Are Time Travel Paradoxes Really Paradoxes?

[ordinary_guy]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is farfetched but guess what, it's the leading theory for one reason, or i should say because of one man- Richard Feynman.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Feynman was a smart, smart guy...<br />But that doesn't mean he was right.<br /><br />At a certain point, though, theory borders on philosophy and the math becomes a tool in a circular argument.<br /><br />Considering that we still aren't that much closer to reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity, I'm keeping my approach open.<br /><br />Isn't that what Einstein would do? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[craig42]

re: thought one<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> An infinite number of universes require an infinite amount of energy <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> don’t forget that there will be <i> some</i> universes being destroyed. (That'd at least balance the equation a little) Besides where did the energy to create this universe come from?<br /><br />re: thought three<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The first time Hank went back in time, it essentially created energy that was not present in the universe when he arrived. Assuming a closed system (the Big Bang), no new energy would've been introduced in the universe since it's creation<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> What makes you think there will be new energy? If an amount of energy equal to that of Hank enters 'Hank's' universe then both will have exchanged/converted energy and thus still have the same amount as before.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Even if Hank shunned King Arthur and hid in a cave, complexity theory (the Butterfly effect) would eventually effect the future<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> You wouldn't 'actually' be changing the future but rather moving from one universe ('Hank's Home') to another parallel universe (relative to Hank) where Hank's actions had already shaped the future(even before he had left home) You might not be able to change the future 'per se' but you can view any future that could result from any possible action by you(which for all intents and purposes are the same)<br /><br />Of course this does require you to reject free will<br />

 

[nova_explored]

no, i agree totally. but there is more to it than just what i posted. there are other phoenamena that occur like wave/particle duality that suggest something bigger than our universe is at work. Twin particles that share the passage of information and the change of both particles instantaneously, even thought they are seperated by great distances (light years). The quantum flux of particles at the event horizon that phase in and out of our space-time continuum, absorbing energy and transferring, disappearing and reappearing. Of course with all of these, yes, further study could reveal something much more arcane and practical in their operations. usually that would be the case. but sometimes the simplest explanation is the most extradordinary and out of this world (no pun intended). <br /><br />a multiple universe doesn't mean we are all living alternate lives somewhere, but these particles have some place in which they go to transfer energy. The fabric of space-time more than likely is built on this multiple universe to allow such operations in our physical one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

I think it is pretty simple if you mentally take yourself out of real time and view the universe in imaginary time. From that lofty perspective we can see that there are a consistent set of histories between the original states and final states in the universe. As we go about our day-to-day what we perceive as free will is merely those paths in the inifinite continuum that are not part of history being interfered out of existence. The paths we do take are consistent with history and in bulk consideration, consistent with the probabilistic nature of the entropy field in which we are emersed. What we perceive as progress is anti-entropy and is driven by the need to make rational history for the final states. If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, you will be a path interfered out of history going forward. It will be improbable that your old dead grandad would have a kid, and thus you won't be born to go back and kill him. So in effect there is no net change in your universe because you have just intellectually explored one of infinite improbable paths that get interfered out of existence. However, the technology you develop to go back in time will be part of future history.<br /><br />Now where things get interesting is when you decide to take back in time the plans to the next generation time machine. That is how the universe finally ends since the entropy field becomes compressed. You great grandad will find women other than your ole granny less attractive than granny. This goes on and on back to the pond scum. Of course your newly technologically endowed self will then go back with your new next generation time machine and things will get even more constrained.<br /><br />Where does it end? Where it ends is that the universe simply transitions from its original states to its final states. No need for all that long and weird history to explain how it got there, it just goes.<br /><br />That is quantum reality. The inventions we enjoy are presents

 

[hracctsold]

Rogers,<br /><br />Who was Feynman?

 

[nova_explored]

Richard Feynman was a theoritical physicist who used to do his work in strip clubs <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />oh, and 1965 nobel prize laureate for his work on QED (quantum electrodynamics) - physics of elementary particles. He is considered one of the founders of quantum mechanics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

and he worked on the manhattan project. and solved the problem of the o-ring for the challenger accident. he's got a long list of contributions to science. and is generally known as a great teacher of the subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

Thanks, for the insight of both of those posts. And speaking of strip clubs and these theories, that would'nt be where the terms "string theory" comes from would it, (G string that is), HA, HA, HA.!!!

 

[hracctsold]

Rubes version of "String Theory".<br />http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20060218/cx_crrub_uc/crrub20060218<br />

 

[nova_explored]

good one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Physics has moved on, string theory was a "no-braner". I suspect the M in M-theory stands for "Emanuel Emm".<br /><br />

 

[doc_harra]

we have limitations on getting to places firstly bound by our only so capable physical bodies that we drag about everywhere our perspective of time goes (our minds !) And to an extent, Also being trapped inside this perspective, Only being able to move, By divergently obeying the parameters defined or perish in the process if carelessly undertaken, Due to these hard set, And up until now unbreakable parameters and still perhaps many to be broken, And Only having a limited shelf life, But if we were not so bound like living in a robot, Or being in a simulation where the percentage of time comprehension is slowed down so as to use it at a a different rate, Or even-like at 7% your mind will be in cave man sim to build up core memory, And then into later stages of the simulation development depending on rate of comprehension, Maybe after cave man you go to modern day, Or like i say depending on whatever learnt so some may have gone to 10 Bc or 1880 Ad as that time frame may be more relevant, Also Bug simulation for those slow coaches, Or did they pass us already ? But we are just to dum to to notice or get there yet !( Don't get mad I'm on a roll) And maybe the bugs be waiting > NOT , So the next 30-45% some kind of grater intellect perhaps, Pah we only use 10% of our mind, Now look out side the box at the % that has not even been developed let alone in operation, and some of what is there, may still only mapping very basic core for god mode, In god mode we get the big guns and time may be less relevant or perhaps the clocks still tick-en, Just a god clock way much more something than ours.<br /> <br />P.s<br /> In God mode one will be so evolved that every limb on your body now would be more comparable to a basic tree root than an advanced limb-on God, Or like said before it may be the other way round tree mode maybe time to ponder all learnt before god mode so it is more like a human advance limb? <br /><br />In god mode its the real deal and you got to negotiate with

 

[tomnackid]

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory is also flawed because it completely ignores probability. If you play poker you expect getting dealt 4 of a kind only very rarely. Every time you play poker the chances of being dealt 4 of a kind is very remote. Its the same for everything that has a low probability--the lower the probability (determined mathematically) the less chance of seeing it happen. And thats how it works out in reality. But in the many worlds interpretation every possibility (down to different quantum states) has to exist somewhere. Why then do we just happen to live in the universe where things seem to happen according to their mathematical probabilities? There would be a universe out there where I would be dealt 4 of a kind in every hand of poker I will ever play. If you accept the many worlds interpretation then you have to accept that this is inevitable, even though mathematical odds of being dealt 4 of a kind is still the same (very remote) in this alternate universe. It strains credibility to think that we just "happen" to live in the one universe where everything from radioactive decay to card games follow the laws of probability exactly as we expect.

 

[nova_explored]

hey tomnackid, check out wikipedia on the 'many worlds' theory and probability. I love this sight, and seem to be promoting it everywhere unintentionally in my posts...hmm.<br />but its simple, coherent and full of great links to step up from.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_Worlds_Theory <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ag30476]

Of course there's the <i>other</i> interpretation <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics<br /><br />(Actually there's more than one).<br /><br />One interesting point is that we can only verify scientifically (through experiment) the abstract (the mathematical theory) but not reality (the interpretation).

 

[nova_explored]

yeah. many world's theory through wikipedia actually links to all those concepts included in QM, the one you posted as well.<br /><br />stupid schroedinger's cat. just kidding.<br /><br />with all this stuff going on, its hard to think we'll ever really know. i'm sure we will, but probably not in our lifetime. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />but who knows. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>