press 1993
(You'lll find both comments)
4. ''Who calls it "sinusoidal"? Please link to or cite a source for this statement.''
Ref. Dr. Wolf ''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,'' pg. 235
5. ''It appears you don't exactly understand what a light cone is.''
I do. But for arguements sake, i'll say i don't right? That way you can't hold a tiny thing like that against the work i have provided.
6. ''On the contrary, a light cone doesn't move in time at all. In fact, in the relativistic picture, time doesn't flow.''
You can argue that time does have a flow however: A double flow, as found in Johns Transactional Interpretation. In this interpretation, time flows forward as there are wave that also move backwards.
7. ''Pathological in what way?''
Neither have i ever fully understood the true pathology. Dr. Wolf says that the pathological behaviour, (which is what we call CTC's), is found to be a path that moves through space and time. Even Tipler refers to it as a pathological nature or prediction of relativity.
Now - that should be more than what is needed to see i know what i am talking about. Not only that, but being stuck in psuedoscience takes away the essence of what could potentially be discussed here.
In fact, nothing about it is pseudoscientific at all from a relativistic picture.
James did a fine job of dissecting your first post, and I will dissect your second one while having my coffee.
I am not familiar with the ``psychological'' arrow of time, and have already made my objections about these points. Specificaly, you seem to define an ``observer'' in terms of humans. But this is clearly not the case, as there are still observations made in universes without any intelligence. Indeed, if this definition were true, then no animal on earth could see---the photon's wave-function cannot be collapsed by some animal which is not ahuman, by your definition. But clearly monkeys and dogs and snakes can see.
This is not correct because your definition of observer is not valid, as I have shown.
Further, the Copenhagen Interpretation, as I understand it, doesn't say anything about time. The interpretations of quantum mechanics deal with the nature of the wave function and the nature of measurements.
Finally, the fact that there is some notion of the arrow of time in no way implies that time is relative to the observer. Perhaps you are more inteligent than I am, but I cannot see the connection.
Again, the Copenhagen interpretation says no such thing. If this were true, then the universe didn't exist before humans existed. This implies that some observation must have been made by an intelligent observer at the beginning, which is what you call an ``alpha'' observer, or God. But this clearly is not a scientific conjecture. Again, this is all based on your (wrong) definition of ``observer''.
This is just not true. The presence of a non-trivial energy density causes space-time to warp. But, as someone in another thread has pointed out to you, one can have a perfectly consistent solution to Einstein's equations with zero energy density---it is just D dimensional Euclidean space.
On the face of it, I agree with these statements. It would be very strange indeed if the second law were reversed.
You assume some coupling between ``knowledge'' and matter. Aside from not being testable, EVEN in principle, you have made absolutely no argument for this correlation, other than ``Believe me it is true''. I think I was more or less ok with your essay, untill I got here. This is what convinced me that this thread should be moved.
This is an interesting thought, except you have assumed that your brane obeys the second law of thermodynamics. What I mean by that is this---the second law is actually an aggregate statement. Let's assume that your brane works like a hard drive on a computer, by organizing spin states of magnets. Well, if the magnets are randomly ordered, then you ``learn'' something, you decrease the entropy of the system. But the act of ``learning'' takes energy to do.
What seems more likely to me, is that if the second law were different, one would actually ``remember'' the future. But I don't know.
Again, the conclusions don't follow the assumptions. You have misunderstood the Copenhagen interpretaion, and drawn conclusions which don't logically follow.
I don't know what the ``Omega Theory of Cosmological Evolution'' is, but it actually predicts that time will begin moving backwards at the crunch?
Also, it is not clear that there will be a Big Crunch. The current epoch of expansion (which is observed by, for example, WMAP and SDSS) doesn't seem like it will be reversed, and it looks like we are headed for more of a Big Rip.
Either way, you should explain why the cosmological constant will go from positive to negative at some point in the arbitrary far future.
The reason for this is the small and positive cosmilogical constant.
One would have to wait on order of the age of the universe for this to happen. We can calculate it, if you like.
So far you haven't explained why any of this is plausible, other than to quote Hawking and this other Wolfe fellow.
Well, no. Closed time-like curves are the results of very specific geometries that come in special solutions to Einstein's equations. I will try to make this point very explicit. Suppose you have a universe, and in that universe there is a place where a closed time-like curve exists. One can travel along that curve and end up back in the same place and time that he started. So, a closed time-like curve pres-supposes some space-time.
But when it comes to our universe, we don't expect that there is such a concept of space-time at the big bang---that is, it is expected that GR breaks down there, so it doesn't make sense to talk about geometry there.
See the previous statement. A CTC presupposes a time direction, and at the instant of the big bang or the big crunch, there IS no time direction.
But you still haven't explained how the cosmological constant turns around, or even mentioned that it should...
No. There is no concept of time at the big bang and the big crunch, so there can be no idea of causality.
This is ok, but you are extrapolating this to the early universe. As I showed you earlier, at the big bang and big crunch, there is no concept of time, and so there can be no concept of causality.
I think I would have been fine with these essays if you hadn't have made connections between, say, matter and thought, or ``observer'' and intelligence. And, since your ideas seem to depend on these definitions in a critical way, they cannot be classed as science.
I am not familiar with the ``psychological'' arrow of time, and have already made my objections about these points. Specificaly, you seem to define an ``observer'' in terms of humans. But this is clearly not the case, as there are still observations made in universes without any intelligence. Indeed, if this definition were true, then no animal on earth could see---the photon's wave-function cannot be collapsed by some animal which is not ahuman, by your definition. But clearly monkeys and dogs and snakes can see.
This is not correct because your definition of observer is not valid, as I have shown.
Further, the Copenhagen Interpretation, as I understand it, doesn't say anything about time. The interpretations of quantum mechanics deal with the nature of the wave function and the nature of measurements.
Finally, the fact that there is some notion of the arrow of time in no way implies that time is relative to the observer. Perhaps you are more inteligent than I am, but I cannot see the connection.
Again, the Copenhagen interpretation says no such thing. If this were true, then the universe didn't exist before humans existed. This implies that some observation must have been made by an intelligent observer at the beginning, which is what you call an ``alpha'' observer, or God. But this clearly is not a scientific conjecture. Again, this is all based on your (wrong) definition of ``observer''.
This is just not true. The presence of a non-trivial energy density causes space-time to warp. But, as someone in another thread has pointed out to you, one can have a perfectly consistent solution to Einstein's equations with zero energy density---it is just D dimensional Euclidean space.
On the face of it, I agree with these statements. It would be very strange indeed if the second law were reversed.
You assume some coupling between ``knowledge'' and matter. Aside from not being testable, EVEN in principle, you have made absolutely no argument for this correlation, other than ``Believe me it is true''. I think I was more or less ok with your essay, untill I got here. This is what convinced me that this thread should be moved.
This is an interesting thought, except you have assumed that your brane obeys the second law of thermodynamics. What I mean by that is this---the second law is actually an aggregate statement. Let's assume that your brane works like a hard drive on a computer, by organizing spin states of magnets. Well, if the magnets are randomly ordered, then you ``learn'' something, you decrease the entropy of the system. But the act of ``learning'' takes energy to do.
What seems more likely to me, is that if the second law were different, one would actually ``remember'' the future. But I don't know.
Again, the conclusions don't follow the assumptions. You have misunderstood the Copenhagen interpretaion, and drawn conclusions which don't logically follow.
I don't know what the ``Omega Theory of Cosmological Evolution'' is, but it actually predicts that time will begin moving backwards at the crunch?
Also, it is not clear that there will be a Big Crunch. The current epoch of expansion (which is observed by, for example, WMAP and SDSS) doesn't seem like it will be reversed, and it looks like we are headed for more of a Big Rip.
Either way, you should explain why the cosmological constant will go from positive to negative at some point in the arbitrary far future.
The reason for this is the small and positive cosmilogical constant.
One would have to wait on order of the age of the universe for this to happen. We can calculate it, if you like.
So far you haven't explained why any of this is plausible, other than to quote Hawking and this other Wolfe fellow.
Well, no. Closed time-like curves are the results of very specific geometries that come in special solutions to Einstein's equations. I will try to make this point very explicit. Suppose you have a universe, and in that universe there is a place where a closed time-like curve exists. One can travel along that curve and end up back in the same place and time that he started. So, a closed time-like curve pres-supposes some space-time.
But when it comes to our universe, we don't expect that there is such a concept of space-time at the big bang---that is, it is expected that GR breaks down there, so it doesn't make sense to talk about geometry there.
See the previous statement. A CTC presupposes a time direction, and at the instant of the big bang or the big crunch, there IS no time direction.
But you still haven't explained how the cosmological constant turns around, or even mentioned that it should...
No. There is no concept of time at the big bang and the big crunch, so there can be no idea of causality.
This is ok, but you are extrapolating this to the early universe. As I showed you earlier, at the big bang and big crunch, there is no concept of time, and so there can be no concept of causality.
I think I would have been fine with these essays if you hadn't have made connections between, say, matter and thought, or ``observer'' and intelligence. And, since your ideas seem to depend on these definitions in a critical way, they cannot be classed as science.
Yes... I agree... James did a good go. I made an even better go at answering him... But since you are ignorant of a lot of physics, i doubt this will have had much affect on you so far... But just to make my points further - i will oblige to your questions.
''I am not familiar with the ``psychological'' arrow of time, and have already made my objections about these points. Specificaly, you seem to define an ``observer'' in terms of humans. But this is clearly not the case, as there are still observations made in universes without any intelligence. Indeed, if this definition were true, then no animal on earth could see---the photon's wave-function cannot be collapsed by some animal which is not ahuman, by your definition. But clearly monkeys and dogs and snakes can see.''
Is really not the point. When i spoke about the collapse, i was talking about a human observer. My defining of this observer, couldn't be any more clear. You tend to nit-pick at these small variables, and not understand at all what i am saying.
You make no sense with your parallel universe interpretation. I am basically saying a photon that travels the galaxy, can travel in more than one path, and one of those paths are chosen upon measurement; why don't you understand this? Are you intentionally trying to come across as a bit thick?
As for the animal example, this was wel known by many psychophysicists. Indeed, to this day, they still agree there is something unique about a human observation giving a system great detail, to some mere observation made by a monkey or a dog.
''This is not correct because your definition of observer is not valid, as I have shown. ''
Actually, my definition is just and correct. I said a human observer. It needs not be any more complicated than i provided. You just shoved this work of mine here so you can try nd fuck my work up. I hope James has a bit more attention about him.
''Further, the Copenhagen Interpretation, as I understand it, doesn't say anything about time. The interpretations of quantum mechanics deal with the nature of the wave function and the nature of measurements. ''
The Copenhagen Interpretation states that the observer creates reality. This is true for measurements in space, therefore, must also hold true for time. We're not really going to have another sordid debate on the duality of spacetime are we? In short, without the observer, it states that matter does not exist, and niether does the physical and non-physical attributes of spacetime. This is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Deal with it.
''Finally, the fact that there is some notion of the arrow of time in no way implies that time is relative to the observer. Perhaps you are more inteligent than I am, but I cannot see the connection.''
I am not more intelligent than you. You are merely missing a few concepts at hand. Time is relative to the observer, because time would simply disappear without the observer - or at least - defined time as we know it.
As for the arrow of time, there is a macroscopic arrow of the psyche, we call the psychological arrow, which in very short terms means that the observer knows, or feels a directionality to the flow of existence... that is forward.
''On the face of it, I agree with these statements. It would be very strange indeed if the second law were reversed.''
My God. We agree on something then?
''You assume some coupling between ``knowledge'' and matter. Aside from not being testable, EVEN in principle, you have made absolutely no argument for this correlation, other than ``Believe me it is true''. I think I was more or less ok with your essay, untill I got here. This is what convinced me that this thread should be moved.''
Actually, this is nothing short of ''the information paradox'' of quantum mechanics. Do you know this>? If not, then i will very quickly demonstrate; knowledge of something needs to be consistent to that particular time in space. If time began to move backwards, then so would even our knowledge. If you removed my thread on this tiny thing, you should have asked first, instead of your natural, ''If i don't understand, it must be wrong,'' buzz... Disappointing.
''This is an interesting thought, except you have assumed that your brane obeys the second law of thermodynamics. What I mean by that is this---the second law is actually an aggregate statement. Let's assume that your brane works like a hard drive on a computer, by organizing spin states of magnets. Well, if the magnets are randomly ordered, then you ``learn'' something, you decrease the entropy of the system. But the act of ``learning'' takes energy to do.
What seems more likely to me, is that if the second law were different, one would actually ``remember'' the future. But I don't know. ''
Most of that are far assumptions. But can we be sure that the mind isn't adapted to this flow of time, because of the second law? If it isn't, then mind isn't bound by the matter, and a reverse in all the laws of physics wouldn't affect our percpetion of what I call ''linear knowledge,'' and therego, one would need to say that the mind is outside of all the known laws. Something seems very wrong with this; IF EVERYTHING was to begin moving backwards, then we must assume even information is also a thermodynamical law. In fact, thermodynamics doesn't only mean matter and energy, space or time, but also information.
''Again, the conclusions don't follow the assumptions. You have misunderstood the Copenhagen interpretaion, and drawn conclusions which don't logically follow''
And as i have shown, this is not necesserily true.
''I don't know what the ``Omega Theory of Cosmological Evolution'' is, but it actually predicts that time will begin moving backwards at the crunch?''
Yes.
''Also, it is not clear that there will be a Big Crunch. The current epoch of expansion (which is observed by, for example, WMAP and SDSS) doesn't seem like it will be reversed, and it looks like we are headed for more of a Big Rip.''
I know nothing is clear. Hence everything is theory Ben... You need to allow a bit of slack for any theory;because physics is mostly speculation.
''QUOTEbut this depends on a steady balance of matter against the ratio of spacetime…There are existing theories right now which currently goes against such a point, against such a symmetry in time, such as the known acceleration of the universe, which seems to be indicating that our universe is ‘’Open,’’ meaning it will continue forever to expand. If it does, this can lead to Armageddon visions such as a Big Freeze or even Big Rip.[/quote]
The reason for this is the small and positive cosmilogical constant.''
I know. Point? Or are you just being thorough?
''One would have to wait on order of the age of the universe for this to happen. We can calculate it, if you like.''
The only problem i would have in any estimated calculus, is that spacetime is dilluting matter to such an extent, that reasembling the matter to an infinite density seems almost impossible.
''So far you haven't explained why any of this is plausible, other than to quote Hawking and this other Wolfe fellow. ''
Well, I hope i have done this so far. Wolf is a brilliant phsyicist by the way. You should read some of his work when you get the chance. I dote on him. He is my idol.
''Well, no. Closed time-like curves are the results of very specific geometries that come in special solutions to Einstein's equations. I will try to make this point very explicit. Suppose you have a universe, and in that universe there is a place where a closed time-like curve exists. One can travel along that curve and end up back in the same place and time that he started. So, a closed time-like curve pres-supposes some space-time.
But when it comes to our universe, we don't expect that there is such a concept of space-time at the big bang---that is, it is expected that GR breaks down there, so it doesn't make sense to talk about geometry there.''
I sat here a while that day, conceptualizing how the end could simply be a curve in time, resulting in everything (Matter-Energy-Spacetime-Information) to revert back to the beginning. If this is true, then a curve in the end, means a curve into the beginning. I thought this was simple enough.
''See the previous statement. A CTC presupposes a time direction, and at the instant of the big bang or the big crunch, there IS no time direction.''
I have a problem with this, because the Cosmological Arrow of Time says that Big Bang proposes a time directionality.
''But you still haven't explained how the cosmological constant turns around, or even mentioned that it should...''
A genuine question eh? Well, i would say that a reverse in the time dimension or flow of time, would, just as you would find in a single quanta of energy, flip the expected variables, such as electric charge, as a quick demonstration.
The Cosmological Constant also flips upon a reverse in time. It must, for everything to revert back to whence it came.
''This is ok, but you are extrapolating this to the early universe. As I showed you earlier, at the big bang and big crunch, there is no concept of time, and so there can be no concept of causality.
I think I would have been fine with these essays if you hadn't have made connections between, say, matter and thought, or ``observer'' and intelligence. And, since your ideas seem to depend on these definitions in a critical way, they cannot be classed as science. ''
Well, i'm affraid that quantum mechanics needs an observer to answer for how everything is as how we define it. I asked Dr. Wolf a question a couple of weeks ago. I asked, ''Do we need an observer when we finally compilate a theory of everything?''
He anwered very simply, ''yes we do.''
I can qoute several physicists who knew the importance of the observer - in fact, they plainly say that the observer sees the only reality ever in existence. This means universes devoid of life capable of observing the universe, are not really real at all... very mixed states in fact.
Now... will you put my work back>? I would be very obliged if you would.
''' '''''Well, no. Closed time-like curves are the results of very specific geometries that come in special solutions to Einstein's equations. I will try to make this point very explicit. Suppose you have a universe, and in that universe there is a place where a closed time-like curve exists. One can travel along that curve and end up back in the same place and time that he started. So, a closed time-like curve pres-supposes some space-time.
But when it comes to our universe, we don't expect that there is such a concept of space-time at the big bang---that is, it is expected that GR breaks down there, so it doesn't make sense to talk about geometry there.''
I sat here a while that day, conceptualizing how the end could simply be a curve in time, resulting in everything (Matter-Energy-Spacetime-Information) to revert back to the beginning. If this is true, then a curve in the end, means a curve into the beginning. I thought this was simple enough. ''' '''
Also to note, that there is actually an infinite curvature at big bang - therego, there is an infinite geometry.
But when it comes to our universe, we don't expect that there is such a concept of space-time at the big bang---that is, it is expected that GR breaks down there, so it doesn't make sense to talk about geometry there.''
I sat here a while that day, conceptualizing how the end could simply be a curve in time, resulting in everything (Matter-Energy-Spacetime-Information) to revert back to the beginning. If this is true, then a curve in the end, means a curve into the beginning. I thought this was simple enough. ''' '''
Also to note, that there is actually an infinite curvature at big bang - therego, there is an infinite geometry.
Actually, you might want to consider my next work. There are existing provable experiments which shows that the observer is intrinsic to this world... creating it. Follow my next paper, and get off your high ego-horse.
Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment
Dr. Wolf reminds us in his book, ‘’Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,’’ that we are being told by top physicists that what we do now, is in fact shaping the early state of the universe! This is very counterintuitive, but it turns out to answer for quite a lot in physics.
The state of a system, unless collapsed into a value through decoherence, is found to be in a mixed state of probability. The best way to imagine this is by understanding that a photon doesn’t travel across the galaxy via one course or path. It actually travels through all of the potential paths, and out of which one upon measurement creates a defined history for that photon.
Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment was first proposed as a thought experiment by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978, and it was a variation of the famous Thomas Young’s Double Slit Experiment, in which the detector screen that ‘’picks up the presence of the photon can be removed at the very last moment according to the observer who measures the experiment.
It is a choice however that is made after the photon has passed the slit, and it could have traveled as a particle, or it could have traveled as a wave and we also find it could have traveled in many varied paths regardless of the instrument being used.
However, the instrument could be set up so that we couldn’t determine which path the photon had arrived, then the two paths are superpositioned together – and just as found in the Double Slit Experiment, the two waves are found to interfere with each other so that the final state is different to what would be expected without that slight change in the instrument being used.
In short, it is we who decide, by our choice of how the set-up is performed whether the photon traveled path A or path B or both A and B. It is the very last moment to decide whether to make that slight change that determines the past history of the quantum system… The experiment was verified in 1985 at College Park by three physicists by the names of Carroll Alley, William Wickes and Oleg Jakubowicz – and confirmed again later by Yoon-Ho Kim in 2000, using another advanced experiment called delayed-quantum eraser, verifying a delayed choice and proving backwards through time travel.
Somehow, we are making the universe more and more defined through the measurements we make today… It is sending signals back through time, creating a more defined reality for us – and for the times of the universe when there wasn’t an observer present… unless one resorts to some superintelligence.
Dr Hawking and Dr Wolf reminded us that in the beginning, the universe couldn’t have had a unique radius, or any unique configuration, because no one was there to give it these unique factors. Therefore, we have had to resort to the idea that perhaps somehow what we are doing now is shaping the early universe. This is very strange, because it suggests that the beginning of what we call ‘’big bang,’’ is somehow happening right now. Time is all laid out like a fine fabric, which allows the past and future to exist alongside the present time as their own present times. Because of this prediction, Dr Cramer allowed superluminal time waves to permeate every corner of spacetime, past, present and future.
The present time in the future, is sending waves back through time, creating things here and now… But what is creating these waves from the future?
Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, who passed away in 2001, believed that these waves where coming back through some superintelligence located in the future. I believe he attributed this to some high-powered, Godlike machine… He was a very vivid thinker this way. Much like what he predicted for what was happening in the future sending these waves back, one must assume that we are sending waves into the past…
Dr Cramer shows in his Transactional Interpretation, the present only affects the future in a statistical sense. It is really the future which shapes up everything we call ‘’tangible’’ and ‘’material’’ here in the present. This means that the past affects our present time in a statistical sense as well. But which future send these messages to us? Great developments in black hole theory now suggest something quite different to what Dr Wolf proclaimed in his book. He stated that these messages were being sent back through time from other universes.
In a recent proposal, Dr Hawking solved what was called, ‘’The Information Paradox’’ of quantum physics. It suggested that information cannot ever be destroyed or lost in a universe… But if things where able to move into black holes and into other universes, this would suggest that even information would be squeezed out of existence.
In order to solve this, Hawking now believes that information is in fact mangled and squeezed back into the same universe, instead of moving into any other. This means that information is never lost… and this brings a boundary on the Transactional Interpretation…
When Dr Cramer developed his theory, he never designed it for multiple universes. Instead, the future which sent back these messages was in fact the ‘’most probable future.’’ Information cannot spontaneously flow from one universe and into another with physics reshaping how we define as a ‘’self-contained’’ universe.
There is a double flow in time. This flow clashes during the present time, formulating everything we know: Perhaps even consciousness itself arises out of such a collapse in the wave function, as the growing enigmatic theory goes right now. As explained earlier, the original wave needs to square with its complex-conjugate; any waves that do not manage this, simply cancel out.
Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment
Dr. Wolf reminds us in his book, ‘’Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,’’ that we are being told by top physicists that what we do now, is in fact shaping the early state of the universe! This is very counterintuitive, but it turns out to answer for quite a lot in physics.
The state of a system, unless collapsed into a value through decoherence, is found to be in a mixed state of probability. The best way to imagine this is by understanding that a photon doesn’t travel across the galaxy via one course or path. It actually travels through all of the potential paths, and out of which one upon measurement creates a defined history for that photon.
Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment was first proposed as a thought experiment by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978, and it was a variation of the famous Thomas Young’s Double Slit Experiment, in which the detector screen that ‘’picks up the presence of the photon can be removed at the very last moment according to the observer who measures the experiment.
It is a choice however that is made after the photon has passed the slit, and it could have traveled as a particle, or it could have traveled as a wave and we also find it could have traveled in many varied paths regardless of the instrument being used.
However, the instrument could be set up so that we couldn’t determine which path the photon had arrived, then the two paths are superpositioned together – and just as found in the Double Slit Experiment, the two waves are found to interfere with each other so that the final state is different to what would be expected without that slight change in the instrument being used.
In short, it is we who decide, by our choice of how the set-up is performed whether the photon traveled path A or path B or both A and B. It is the very last moment to decide whether to make that slight change that determines the past history of the quantum system… The experiment was verified in 1985 at College Park by three physicists by the names of Carroll Alley, William Wickes and Oleg Jakubowicz – and confirmed again later by Yoon-Ho Kim in 2000, using another advanced experiment called delayed-quantum eraser, verifying a delayed choice and proving backwards through time travel.
Somehow, we are making the universe more and more defined through the measurements we make today… It is sending signals back through time, creating a more defined reality for us – and for the times of the universe when there wasn’t an observer present… unless one resorts to some superintelligence.
Dr Hawking and Dr Wolf reminded us that in the beginning, the universe couldn’t have had a unique radius, or any unique configuration, because no one was there to give it these unique factors. Therefore, we have had to resort to the idea that perhaps somehow what we are doing now is shaping the early universe. This is very strange, because it suggests that the beginning of what we call ‘’big bang,’’ is somehow happening right now. Time is all laid out like a fine fabric, which allows the past and future to exist alongside the present time as their own present times. Because of this prediction, Dr Cramer allowed superluminal time waves to permeate every corner of spacetime, past, present and future.
The present time in the future, is sending waves back through time, creating things here and now… But what is creating these waves from the future?
Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, who passed away in 2001, believed that these waves where coming back through some superintelligence located in the future. I believe he attributed this to some high-powered, Godlike machine… He was a very vivid thinker this way. Much like what he predicted for what was happening in the future sending these waves back, one must assume that we are sending waves into the past…
Dr Cramer shows in his Transactional Interpretation, the present only affects the future in a statistical sense. It is really the future which shapes up everything we call ‘’tangible’’ and ‘’material’’ here in the present. This means that the past affects our present time in a statistical sense as well. But which future send these messages to us? Great developments in black hole theory now suggest something quite different to what Dr Wolf proclaimed in his book. He stated that these messages were being sent back through time from other universes.
In a recent proposal, Dr Hawking solved what was called, ‘’The Information Paradox’’ of quantum physics. It suggested that information cannot ever be destroyed or lost in a universe… But if things where able to move into black holes and into other universes, this would suggest that even information would be squeezed out of existence.
In order to solve this, Hawking now believes that information is in fact mangled and squeezed back into the same universe, instead of moving into any other. This means that information is never lost… and this brings a boundary on the Transactional Interpretation…
When Dr Cramer developed his theory, he never designed it for multiple universes. Instead, the future which sent back these messages was in fact the ‘’most probable future.’’ Information cannot spontaneously flow from one universe and into another with physics reshaping how we define as a ‘’self-contained’’ universe.
There is a double flow in time. This flow clashes during the present time, formulating everything we know: Perhaps even consciousness itself arises out of such a collapse in the wave function, as the growing enigmatic theory goes right now. As explained earlier, the original wave needs to square with its complex-conjugate; any waves that do not manage this, simply cancel out.
Gently Passing
Registered Senior Member
Debunking the existence of a future time machine is simple: We've never seen one in the past.
Regardless of how you twist and bend and manipulate spacetime, the Universe of worldlines is going to reflect causality in the expected fashion, right?
So if I went back in time and loaded Booth's gun with blanks and Lincoln survived the attempted assassination, there would in fact be no assassination, and history would reflect this. People would say "what assassination?"