Time Travel is Science Fiction

[paddoboy]

but still, this answer is merely a dodge to something that Farsight is more comfortable with, the textual analysis of a book he has access to. (Perhaps access to only this passage?)

This thread, and "Is time real" thread, has been full of artful dodges, irrelevant red herrings, and invalid analogies, to discredit or invalidate what GR says about time.

Second, it concedes the point. As the full passage points out, GR allows timelike curves. The events are always the same on these curves, yet, but they are part of the theory.

100% TRUE.

Farsight attempts to deceive us by not telling us Godel's conclusion. However, one can actually read the book, which Farsight seems to forget. Sure, it's a bad book and probably didn't sell very well, but that doesn;t mean it's not available.

Here is Godel's conclusion that Farsight wanted to hide: "that the possibility of closed, future directed,
timelike curves, i.e., time travel, proves that space-time is a space, not a time in the intuitive sense."

So Yourgrau's position is that Godel proved that GR allows "time travel". Yourgrau might be wrong in his understanding of "space" (throughout the book he seems to be equivocating between the space of mathematics and set theory and the space of place for physical objects).

Except that Godel showed that one could, as Yourgrau outlined in the book that Farsight cites over nad over again.

While Billy T has his problems in reasoning, he is nothing like you, Farsight. He sometimes attempts to present physics. Here you have lied and dodged any physics question put to you. I'm sure that you'll jut respond to that charge rather than to any of the textual analysis I did above.

Agreed in its entirety. Well put.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm no menace. But I am a threat to woo-peddlers like you, Quackhead. Because I'm no moron. And by the way, you still haven't addressed the OP. And we all know you won't, don't we?

You are a threat to no one. Except maybe yourself.
As I have told you and other alternative hypothesis pushers, since my day one on this forum, if you had anything of substance at all, you would not be here. But you are here, simply because these forums, are the only outlet you and your kind have to boost your own failing egos.
That is just as much a fact as the fact that time travel is not forbidden by GR and the laws of physics.

 

[Billy T]

... While Billy T has his problems in reasoning, ...

What might they be - give an example.
I have several times noted (now in more technical terms) the two disjoint sets are "not forbidden" and "is permitted"

Not Paddoboy's "not forbidden" and "is possible."
Also I mainly quote what others, like newton and more modern physicists have actually said, not tell in my own words what I understood them to be saying.

I hope to soon return by edit with an example or two.

 

[paddoboy]

Not Paddoboy's "not forbidden" and "is possible." Also I mainly quote what others, like newton and more modern physicists have actually said, not tell in my own words what I understood them to be saying.

I hope to soon return by edit with an example or two.

 

[Sylvester]

Hi paddoboy, i will try and get back to this. Just, i am short on time right now and have business to attend to.

 

[brucep]

With all the respect that is due to you (i.e. not much). You are fond of selective text-quoting. If you read these texts as carefully as you read my posts, it is small wonder you are confused.

Note bene I never once asserted that time travel was a realistic possibility, I merely pointed out some things that might be considered if it were. Likewise I indicated no particular preference for one interpretation of QM phenomena over another - I was simply pointing out that they are all weird according to the classical thinking that we grey-beards are more comfortable with Self-assessment is rarely reliable

Interpretations of QM are pedagogical interpretations of the same theoretical model quantum mechanics. For the most part they choose to describe the phenomena using stuff which would be easier for humans to understand. IE they're essentially teaching tools. What GR has to say about the two different possibilities. Traveling into the future of a different local proper frame such as the relativistic rocket traveling into the future of a local proper frame on earth. That prediction has been verified with the GPS experiment and other experiments before the GPS. The other being traveling into the future, or past, in your own local proper frame. For this to happen you have to violate the principle of causality which at the present relativistic physics would predict will not be violated. The short discussion with Prof Thorne, that Tashja linked, is a proposal [thought experiment] to use a wormhole to travel into the past of a different local proper frame at the black hole. For the most part I think the words 'forbid' and 'allow' are a poor choice when your talking about what predictions theoretical models make.
PS-a scourge of human interaction on the Internet is having cranks accuse you of saying something you never said. Generally the consequence of not understanding what you actually said married to some adversarial need to best you.

 

[Billy T]

As my post 1243 has already been quoted with new post of Kip Thorne's video I give one promised example here and a second in post 1248.

At first I {Kip Yhorne}thought the wormhole could survive. However Stephen Hawking gave strong arguments to the contrary, in his seminal 1991 research paper on chronology protection. The explosion is very likely to destroy the time machine when it is first activated, Hawking argued — and not just this time machine, but any time machine that even the most advanced civilisation might conceive and build. ... Hawking and I have a long history of bets with each other, about unsolved mysteries in physics. But we are not making a bet on this one, since for once we are on the same side. When we physicists have mastered the laws of quantum gravity (Hawking and I agree), we will very likely discover that chronology is protected: the explosion always does destroy any time machine, when it is first activated.

Note they are speaking of real time travel - a jump to another time - not just aging more slowly.
Illustration (of a huge explosion) at this link shows what a true time machine looks like when it is turned on, but I can't make it copy here.

Hawking and I have a long history of bets with each other, about unsolved mysteries in physics. But we are not making a bet on this one, since for once we are on the same side. When we physicists have mastered the laws of quantum gravity (Hawking and I agree), we will very likely discover that chronology is protected: the explosion always does destroy any time machine, when it is first activated.

In June 2000, on the occasion of my 60th birthday, Hawking presented me with a tentative analysis of the explosion's outcome, using his own tentative version of the laws of quantum gravity. His conclusion: if I try to use a very advanced civilisation's wormhole to travel backward in time, the quantum mechanical probability that I will succeed is one part in 10^60; see Hawking's article in my birthday party book, [6]. That's an awfully small probability of surviving the explosion.

I. e. According to Hawkins, Paddoboy's chance of being correct that a very advanced civilization can make a time machine is:
one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That is quite like zero.

Note I am QUOTING from the same link paddoboy gives in the next post,1248, and only tells you (his POV) of what Kim thorne said.

Also see in post 1248 the actual text from the kim thorne video stongly contrasts with paddoboy's version of it

 

[paddoboy]

Note they are speaking of real time travel - a jump to another time - not just aging more slowly.

No, they are just talking about the more common perception of time travel as allowed for by GR.
http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

 

[Billy T]

Un like paddoboy who only tells you his understanding, I actually quote.- Using the closed caption option in Kim Thorne' video, here, is what Kim actually said:
"...So if you have worm holes, there is a natural way to make a time machine, so this is wonderful ... (now at 2:42 in video) But when probing more deeply and talked with (@2:52) colleagues, I realized that when you are trying to turn a worm hole into a time machine this way (@3:04) that there is a universal mechanism that always creates a violent explosion (3:10) that very likely destroys the worm hole, right at the moment it begins to make time travel possible and so (3:19) time machines if you try to construct them apparently self destruct. We simply don't have the understanding of the laws of physics (3:26) to be able to speculate about that quantitatively. (3:33) We have to get a much deeper understanding of quantum gravity to get the answer whether that is possible.(3:41 – the end of the video – Kim Thorne's final answer to the question posed by the interviewer and the title of the video: “Is time travel possible”)

Can you, the reader, see the difference between what Kim Thorne actually said and paddoboy's interpretation of it?

Also Kip Thorne at http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed says:

“We physicists have identified two mechanisms that might protect chronology: (1) The exotic material that is required in the manufacture of any time machine might be forbidden to exist, by the laws of physics — forbidden to exist in the large amounts that time machines always require. (2) Time machines might always self-destruct, explosively, when one tries to activate them.”

 

[paddoboy]

Can you, the reader ,see the difference between what Kim Thorne actually said and paddoboy's interpretation of it?

Can anyone at all see any reference from Kip Thorne, or any of the other experts I have linked to, that says time travel is not allowed for by GR and the laws of physics and GR?"Or that it is impossible.

 

[krash661]

I. e. According to Hawkins, Paddoboy's chance of being correct that a very advanced civilization can make a time machine is:
one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

how would hawking know ?
is this implying hawking's primitive,human mind [ compared to the advanced species] is more advance than the advance ?
IMO, that's exactly what it says.
now days, anything hawkings said should go in one ear and out the other, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Billy T]

Can anyone at all see any reference from Kip Thorne, or any of the other experts I have linked to, that says time travel is not allowed for by GR and the laws of physics and GR?"Or that it is impossible.

Of course not - proof that something can not be done / is impossble can not be made.
Here from the "what is time" thread is where I explained that to your for the fourth time:

The mystery is why you continue to childishly request this?
Many times you have been told that outside of tautologies like mathematics, proof of non-existence is IMPOSSIBLE.
I.e. no one will show you, with proof, a realm where time does not exist. Without an irrefutable proof, you will just say: "You are wrong."
The best we can do is prove mathematically (see post 28 for one such proof)* that the concept of time is NOT REQUIRED to fully describe the entire universe.
Some of us then apply Newton's first rule of philosophical reasoning **(now call Ockham's rule) to say time does not exist.

* If you don't like my short proof, read Mach's made more than 100 years ago.

** In case you have not read what Newton said to do about time not being required, here it is:
The first of his "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" that starts "Book Three of the Principles of Mathematics." Is (in Andrew Motte's translation of the third edition, completed by Newton on 12 January 1726): "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances"

I. e. Newton suggest don't add in reference to: magic, God, or time, as they are NOT necessary to explain the "appearances" of "natural things." Newton does have /use a parameter "t" in his Principles of Mathematics but clearly and explicitely states it is not "sensible." ("observable" is the more modern way to say that.)

Newton's "t" is just and index, marking various stages of the observable changes. "n" (an integer) at regular distances along trajectories would serve just as well. Both need some arbitrary choice for the zero value. That "n" would be in 1 to 1 correspondence with his "t" when "in line of motion" accelerations are absent, as is the case for circular orbit planets, but not for space rockets. (Although most of the acceleration of planets is towards the sun, there is some along the trajectory of one in an elliptical orbit.) Newton ASSUMED that "t" changes by equal steps in his equations. If it were "n" that changed by equal steps, the equations would be different. For example, instead of "equal areas in equal "t" steps it would be "equal travel" in equal "n" steps, etc.

 

[paddoboy]

As my post 1243 has already been quoted with new post of Kip Thorne's video I give one promised example here and a second in post 1248.Note they are speaking of real time travel - a jump to another time - not just aging more slowly.
Illustration (of a huge explosion) at this link shows what a true time machine looks like when it is turned on, but I can't make it copy here.I. e. According to Hawkins, Paddoboy's chance of being correct that a very advanced civilization can make a time machine is:
one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That is quite like zero.

Note I am QUOTING from the same link paddoboy gives in the next post,1248, and only tells you (his POV) of what Kim thorne said.

Also see in post 1248 the actual text from the kim thorne video stongly contrasts with paddoboy's version of it

Hawking and Kip Thorne are speaking of one form of possible time travel. There are more than one, including a Kerr BH and ring singularity.
Do you know what the word "SUFFICIENTLY" means? Do you know what "could" means?
Think carefully on it, when I say, "any sufficiently" advanced civilistion "could" achieve it"
And the reason they "could" achieve it?
Simply because the laws of physics and GR do not forbid it, and those same GR equations do give possible solutions to the problem.

 

[Billy T]

...
now days, anything hawkings said should go in one ear and out the other, but that's just my opinion.

and in your case that passing from ear to ear is apparently completely unobstructed. As a physicist, Hawking is "second to none."

 

[Billy T]

... And the reason they "could" achieve it?
Simply because the laws of physics and GR do not forbid it, and those same GR equations do give possible solutions to the problem.

Many times in physics and math the equations have solution that are not realizable - That is why "imaginary numbers" were constructed. etc.

Again: the opposite, disjoint set to "not prohibited" is "is permitted" not your "is possible"

 

[krash661]

and in your case that passing from ear to ear is apparently completely unobstructed. As a physicist, Hawking is "second to none."

there's physicist that are far beyond hawking, they're just not publicly known.
anything public is second rate.

i also like how you diverted the first part of my post.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course not - proof that something can not be done / is impossble can not be made.

You avoid the fact that the equations of GR do give possible solutions.
You have avoided the fact that most cosmologists, [at least all those referenced here] have never said that time travel is impossible. Most admit it will be terribly difficult, if possible, but that the fact remains that if we were sufficiently advanced, then we could possibly achieve such a thing.
Probably the easiest way in my opinion, is when we are capable of relativistic speeds, or a perception of such by manipulating spacetime.
Carl Sagan said at....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html

"Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature."

In his discussion on time travel, the many problems are mentioned, along with the fact that time dilation is also a form of time travel, just as Thorne does, and Sean, and Michio and Smolin, as well as those professors that tashja has linked to

 

[paddoboy]

Again: the opposite, disjoint set to "not prohibited" is "is permitted" not your "is possible"

Nor IMPOSSIBLE

 

[QuarkHead]

Again: the opposite, disjoint set to "not prohibited" is "is permitted" not your "is possible"

Billy T, please don't use mathematical terms you do not understand.

Two sets are said to be "disjoint" if they have no common elements. The set of "all things prohibited" is disjoint from the set of "all things not prohibited", quite obviously. I cannot see that the set of "all things NOT prohibited" is in any way distinct from the set of "all things permitted". Therefore the latter pair cannot be disjoint

I would also say that the set of "all things permitted" is not disjoint from the set of "all things possible" - in fact I would say that the latter is an improper subset of the former id est some or all permitted things are possible

 

[brucep]

Interpretations of QM are pedagogical interpretations of the same theoretical model quantum mechanics. For the most part they choose to describe the phenomena using stuff which would be easier for humans to understand. IE they're essentially teaching tools. What GR has to say about the two different possibilities. Traveling into the future of a different local proper frame such as the relativistic rocket traveling into the future of a local proper frame on earth. That prediction has been verified with the GPS experiment and other experiments before the GPS. The other being traveling into the future, or past, in your own local proper frame. For this to happen you have to violate the principle of causality which at the present relativistic physics would predict will not be violated. The short discussion with Prof Thorne, that Tashja linked, is a proposal [thought experiment] to use a wormhole to travel into the past of a different local proper frame at the black hole. For the most part I think the words 'forbid' and 'allow' are a poor choice when your talking about what predictions theoretical models make.

As my post 1243 has already been quoted with new post of Kip Thorne's video I give one promised example here and a second in post 1248.Note they are speaking of real time travel - a jump to another time - not just aging more slowly.
Illustration (of a huge explosion) at this link shows what a true time machine looks like when it is turned on, but I can't make it copy here.I. e. According to Hawkins, Paddoboy's chance of being correct that a very advanced civilization can make a time machine is:
one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That is quite like zero.

Note I am QUOTING from the same link paddoboy gives in the next post,1248, and only tells you (his POV) of what Kim thorne said.

Also see in post 1248 the actual text from the kim thorne video stongly contrasts with paddoboy's version of it

The subject is whether GR predicts it's theoretically possible. Not whether it's technologically attainable. GR predicts the wormhole thought experiment IS theoretically possible. I don't think you understand what constitutes a local proper frame. You're living in one right now. Your wristwatch time is invariant [frame independent]. The local proper time is an invariant. For the relativistic rocket example and Professor Thornes wormhole the tick ratio between two different local proper frames are being compared. The tick rate [dTau] for the rockets local proper frame over its path to Andromeda compared to the tick rate of the local proper frame on eart. For the wormhole it's the tick rate for the local proper frame at the mouth of the wormhole compared to the tick rate of the local proper frame where the wormhole terminates. One you'd be traveling into the future earth local proper frame and the other the past. The GPS satellites clock tick rate is > the earth based clock tick rate. In essence that is a micro analysis that correlates with the wormhole result. While the folks on the ISS are time traveling into the earths future. So just what do you mean when you say something like 'jump to another time'? Think about what I just told you and explain why that isn't jumping to another time. Neither one of you guys know what your arguing about. The examples I listed are Iime traveling into the future or past of a different local proper frame from the one you're living in. The OTHER example your referring to is time traveling in your own local proper frame. The one that is abused in the movies and science fiction stories written by folks who are as clueless as you on this theoretical physics. Time traveling into a different local proper frame has been empirically confirmed. The one where the principle of causality is violated hasn't been confirmed in reality or thought experiment.