My first uberpoll - Is there any such thing as alternate reality and or time travel? (1946 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 1.45 on 149 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Paul Hibbert (View user info) at 2005-06-21 06:55:47 EDT
Here's an interesting theory. Well at least it's always a good discussion when I'm in the pub.
Before I start I just want to say that someone if not lots of people are almost certainly going to say "You big fucking retard, everyone on the face of gods green earth has had this conversation, this is nothing new, blahdefucking blah" To wit I'd reply "how terribly rude of you, feel free to choke on my cock".
Ok here it is... The theory that there are infinite realities, in my opinion of course is bollocks, because if there are infinite realities then there is a reality identical to this one but somewhere in the Sahara desert where one sand particle is slightly displaced to the one in our reality. In another reality there is another sand particle that is slightly displaced to that reality ad-infinitum. That's what infinity is, silly.
Stay with me... So in another reality there is no such thing as mankind. In another reality there are too many people on the earth to fit and we all have to stand on each other's heads because we don't have the relevant limbs to kill each other, only to eat each other and reproduce, and so we all flop around like human maggots covering pretty much the whole of the earths surface. This is a pretty weird example and once you know what I'm talking about you can substitute your own far less silly example if you like...
Now, if there are infinite realities there is a reality somewhere where they have discovered a way to cross realities, this for me is the kicker. Now if they have done it once, they can do it twice. If it has happened in one reality and there are infinite realities then it has happened somewhere along the line again, and again, and again, and again until they start to pass the secret onto every reality they come across and eventually every reality visited has the whole population jumping from one reality to the next.
Now if this were to happen then wouldn't we see at least one person jump to this reality at some point? Nope. We wouldn't see anything at all because if there is an infinite amount of realities and only half of infinity had discovered the ability to leap realities that is still an infinite amount of realities jumping back and forth and we would all be crushed to death because the infinite amount of realities where human-maggot beings cover the entirety of the earth's surface would have come and landed on every reality across the spectrum.
The same theory works for time travel. If someone in the future invented time travel before the expiration of the human race then his going back in time would cause chain reactions affecting his own future simply by disturbing the ground he walked on. The first person to achieve it would destroy all of mankind the second he hit the button.
Why? Because as soon as he tried to return to his own time he would be in a different reality where that grain of sand he trod in his past had been displaced, now for the sake of argument I'll have to assume I'm right that if there are infinite numbers of realities the whole galaxy of every reality would get full up of maggot people/ much more sensible example and explode.
You might argue that maybe that will eventually happen, but if time space and reality is all infinite then there is a reality that discovered this ability an infinite amount of time ago and so the chain reaction would have reached us infinite times over. We would already all be dead.
I'm not a scientist so I apologise that I have sectioned this under 'science and environmental', I would like one of you wacky science guys to step in and give me a reason that would change my thinking- so feel free. All the discussions I've had in the pub regarding this come down to my understanding of the word infinity apparently.
Correct me if I'm wrong but infinity means never ending. If there is a never ending number of realities, a never ending amount of time, and a never ending amount of space- then the possibilities are literally never ending; and one of those never ending possibilities is that we're all currently squashed by fat maggot humans from outer space that were given the ability to jump realities by a technologically advanced version of ourselves.
Time to lay off the wacky baccy, or intriguing line of thinking? You tell me.
User Reviews
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-07-01 06:09:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-30 04:00:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey cock features, stop sulking about that damn budgie.
I promise I will never touch it again.
It's not as much fun when they're cold and all dead anyway.
Well, not the second time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ha ha no.
I am so hungover right now. Stupid work. I bet if I was home I wouldn't be hungover.
I won't be around much for a while because I'm in training for a new position and I'm smack bang in the middle of the no browsing zone. Just thought I'd check in and say "you cunt".
You cunt.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-30 04:00:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey cock features, stop sulking about that damn budgie.
I promise I will never touch it again.
It's not as much fun when they're cold and all dead anyway.
Well, not the second time.
Submitted by peckerhead (user info) at 2005-06-24 19:32:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I met up with an on-line friend and asked some questions on your behalf. Following are the questions and quoted answers. See what you think.
peckerhead (11:10:25 AM): 1. Are there an Infinite number of realities? (this could be answered Yes or No with a quick explanation)
peckerhead (11:10:57 AM): 1 b) Is there such a thing as (an) alternate reality?
peckerhead (11:11:47 AM): 2. Is time travel possible? (analogies and/or dumbed down answers are fine)
Answers from someone who has a doctorate (Ph.D) in physics:
1) (a & b) Possibly. There are several ways in which other "realities" could conceivably exist within the (known) laws of physics. The simplest being just another "earth" somewhere in our own physical space, probably extremely far away. This is almost necessitated if the universe is spatially infinite, since, in any given, finite volume of space there are only a finite number of ways or configurations in which the particles in it can exist (or not be present at all). So out there somewhere may be an infinite number of "earths".... some with only tiny differences from this one, some vastly different, some so different they wouldn't even qualify as another "earth" at all. Those are the most numerous.
Another way for there to be alternate realities is for there to exist other seperate space-time continuua.... these could have completely different sets of physical laws and be completely incomprehensible to us, they may be similar but with slightly different physical constants, or anywhere in between. In either case, they would probably be more likely to be absolutely unreachable from here the more different they are from our universe.
There was an article on this very subject in Sci Am a while back which I scanned and saved, I'll see if it's still posted in my briefcase.
2) There are no hard and fast physical laws forbidding time travel, unless you consider the logical "laws" of causality such. If time travel were achievable, there would have to exist some natural mechanism by which all those interesting paradoxes are prevented. If higher dimensions exist as many theorists suspect, and those additional dimensions were spatially extended to an extent comparable to the 4 dimensions we know (which they appear not to be), then time travel would be a "simple" matter of rotating yourself such that you point up into one of those dimensions (time) and moving up out of our 3-D space, moving laterally across the temporal dimension, then dropping back down into our 3-D space at another point in time. Sounds a lot easier than it actually is.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-24 13:01:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Draqus, you may or may not have noticed that I haven't directed any sensible comments at you in quite some time. This is because I don't take you seriously anymore. [mrwolf 2005-06-24 03:58:43]
--------------------------
Oh, the bittersweet irony in *that* comment, as well: I didn't realise you made sensible comments at all; nor did I realise this was comedy theatre, for that matter...
Submitted by UberWeiss (user info) at 2005-06-24 08:06:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's nice to open a topic to debate - regardless of having basis in fact or fiction or even mathematical backing, the point, I believe, is simply the opportunity to cogitate and share paths of reasoning, limited as we are by our own ignorance in such matters, it is, or can nevertheless be, fun. As can be fucking with the english language and grammar to overcomplicate simple statements :)
In that spirit, my own two cents. (+2 btw because you were brave enough to put something down full knowing the expansive cogitative power of some Uber-others who have read books about this stuff and have informed opinions that belong to other people ;)
Alternate realities.
I believe there's just one reality, but in an infinite universe certainly many things are not only possible but highly probable. I certainly believe there may be universes that closely resemble our own and even solar systems that could almost reflect mirror images, but I think it's vanity to assume that parallel dimensions reflect our own in warped ways and that a three-eyed UberWeiss is only a worm-hole away. Mainly I think this because science has rules, and as these theories are based in science I think it's not compliant with general scientific principles to assume these rules are suspended in other universes.
For example - there's nothing to say there might not be a 3-eyed UberWeiss out there - just like one person in one country can look identical to another completely different person on the other side of the planet from a different family tree...but thinking in terms of universes 99.9% identical to ours with one molecule different implies YOU actually exist in more than one place, which I disagree with. Like making a decision one way or antoher immediately spawns an alternate reality where in one you carry on with your decision and in another you made the other choice - for me, YOU are YOU, and YOU have one reality or one consciousness to perceive that reality.
Time travel.
This has always hurt my brain. Thought about this one a lot ever since I was a kid and, eventually, I have long since come to the conclusion that it is purely a fictional pipe-dream. Interesting to think through time paradoxes but ultimately a purely mental exercise.
For a start, the concept of Time, to me, is a man-made thing. To the universe, there's the present, and while the future can be "seen" by anyone who can affect their environment (i.e. I'm going to throw this laptop out the window therefore it will be broken), the past is simply our recollection of the present, and as such exists solely in our minds. How would it be possible to visit a place that exists only in the mind of the individual who experienced that moment?
I've also pondered the super-strong telescope theory - i.e. you travel faster than light a few hundred light years away, then set up a super powerful telescope and look back to see the light waves of the image of yourself leaving. Interesting theory but you still cannot get away from the 'present'. All you're really doing is 'seeing' the present which is a light-wave busy travelling somewhere from a point of origin - you'll never be able to interact or change that image because it's just an image and the point of origin is in the past - i.e. your mind.
It's not like there's a some great video recorder in the sky recording every aspect of every conscious AND unconscious moment in the entire multiverse for us to conveniently playback 'offline'...and where would you play it back anyway? The only possible way to perceive anything is in the present, where time flows, otherwise you'd only be a memory....this is where the brain starts hurting....
Plus, Time is not divisible. If you're walking along a line on the road, you can count your steps and thus divide your trip into segments, giving you the impression of time passing from one moment to the next, allowing you to measure it, but your walking and the line moving are not mutually exclusive, if that's the right term. They aren't interdependant. The line itself is unbroken, just a single continuous line that exists only in your perceptual consciousness, the present. It doesn't stretch out in front or behind you, although because of your supposed 'ability' to measure your movement along it you can imagine it so, it only exists as a referential concept in order for you to measure how long you've been walking along it. *more brain squeeze*
Well, I hope that makes SOME sort of sense - half the fun of thinking about something is trying to explain it :)
I hope this is the sort of thing you were looking for. Certainly stimulated my brain cells writing the response which is what *I* look for on Uber
UW
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 07:52:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 07:26:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
Rubbish.
Dervel.
Wondervel.
Weston Turville.
Makes no sense to me either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard
Pilchard
Felcher
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 07:26:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Rubbish.
Dervel.
Wondervel.
Weston Turville.
Makes no sense to me either.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 07:10:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 06:46:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
Pock.
Cocks.
Livestock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dervel.
Drivel.
Gravel.
Tractor fucker.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 06:46:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Pock.
Cocks.
Livestock.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 05:52:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 05:40:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Thou hast mail on yonder web-based provider eow fornicator of domestic animals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what that means, but I have the distinct urge to check my hotmail.... And also to fornicate an animal.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 05:40:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thou hast mail on yonder web-based provider eow fornicator of domestic animals.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 05:03:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 05:01:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
If I ever catch Dervel getting head from my tiny budgies beak I will stop laughing after a good few minutes and then kill hi... whoa shiny thing!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 04:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's a simple question and you should be in the position to verify it either way. Your profound lack of understanding permitting of course.
By the way, all the talk on the below link concerning the molestation of your budgie are scandelous lies. Except the bits I said, those are the results of unfair trickery.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/69142
Submitted by Squijee (user info) at 2005-06-24 04:40:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-21 07:07:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Dig this, man. I was watching Superman (the first movie with Chris Reeves) the other day and caught the ending. It has been about 15 years since I have seen this movie, and I was amazed at how idiotic the premise of the final scenes were. Apparently there was this ginormous earthquake, and lois lane died in it. So, superman flew around the earth really really quickly until the rotation was reversed. This reverse rotation cause all the events that had just occurred to reverse themselves. In effect, Superman rewound time. Then, after enough (anti?)time had passed, he restarted the earth's rotation back up. he then flew down to where lois was and tried to make out with her. For some reason, nothing that had occurred the first time around happened after he did this anti-time reverse rotation thing.
I see a few things wrong with this, from a scientific angle.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pathetic use of a slightly tangible segue into my horrible linkwhore of a post.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/55650
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 04:36:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-23 12:39:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
Get back on the MRR, god what does it take to get a post noticed? Whats all this about turning me into a whale anyway??? Did I miss something or have the amoeba's on Dervels fingers finally clubbed together enough brain cells to surpass Dervel and taken over?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-24 04:18:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So, you're definatly not a whale then?
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-24 03:58:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-23 15:09:13 (#)
Ranking: -1
Note: When this guy says "We....." he is referring to we - the physics community. [peckerhead 2005-06-23 12:33:16]
--------------
But of course, you won't listen to that, will you?
--------------
Do me a favour and chill the fuck out in future. [mrwolf 2005-06-23 10:47:04]
--------------
OH! The bittersweet irony of *that* comment.
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Not me; I get easily bored with hypocrites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draqus, you may or may not have noticed that I haven't directed any sensible comments at you in quite some time. This is because I don't take you seriously anymore. This doesn't make it polite to answer on behalf of other people. You are terribly rude.
To bring balance back to the universe I insist that you place your head firmly in the nearest baboon's rectum and apply gentle pressure until eventually the primate shits on your face. This is the only feasible way you could possibly bring any joy to another living creature.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-23 15:09:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Note: When this guy says "We....." he is referring to we - the physics community. [peckerhead 2005-06-23 12:33:16]
--------------
But of course, you won't listen to that, will you?
--------------
Do me a favour and chill the fuck out in future. [mrwolf 2005-06-23 10:47:04]
--------------
OH! The bittersweet irony of *that* comment.
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Not me; I get easily bored with hypocrites.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-06-23 12:44:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Experiencing different altered timelines would be dangerous for the fact that if that was real, you could potentially land yourself in an environment which will kill you instantly on your arrival. (Possibly, the earth was destroyed and you get place in the middle of the space where the earth used to be).
Now, for time travel... It is going to be possible to "time travel" into the future at some time... Weather it be some form of suspended animation or something similar to which no real time travel is felt by anyone except that individual who will simply wake up in the future. But as for going BACK in time, it is unlikely as mentioned often: where are our "visitors" from the future? If it did happen and someone alters the time line... I do believe it would not create some paradox that destroys the universe though... But damn that is some weird stuff just to think about. "How can one travel to the past if they do something in the past that would alter their existance in the future... My guess: It would create a different future from the point they jumped to and they would be the only ones to "survive" to know the difference. Much like Back To The Future II. Word.
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2005-06-23 12:36:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome
There is no 'jumping through realities' and there is no 'jumping through time'.
While I susbscribe to the inflationary (bubble) universe theory that states that there are multiple universes all with slightly different parameters - i.e. total mass, rate of expansion, maybe even speed of light - I realise that no physical material that exists in this dimension could survive the crossover.
-------------
I'm not sure exactly what kind of "thing" the force of gravity is, it must have some kind of substance if it exists, I have not idea. BUT-- One of the things interesting about M-theory is the idea that gravity is not bound to our own dimensional reality, but instead free to flow from one dimension to another. One of the problems physicists have is making the theory of general relativity (gravity) match up with the theory of quantum physics (sub-atomic particles). The mathematical equations just don't jive or make sense when trying to make them work together. The force of gravity appears to be so much weaker than the forces in quantum physics (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) that gravity can't be made to make sense at the quantum level, everything is haywire. Long story short, from my two hour experience with the nova program, the M theory is that our universe in contained on a membrane that everything is attached to except for gravity, which is free to flow from one membrane to another. This makes it possible for gravity to appear to be weaker. Interesting stuff anyway.
Submitted by peckerhead (user info) at 2005-06-23 12:33:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
mr wolf: You asked: "I'm still not sure my question has been answered- Are there an infinite number of realities?"
--------------------------------
I just contacted a friend with a physics degree (MA of Ph.D -- not sure) He was in a hurry but quickly gave me this response:
"We're not sure. It is possible -- and may be physically necessitated." Note: When this guy says "We....." he is referring to we - the physics community. He is going to get back to me later with a more detailed response.
In the meantime, please see my previous review below. I gave you a pretty good bibliography of books by Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene. All of these authors have the gift of dumbing down complex subjects by using analogies and common language. The answers to your questions are most definitely in these books. OR: Google the specific questions along with these authors. This should get you close to the answer(s) you are seeking.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-23 11:20:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
There you are Pock.
I was beginning to think you had actually been turned into a whale and dumped into the North Atlantic just off Norway.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-23 10:59:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm still not sure my question has been answered- Are there an infinite number of realities? Because if there are constraints on each reality such as "They are still governed by the same physical laws" Then doesn't that mean that to have an infinite number of them then they can't all be different because eventually you'll run out of possible positions of the grains of sand?
I gues the answer is simple- "Paul you're still too stupid to grasp this and you always will be". I just wish that someone could answer my question without throwing numbers and sums at me. I failed math, I was the artistic kid who knew how to spell the big words. At least I think they were saying artisitic, it could have been autistic... whichever.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-23 10:49:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-22 18:15:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you know what sucks dick around here?
The fact that mrwolf is not around to satiate us with his input.
Oh, and his she-father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll saturate you with my cock you dirty little cum drinker!
You're just jealous cause my dad can get pussy anytime he wants as oppose to you who simply is a pussy.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-23 10:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by akrofiild (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:48:30 (#)
Ranking: -1
Well I'm glad to see that the realm of physics is in the hands of storytellers. Good job fuck, enjoy writing in the most renound field of literature. You avoid a -2 for actually brining up a topic worth discussing, yet somehow all that came out, including the subsequent posts, is crap.
-Somewhere in there I stumbled on a guy asking whats the difference between 0.0000 ~ to infinity ~ 001 and plain 'ol 0 (zero). Take a math class:
lim 10^(-x) as x -> inf = 0.
No difference. PS smallest and largest numbers have to have practical aplication, which are usually found in number theory. e.g. the largest number is Grahm's number:
"The World Champion largest number, listed in the latest Guinness Book of Records, is an upper bound, derived by R. L. Graham, from a problem in a part of combinatorics called Ramsey theory.
Graham's number cannot be expressed using the conventional notation of powers, and powers of powers. If all the material in the universe were turned into pen and ink it would not be enough to write the number down. Consequently, this special notation, devised by Donald Knuth, is necessary.
3^3 means '3 cubed', as it often does in computer printouts.
3^^3 means 3^(3^3), or 3^27, which is already quite large: 3^27 = 7,625,597,484,987, but is still easily written, especially as a tower of 3 numbers: 333.
3^^^3 = 3^^(3^^3), however, is 3^^7,625,597,484,987 = 3^(7,625,597,484,987^7,625,597,484,987), which makes a tower of exponents 7,625,597,484,987 layers high.
3^^^^3 = 3^^^(3^^^3), of course. Even the tower of exponents is now unimaginably large in our usual notation, but Graham's number only starts here.
Consider the number 3^^^...^^^3 in which there are 3^^^^3 arrows. A largish number!
Next construct the number 3^^^...^^^3 where the number of arrows is the previous 3^^^...^^^3 number.
An incredible, ungraspable number! Yet we are only two steps away from the original ginormous 3^^^^3. Now continue this process, making the number of arrows in 3^^^...^^^3 equal to the number at the previous step, until you are 63 steps, yes, sixty-three, steps from 3^^^^3. That is Graham's number."
-There was also something about relativity giving us different realities. As if somehow the perspective of the different REFERENCE FRAMES cannot be achived through calculations.
-The universe is infinite, sort of. Think of reducing three dimensional space to a two dimensional space. Don't think flat plane, instead imagine that plane wrapped in the shape of a sphere (like a baloon). The ballon has a surface area, yet an ant can walk across the baloon forever. If you inflate the balloon (like the expansion of the universe) its surface area increases (A=4*(pi)*radius^2). This analogy may confuse some because they still have to imagine the ant and the ballon in a 3d space but take the ant to be a point on a plane (plane = surface of the ballon; planes in geometry have no thickness ie. they are 2D).
All right listen. My main problem is the lack of concrete thought behind good ideas. Physics doesn't just dream up theories like relativity; there are rigurous mathematical proofs behind the theories. Thought experiments can give you inspiration but that isn't a step in the right direction merely an orientation to it. The infinite universe concept is primarily a sci-fi concept. There are many multiverse theories whos discussion would escape us mere mortals. There's a lot of buzz around M-theory which predict 11 boring dimensions. Read up on that if you're brave. Somebody did mention Nova's series called Elegant Universe. Good series, I also recommend the book " The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene from which the series is based on. The author is in the TV series and his book was the finalist for the Pulitzer prize for nonfiction. Not too technical, very well written.
And don't say shit like "half of infinity"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear egg head. I wrote the post for fun. Your reply sucked all the fun right out of it. Congratulations on being the first person in the post to get all confrontational by showing off with your gay ass mathematical equations. My aim with the post was to raise theoretical and philosophical debate... The math and science was an accepted addition till you came along with your 'in your face' attitude.
Do me a favour and chill the fuck out in future. Minusing me because of a lack of scientific backup when that was clearly the whole point of the post makes my nuts numb. Please succeed in your mission to dissapear up your own arse
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-23 01:51:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
fuck
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-23 01:50:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I.can.type.in.italics.at.you.BWAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by peckerhead (user info) at 2005-06-23 01:31:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My hat is off to you for boldly going where few others here at ubersite have gone. I concur with akrofiild who suggests the book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene from which the series is based on. The author is in the TV series and his book was the finalist for the Pulitzer prize for nonfiction. Not too technical, very well written...
and I also recommend "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan / "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking and...
just about anything written by or quoted on Albert Einstein. The book that is right for you depends on previous reading or study, your aptitude and propensity towards high end physics and your general level of intelligence.
I realize that the above is a non-answer but it's late and I just found this post. I own and have read most of the material in the books mentioned above. I'll do some research and maybe come back with something tangible - if the post is still alive.
Very cool post!
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-22 18:15:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you know what sucks dick around here?
The fact that mrwolf is not around to satiate us with his input.
Oh, and his she-father.
Submitted by Chillax (user info) at 2005-06-22 17:55:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Maybe you can go back and *observe*, but you can't go back and *change*, because you already would have done so. Unless you do go back and change, and you already had done, because it happened in the past. But then you're just an actor on a script.
Submitted by Spuds002 (user info) at 2005-06-22 16:31:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
dude. i'm on the last book of hitchhikers guide (again) (mostly harmless)
This reminded me alot of that entire series
really fucked up.
i think it was the maggots.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-06-22 11:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think Time Travel is possible because it would be logically unstable. Listen: If you made a time machine to go back in time to, say, punch Andrew Lloyd Weber in the face, you would already not need to make a time-machine in the future because you already punched that douche in the face.
-------------
Hahaha. I fuckin' hate that guy.
Submitted by Dancingman (user info) at 2005-06-22 10:13:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think Time Travel is possible because it would be logically unstable. Listen: If you made a time machine to go back in time to, say, punch Andrew Lloyd Weber in the face, you would already not need to make a time-machine in the future because you already punched that douche in the face. In essence, by going back and doing what you intended to do because you built the time machine, you are thus nullifying your existence, as well as the time-machine's, because your reason for building it in the future are now void. Nil, is my final answer, Alex.
=============
This is the best understandable answer I've read, well about the whole time travel thing anyway.
Whenever they make a new movie involving time travel (NO WHY YOU FOOLS YOU KNOW YOUR GOING TO FUCK IT UP!!!) whoops sorry, it just slip's out.
Tell you what though thinking about it 'Bill and Ted' had it right all along (except for the whole living in peace thing at the end. Party on Dude, ok now I'm cracking up.)
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-22 05:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Argh. My only purpose was in trying to illustrate how fucked up the universe is. I was only quoting it, and I know that zakalwe is right. Quit bugging me!
Submitted by Davros (user info) at 2005-06-22 04:43:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice Hiwhore Pock.
I otherwise have no opinion.
-Dave
Submitted by dodahdave (user info) at 2005-06-22 02:57:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Zak's right, Draqus: spin (relating to sub-atomic particles) is a meaningless concept when applied to the macro world. I get why you're trying to explain the concept of spin 1/2, but protons, neutrons and electrons are not balls that rotate in space.
Were you leading to symmetry? Because THAT's an interesting topic!
Good effort, poster. Keep trying.
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-06-22 02:35:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 19:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by downerSTAIN (user info) at 2005-06-21 14:21:51 (#)
Ranking: 1
Maybe it's a simplistic view of things, but if there was time travel, wouldn't we already know? I mean, someone's bound to travel back to this time period (visit a dead relative, etc.), right?
-=--=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=
You have a good view of humanity if you think we can develop time-travel before we blow ourselves up.
Submitted by STIXS (user info) at 2005-06-21 18:05:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Alternate realities are a different story, though. They still boggle the shit out of me.
Yes, I said boggle.
Submitted by STIXS (user info) at 2005-06-21 18:04:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't think Time Travel is possible because it would be logically unstable. Listen: If you made a time machine to go back in time to, say, punch Andrew Lloyd Weber in the face, you would already not need to make a time-machine in the future because you already punched that douche in the face. In essence, by going back and doing what you intended to do because you built the time machine, you are thus nullifying your existence, as well as the time-machine's, because your reason for building it in the future are now void. Nil, is my final answer, Alex.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-06-21 17:23:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I just put that shit like this: "Can you go back in time and prevent your own birth?"
And everyone understands. No need for paragraphs.
Submitted by SkinnyKenny (user info) at 2005-06-21 16:53:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Now, if there are infinite realities there is a reality somewhere where they have discovered a way to cross realities, this for me is the kicker. Now if they have done it once, they can do it twice"
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ah, but what if the laws of physics (or meta-physics) in that reality only allowed you to "jump realities" once?
And you're right, this debate has kinda been beat to shit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-06-21 15:51:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
There is no 'jumping through realities' and there is no 'jumping through time'.
While I susbscribe to the inflationary (bubble) universe theory that states that there are multiple universes all with slightly different parameters - i.e. total mass, rate of expansion, maybe even speed of light - I realise that no physical material that exists in this dimension could survive the crossover.
Essentially, you'd have to go through a black hole. These are the portals to these other universes, the points where our universe and its laws spirals into a vortex of space/time, connecting with a neighboring universe.
Here is what the larger 'universe' looks like. http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/BubbleUniverse3.jpg
Yes there are other dimensions, but I don't see us getting there anytime soon. Nor would I want to I don't think.
I was looking up at the stars and the moon last night, and I got one of those moments of clarity where I realised that we're on a ball in the middle of a vast sea of nothingness, and it was beautiful.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-06-21 15:49:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Get me a delorean and bio garbage, I'll show you
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-06-21 15:27:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
According to theory, time travel back into the past is impossible.
I forget why, but I remember reading about it in that book I stated below.
Submitted by downerSTAIN (user info) at 2005-06-21 14:21:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Maybe it's a simplistic view of things, but if there was time travel, wouldn't we already know? I mean, someone's bound to travel back to this time period (visit a dead relative, etc.), right?
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-21 13:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Graham's number, named after Ronald Graham, is a very large number which is often described as the largest number that has ever been seriously used in a mathematical proof.
It is used in an application of the Ramsey Theory. Check up wikipedia or somesuch if you want to know more than that, cos I'm not bothering to go any further than that.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:51:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was wondering about that too. I spend more time on applied mathematics, but it still seems natural to me that there is no such thing as a "largest number". Graham's number may be the largest known number with a practical application (is it?), but it is certainly not the larget possible number. After all, I could just square it.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by akrofiild (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:48:30 (#)
Ranking: -1
Well I'm glad to see that the realm of physics is in the hands of storytellers. Good job fuck, enjoy writing in the most renound field of literature. You avoid a -2 for actually brining up a topic worth discussing, yet somehow all that came out, including the subsequent posts, is crap.
...
"The World Champion largest number, listed in the latest Guinness Book of Records, is an upper bound, derived by R. L. Graham, from a problem in a part of combinatorics called Ramsey theory.
Graham's number cannot be expressed using the conventional notation of powers, and powers of powers. If all the material in the universe were turned into pen and ink it would not be enough to write the number down. Consequently, this special notation, devised by Donald Knuth, is necessary.
3^3 means '3 cubed', as it often does in computer printouts.
3^^3 means 3^(3^3), or 3^27, which is already quite large: 3^27 = 7,625,597,484,987, but is still easily written, especially as a tower of 3 numbers: 333.
3^^^3 = 3^^(3^^3), however, is 3^^7,625,597,484,987 = 3^(7,625,597,484,987^7,625,597,484,987), which makes a tower of exponents 7,625,597,484,987 layers high.
3^^^^3 = 3^^^(3^^^3), of course. Even the tower of exponents is now unimaginably large in our usual notation, but Graham's number only starts here.
_____
who the fuck writes shit like this??
Just answer the question the poster asked, douche.
In the meantime, I'm imagining you sucking my cock in infinite dimensions...
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:40:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
question*
godamnit! how stupid does "wuestion" look.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:39:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The reference to spin wasn't intended to be releveant in and of itself to the wuestion posed in the post. It was merely intended to show how fucking weird science, in particular the far realms of physics, has become. I make no bones about being a layman.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:29:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
acrofiild: cut Pock some slack, the guy is trying.
I liked the Elegant Universe as a book, but the TV series was incredibly dumbed down. TV is a poor medium to communicate the ideas Greene is concerned with. Couldn't watch more than one episode.
and your concerns about different reference frames vs. different realities are true. you have to remember, non-scientists (no offense Williamson) don't even have the correct vocabulary or array of concepts to even begin understanding or expressing these things. the reader may think that an arrogant statement, but it is the truth.
and Draqus, your little quote about spin isn't really helpful. spin is a quantum "thing", and it is wrong to try and force some kind of everyday property like orientation onto it. spin is just a thing that cannot be explained to the layman. or indeed the physicist. it is invoked to explain some otherwise inexplicable behaviours of sub-atomic particles, and that's about it.
Submitted by paxlaurien (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:16:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think someone's just pissy 'cause the funding for their homemade garage/cellar 5GeV ginormo-collider was redirected to a project improving the odor of baltimore's inner harbour.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:03:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
one cannot travel backwards in time for if one does one will reach a point before one created one's method of travel, hence one would dissappear...
methinks.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-21 12:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"a) How can you prove time is not infinite? Who reached the end to prove it?... Furthermore are you Draqus' brother?- that's a very rigid view of science you have there." [mrwolf]
--------------
"So, this is all just a big exercise in wank, because your initial assumptions are weak." [zakalwe]
--------------------
Well, here I am, just for your pleasure, but unlike yourself, I'm not going to weigh in since physics is not my subject. I will say this, though:
Your's is a very rigid view of science, in that you refuse to listen to other opinions ("The larger scientific community can bite me... and as large as the number of scientists... might be my opinion will not be swayed" [mrwolf 2005-06-14 10:28:10]). So if other people want to do it, shut up or stop being a hypocrit.
That being said, zakalwe's comment is entirely true: you assume that moving from one reality to the other would be possible if there are infinite realities, for one. And you have a poor grasp of infinity, too.
I can't think in ten dimensions (for there are at least that many), conceptualise surreal numbers (the square root of -1, for example), or enivsage the string theory, and as a result, I don't claim to be a physicist. Nor are you, and it shows. If you want to bring it up, by all means; I'll not stop you, and I admire you for attempting to tackle the subject, but maybe this time you'll admit that your opinions may be wrong? Or is that too much to ask?
A final quote, from a scientific publication:
"You know that subatomic particles have an attribute called spin, that comes only in multiples of one half? And you know how an object in our visible world, it spins 360 degrees, and is back to its original position? Well, a particle with spin designated one half, like a proton or a neutron- it has to rotate through 720 degrees to get back to its original configuration."
The world is a wierd place, and the theories to describe it are fucked up. Don't show your continuing ignorance until you can conceptualise like the best physicists of our time.
Submitted by akrofiild (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:48:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Well I'm glad to see that the realm of physics is in the hands of storytellers. Good job fuck, enjoy writing in the most renound field of literature. You avoid a -2 for actually brining up a topic worth discussing, yet somehow all that came out, including the subsequent posts, is crap.
-Somewhere in there I stumbled on a guy asking whats the difference between 0.0000 ~ to infinity ~ 001 and plain 'ol 0 (zero). Take a math class:
lim 10^(-x) as x -> inf = 0.
No difference. PS smallest and largest numbers have to have practical aplication, which are usually found in number theory. e.g. the largest number is Grahm's number:
"The World Champion largest number, listed in the latest Guinness Book of Records, is an upper bound, derived by R. L. Graham, from a problem in a part of combinatorics called Ramsey theory.
Graham's number cannot be expressed using the conventional notation of powers, and powers of powers. If all the material in the universe were turned into pen and ink it would not be enough to write the number down. Consequently, this special notation, devised by Donald Knuth, is necessary.
3^3 means '3 cubed', as it often does in computer printouts.
3^^3 means 3^(3^3), or 3^27, which is already quite large: 3^27 = 7,625,597,484,987, but is still easily written, especially as a tower of 3 numbers: 333.
3^^^3 = 3^^(3^^3), however, is 3^^7,625,597,484,987 = 3^(7,625,597,484,987^7,625,597,484,987), which makes a tower of exponents 7,625,597,484,987 layers high.
3^^^^3 = 3^^^(3^^^3), of course. Even the tower of exponents is now unimaginably large in our usual notation, but Graham's number only starts here.
Consider the number 3^^^...^^^3 in which there are 3^^^^3 arrows. A largish number!
Next construct the number 3^^^...^^^3 where the number of arrows is the previous 3^^^...^^^3 number.
An incredible, ungraspable number! Yet we are only two steps away from the original ginormous 3^^^^3. Now continue this process, making the number of arrows in 3^^^...^^^3 equal to the number at the previous step, until you are 63 steps, yes, sixty-three, steps from 3^^^^3. That is Graham's number."
-There was also something about relativity giving us different realities. As if somehow the perspective of the different REFERENCE FRAMES cannot be achived through calculations.
-The universe is infinite, sort of. Think of reducing three dimensional space to a two dimensional space. Don't think flat plane, instead imagine that plane wrapped in the shape of a sphere (like a baloon). The ballon has a surface area, yet an ant can walk across the baloon forever. If you inflate the balloon (like the expansion of the universe) its surface area increases (A=4*(pi)*radius^2). This analogy may confuse some because they still have to imagine the ant and the ballon in a 3d space but take the ant to be a point on a plane (plane = surface of the ballon; planes in geometry have no thickness ie. they are 2D).
All right listen. My main problem is the lack of concrete thought behind good ideas. Physics doesn't just dream up theories like relativity; there are rigurous mathematical proofs behind the theories. Thought experiments can give you inspiration but that isn't a step in the right direction merely an orientation to it. The infinite universe concept is primarily a sci-fi concept. There are many multiverse theories whos discussion would escape us mere mortals. There's a lot of buzz around M-theory which predict 11 boring dimensions. Read up on that if you're brave. Somebody did mention Nova's series called Elegant Universe. Good series, I also recommend the book " The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" by Brian Greene from which the series is based on. The author is in the TV series and his book was the finalist for the Pulitzer prize for nonfiction. Not too technical, very well written.
And don't say shit like "half of infinity"
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:45:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Parallel Universe", Red Dwarf Series 1.
That's all you need to know about alternate realities...
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:36:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like nipples
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:36:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
to tell you the truth, we don't cover wild and wacky stuff like this in lectures. it's all "what is the E-field from a loop of current carrying wire?" and "what is the Lagrangian of a classical particle in a gravitational field?" and "how long can you remain alert in the world's most boring maths module?".
but from reading elsewhere and gaining a sense of scientific principles, you learn that stuff like this is just supposition and speculation. it cannot really be disproved or proved - and crucially, it just doesn't really matter if there are other realities out there because they don't appear to affect ours.
quick question: i don't like this use of the word "realities" - would the your argument be the same if "universes" was substituted, Pock? really, you should define what you mean by these things. lay down your argument step by step, and you will avoid a lot of unnecessary arguments.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:29:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not an unfair advantage, zakalwe. If you know better than us, then share the wealth! We're asking questions and coming to our own conclusions because we DON'T have the education that you're lucky enough to be enjoying(?).
How much of what has been said is bullshit, and how much is plausible?
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:23:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know, if anyone is curious on this subject, they should pick up "Time Travel In Einsteins Universe". It's a really interesting book and it's not that complicated, which, coming from me, means that you should understand it very easily.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:22:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and it's my degree subject, so that's kind of an unfair advantage.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:21:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah, I'm a genius.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:15:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a belly button
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:13:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm guessing you're far more learned than me in theoretical physics then, zakalwe?
I didn't think I was doing too well for only getting as far as GCSE Science (The one you do when you're 16, for all you Americans).
Submitted by sg11588 (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:13:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I made a post like this once. But it wasn't an Uberpoll.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/38379
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You speak of different realities where, for example, a grain of sand occupies a different spatial position from another reality. This, the differences between your posited realities are concerned with arbitrary things like position and history, NOT physical laws such as dynamics or electromagnetics.
This means that you cannot go on to say that in one reality it is possible to travel to others, because they all obey the same laws. Only the "initial conditions" differ. Of course, you say that the residents of this singular universe "discover" the ability, but you have to remember that in an infinite continuum of realities, there will be an infinite number of realities possessing any given quantity.
So, this is all just a big exercise in wank, because your initial assumptions are weak.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 11:00:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sommerfeld has been dead over 50 years, and did his major work 80 years ago. ie, predating all modern quantum theory. That doesn't mean he is wrong, just not very likely to be correct. And a single result which has never been reproduced is very weak evidence in favour of any theory.
Tachyons remain popular because they are interesting, not because they (are known to) exist.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:58:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:50:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
"it's not just a delayed image. It's the reality of the observer."
I'm now reading up on the violation of Causality by Tachyon particles, special relititivy, and the APPEARANCE of faster than light travel, aka Superluminal propagation.
I'm completely fascinated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever said the internet was for geeks eh?
Oh god what have we become...
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:54:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
zakalwe; Arnold Sommerfeld would disagree, as would Philip Crough and Roger Clay who observed cosmic particles supposedly exceeding c in 1973, although the results have not been reproduced since.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:50:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"it's not just a delayed image. It's the reality of the observer."
I'm now reading up on the violation of Causality by Tachyon particles, special relititivy, and the APPEARANCE of faster than light travel, aka Superluminal propagation.
I'm completely fascinated.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:50:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:46:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm picking thoughts out of the Sci Fi film K-PAX now, but the base concept of bodies already travelling at faster-than-light (Tachyon, they called it) speeds seems plausible. Any scientific basis in this?
====
no
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:48:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bigbabylons (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:27:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
Watch sliders on UK Gold/Bravo or some such channel, that has all the answers.
-Sorry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn't be sorry! You're absolutely right!
And Spam, I have now read and rated accordingly, and I shall continue to read and rate accoringly till everybody realises what a masterpiece it is.
Speaking of masturbate, where's that pesky Dervel fellow.
Submitted by bigbabylons (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:27:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Watch sliders on UK Gold/Bravo or some such channel, that has all the answers.
-Sorry
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:12:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:59:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:49:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
so what happened at the end of donnie darko then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ha ha ha... That almost makes up for that '0'... How about you go back in time and fix that, you great lummox.
Donnie Darko indeed.
--
hey, at least I rated your post.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:07:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OOPS...Twilight Zone....
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:06:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes, there is.
Every time you experience one of those "Deja Vu" moments...you know what I'm talking about...
That's what we weirdos from outer space call a "time bounce" - you may remember an old Twighlight Zone episode about them - and that proves that the moon is indeed made of cream cheese.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:01:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm going to bed. The speed at which i hit my pillow relative to you will create two seperate realities in which we will both live. In one I will have aged slower in your eyes, and in the other you would have aged slower in my eyes.
Goodnight! (and I suppose a dimensional farewell?)
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 10:00:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:59:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
Not sure if anyone mentioned this. I got a very interesting video series from netflix, The Elegant Universe. It was a Nova special about physics and string theory. For a total physics idiot, it was cool to have the ideas behind mathematical theories explained. It would take me too long to summarize well, but, for my lack of being able to think of another adjective at the moment, it was super interesting. I'd highly recommend it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it explain most of what's written in these here reviews? 'Cause if it does I could do with it.
Submitted by sheckynecky (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:59:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not sure if anyone mentioned this. I got a very interesting video series from netflix, The Elegant Universe. It was a Nova special about physics and string theory. For a total physics idiot, it was cool to have the ideas behind mathematical theories explained. It would take me too long to summarize well, but, for my lack of being able to think of another adjective at the moment, it was super interesting. I'd highly recommend it.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:59:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:49:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
so what happened at the end of donnie darko then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ha ha ha... That almost makes up for that '0'... How about you go back in time and fix that, you great lummox.
Donnie Darko indeed.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:59:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:46:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson's 2x0.75c theory: My initial outcome is that the observer on the ground will "see" 2 vehicles, while the 2 shipe pilots would see a delayed image of each others vessel due to the limitation of our event logging methods. Relying on methods to measure bodies already travelling faster than c would need to be employed.
~~
-==--=-=-==-=-=-=-
It's not a delayed image. I wish I could give proof to you but I'd need to copy and paste the theory of special relativity to prove it. The equation is not that difficult though i don't remember it, i need to look it up...
*googles*
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/specialrel.html
Here's some mathematical proof but the most practical thing I can say is "it's not just a delayed image. It's the reality of the observer. I can't remember the explanation I got when i did physics but Einstein says it's not an image and trust Einstein."
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:57:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
DON'T MAKE MY HEAD HURT AT 8AM DAMNIT!!!
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:49:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
so what happened at the end of donnie darko then?
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:46:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson's 2x0.75c theory: My initial outcome is that the observer on the ground will "see" 2 vehicles, while the 2 shipe pilots would see a delayed image of each others vessel due to the limitation of our event logging methods. Relying on methods to measure bodies already travelling faster than c would need to be employed.
I'm picking thoughts out of the Sci Fi film K-PAX now, but the base concept of bodies already travelling at faster-than-light (Tachyon, they called it) speeds seems plausible. Any scientific basis in this?
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:36:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:27:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
OK, I'm going to put in another two cents just for the hell of it.
We all know that without wormholes nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right?
Now imagine you sent one rocket ship north at 0.75xSpeed of light and another rocket ship south at the same speed.
If you stay on the launchpad you will see one ship going north at 0.75c and another going south at 0.75c
If you are on the northbound rocket however, to your eyes you are stsying still while the earth zooms past you at 0.75c and a rocket flies the other direction but NOT at 1.5c because anything above 1c is impossible. Basically you get the law of relativity and depending on where you are (northbound, southbound or launching pad) you will all see different realities where time has slowed down at different rates depending on who was watching. The three observers have created three seperate realities.
We all know that high speed ship that went around the world and came back with it's clock fast. If you were on that plane you would now be living in a reality where the clock in fact ran slow and the whole world would recognise it as such.
Relativity is the law that proves that the world exists differently depending on how you look at it. And every single particle in the universe has a different perspective.
Whether that's infinity???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That bit about the clock and the world recognising it as slow is fucking mind blowing. I can't believe I got an adult discussion on Uber, no one has argued semantics and gotten whiny at any point! Wonder if it'll last...
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:34:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ok I'm now out of my depth.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:32:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:22:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't believe it makes any difference to the theory I put foreward, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No that's right, like I said I agree with you.
I just like to occasionally let my mind drift into what these realities might be like if there are indeed infinite possibilities, the conclusions I've drawn from it might not be sensible and therefore dismissed because as someone pointed out before; these alternative realities are apparently considered by the scientific community to still follow natural constraints... My argument with that is that there can't be an infinite number of realities if they are all constrained in any way shape or form.
Of course thinking about it if there is an infinite ammount of realities then there is a reality somewhere with the technology to control all the realities and make sure they don't destroy one another. But then if that's the case and there are an infinite number then there is also an infinite number of realities that is out to destroy the various realities...
The mind boggles.
Submitted by Fabit (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:28:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The boffins down in the lab came up with this brilliant invention to sum all of this bollocks up. It's just a singular word,
are you ready?
'PARADOX'
That sums it all up
El Fabit O
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:28:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Incredible, a discussion about a complex problem dealing with perception and reality, and we've actually had a conclusion of some kind.
We rock.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:27:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
OK, I'm going to put in another two cents just for the hell of it.
We all know that without wormholes nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right?
Now imagine you sent one rocket ship north at 0.75xSpeed of light and another rocket ship south at the same speed.
If you stay on the launchpad you will see one ship going north at 0.75c and another going south at 0.75c
If you are on the northbound rocket however, to your eyes you are stsying still while the earth zooms past you at 0.75c and a rocket flies the other direction but NOT at 1.5c because anything above 1c is impossible. Basically you get the law of relativity and depending on where you are (northbound, southbound or launching pad) you will all see different realities where time has slowed down at different rates depending on who was watching. The three observers have created three seperate realities.
We all know that high speed ship that went around the world and came back with it's clock fast. If you were on that plane you would now be living in a reality where the clock in fact ran slow and the whole world would recognise it as such.
Relativity is the law that proves that the world exists differently depending on how you look at it. And every single particle in the universe has a different perspective.
Whether that's infinity???
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:22:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I see what you mean Paul; I suppose for the sake of the example, we can consider the amount of realities could be considered infinite, as it is mathematically impossible to calculate the total variation possible in one such reality.
I don't believe it makes any difference to the theory I put foreward, though. Extra-dimensional travel was kind of glossed-over in my little monologue. I've not considered it before, but I have considered time travel.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:16:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:09:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
Having said that time is not a travelable dimension, this brings me to the second point. Suppose that time was like length and width and height; suppose we were able to define a point in "the past" (memory) that we could travel too. This would bring about the end of free will, and ties in with Fate. At the specific point in the future that time travel is accomplished, all actions up to that point FROM THE TIME THAT WAS TRAVELLED TOO will have to be IDENTICAL to those that enabled the travel through time. The interaction of the time traveller in the past has already damaged the reality that enabled time travel, causing unimaginable damage to the future. If time travel does not exist in this new future, then the traveller who has travelled back will not exist, causing reality to reassert itself as it was without the time traveller going back in time, causing time travel to be invented, causing the travel back in time, causing the damage to the time line, causing time travel to not be invented, causing reality to to reassert itself...
---------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and gents - closed loop theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha... glad I posted this. I'll always have a reference point for all these theories when I'm talking shit and getting drunk.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:18:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know, thorpe... I'd have named it that, too.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with deathjester entirely. So you don't think that there can be an infinite number of realities because there can never be an inifinite number of possibilities- like you say "there are only so many particles of sand", however have you considered the ammount of different places the sand particles could have been re-arranged, the variations on the shape of each particle, the positioning of each particle. This doesn't just lend itself to sand of course. There is an impossible to imagine number of possibilities in any given reality,- I was just having fun pointing out one or two with the post... But they aren't infinite- Given an infinite ammount of time you would eventually run out of possibilities unless of course I am wrong with my understanding of the word infinite.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, time is the n+1th dimension, depending on how many have been defined by scientists now (I'm aware of 5D objects, but I can't grasp the concept behind them myself. I can just about manage 4D). It just makes more sense for the kids in Secondary school to keep thinking in LWH as the only 3 dimensions.
In my view, anyway.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:16:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:09:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
Having said that time is not a travelable dimension, this brings me to the second point. Suppose that time was like length and width and height; suppose we were able to define a point in "the past" (memory) that we could travel too. This would bring about the end of free will, and ties in with Fate. At the specific point in the future that time travel is accomplished, all actions up to that point FROM THE TIME THAT WAS TRAVELLED TOO will have to be IDENTICAL to those that enabled the travel through time. The interaction of the time traveller in the past has already damaged the reality that enabled time travel, causing unimaginable damage to the future. If time travel does not exist in this new future, then the traveller who has travelled back will not exist, causing reality to reassert itself as it was without the time traveller going back in time, causing time travel to be invented, causing the travel back in time, causing the damage to the time line, causing time travel to not be invented, causing reality to to reassert itself...
---------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and gents - closed loop theory.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:09:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I haven't read any reviews, so forgive me if I cover old ground.
"Ok here it is... The theory that there are infinite realities, in my opinion of course is bollocks, because if there are infinite realities then there is a reality identical to this one but somewhere in the Sahara desert where one sand particle is slightly displaced to the one in our reality. In another reality there is another sand particle that is slightly displaced to that reality ad-infinitum. That's what infinity is, silly."
Not true. As vast as the variations that this reality can take are, there can only be a finite quantity of variation. There are only so many grains of sand in the Sahara...
Time travel is completely impossible, and nobody, ever, will be able to do it for 2 not so simple reasons.
Time is not a dimension like Length, Width or Height in which to be travelled. Time is the 4th dimension that allows perception of the other 3. Without our ability to recognise the passage of time (that being the effect of memory: We remember the past, therefore we acknowledge the passage of time), we would not exist. Existence would be on a blink-of-an-eye scale, and completely ineffective.
Having said that time is not a travelable dimension, this brings me to the second point. Suppose that time was like length and width and height; suppose we were able to define a point in "the past" (memory) that we could travel too. This would bring about the end of free will, and ties in with Fate. At the specific point in the future that time travel is accomplished, all actions up to that point FROM THE TIME THAT WAS TRAVELLED TOO will have to be IDENTICAL to those that enabled the travel through time. The interaction of the time traveller in the past has already damaged the reality that enabled time travel, causing unimaginable damage to the future. If time travel does not exist in this new future, then the traveller who has travelled back will not exist, causing reality to reassert itself as it was without the time traveller going back in time, causing time travel to be invented, causing the travel back in time, causing the damage to the time line, causing time travel to not be invented, causing reality to to reassert itself...
Besides that, who the fuck wants to go back in time? Duels between knights and castles may sound cool in childrens books, but Syphilis, Typhoid fever, poor sanitation, the plague, torture, the Caste system... I got depressed just reading about it.
If we do manage to go back in time, don't expect to see a blonde, big breasted whench. Expect a delapadated and a burnt out husk. History wasn't like "Knights Tale" or "Gladiator".
Good post!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:04:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:56:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:46:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson - more than four dimensions is pretty much accepted. We're talking about alternate REALITIES here - each of which would have their own 10 (or 11) dimensions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think williamsons analogy works. Did scientists just make up these other realities to explain some theory with holes in it? ... My belief at the moment is still that there is no such thing as an alternative reality, probably only because I have such little understanding of science coupled with a dislike for scientist's "fact". They change there mind about stuff so often that I find it difficult to believe anything that can't be *proved*, and by proved I mean waved in front of my face.
-==--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yeah, to me it looked like they just said "oh fuck... what he shit is gravity??? Quick! Someone invent another dimension!"
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:04:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Righto then.
Now if my understanding of the alternate reality theory is correct (it isn't) then I think it states that a new reality is present for every single instance to occur, therefore all those realities where something bad happened and everybody is dead do exist and we just have the amazing good fortune to live in a reality where our shit is intact.
There is, however, the previous point about whether infinity intrinsically contains no limitations of any kind and is, as such, totally unpredictable and impossible to understand.
Luckily for us Williamson is here and he has a far superiour grasp of mathematics than me. Will, your thoughts please.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:02:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
lolz- rad has the answer.
I watched this thing once on Discovery or something. It proved with a lazer and some mirrors that time travel/ other dimensions existed. It was really cool. I didn't understand a bit of it. I think that's how they sell their theories. Jazz it up, make them feel inferior.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 09:02:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:46:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson - more than four dimensions is pretty much accepted. We're talking about alternate REALITIES here - each of which would have their own 10 (or 11) dimensions.
-==--==--=-=-==-=-=-=-
Ok, well there's a seperate "truth" for any two particals travelling at non-equal vectors. Such is the law of General Relativity. So my answer is find the most subatomical particle in existence. Find me the basic building block of the universe (whatever that may be if in fact it is a particle).
However many of them there are, there'll be that many dimensions because there will be that many "truths".
Of course, free will and consciousness would make it infinite if there is such a thing.
Unfortunately if a particle is smaller than a planck's length it can tunnel into other spatial dimensions and I don't know what relativity looks like there.
In the end: Fucked if I know but I reckon so.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:56:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:46:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson - more than four dimensions is pretty much accepted. We're talking about alternate REALITIES here - each of which would have their own 10 (or 11) dimensions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think williamsons analogy works. Did scientists just make up these other realities to explain some theory with holes in it? ... My belief at the moment is still that there is no such thing as an alternative reality, probably only because I have such little understanding of science coupled with a dislike for scientist's "fact". They change there mind about stuff so often that I find it difficult to believe anything that can't be *proved*, and by proved I mean waved in front of my face.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:52:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Granny Weatherwax and the exploding hat is so goddamn relevant to this, but I lack the memory and/or ability and/or book to explain it probably.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:48:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68241
Read and Learn
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:46:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:41:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
There can't be a constraint otherwise you are not talking about infinity... Am I right? This stuff really fries my brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What of the miiror example? There is the constraint of the image. That said metaphysics is not my strong suit, so I'll tell you what; we'll ignore all my previous analogies (analogies are dodgy anyway) and focus on the knub of the thing. Namely what is and is not conceivable and what happens when the concept of the infinite is thrown into the mix.
Essentially your statement is that if there are infinite variables then there are an infinite number of reasons why we should have had our shit ruined, if not by invaders from another dimension then by Micky J Fox driving an ill-planned automobile and boning his mum. From this you argue that as this has not happened, we can safely assume that such shenanigans are impossible.
Um... I'm a bit worried about whether or not I've misunderstood your entire point so could you tell me if I'm right or not? Otherwise I'll end up banging on about some nonsense, bore everyone for no good reason and make myself look like an ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're pretty much spot on. When you apply the word infinite to time space and reality then everything is surely gonna get fucked because there are infinite possibilities including *and not limited to* one man from 6 billion years ago in some other reality far more advanced than our own has created a way to cross realities sparking off a chain reaction through time ripping everything to bits.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:46:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Williamson - more than four dimensions is pretty much accepted. We're talking about alternate REALITIES here - each of which would have their own 10 (or 11) dimensions.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:44:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The concept of multiple dimensions is so popular because
1) We want it to be real for fantasy's sake
2) Mathematically, it works.
Let me give you an example:
Jump in the air. You will find that after a few brief seconds up you will begin coming down. This is as we all know gravity. But just try to explain gravity. There is no elastic lasso wrapped around our waist attached to the earth. There is no connection, be it macro or micro that connects one body of mass to another. There is NOTHING in between two pieces of mass and yet they are attracted, with no way of actually "knowing" of the other's existance.
For some reason without any connection two seperate entities find and unite. It makes no sense. These "actions at a distance" were conveniently called "forces" by scientists and there are four types (gravity, electro-magnetism, strong nuclear force (the bomb type) and weak nuclear force (the ration type)).
Equations for these forces are very complex and the theory to unite them all (the holy grail of physics, the grand unified theory) is what every physicist wants to find.
Now if you have an equation that says Peter has two apples, he gives one away and he has two apples left you will be very perplexed until you simply decide that some fella named Paul came along and gave Peter a new apple. This is what physicists are doing with the grand unified theory. They have equations that don't mathematically match up and the best way to fix it is to simply make up new dimensions (spatial and temporal) and universes. In essence we don't know if the extra universes and dimensions (like proposed in superstring) actually exist.
Did we simply make up Paul (the extra dimensions) as a cheap solution to Peter's apple problem (unified theory) or does Paul really exist?
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:41:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:25:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll do a post tomorrow explaining the closed loop theory if you want. My explanation was gratuitously fucked up. Infinitesimals can't really be helped by pictures though.
Then I reckon once we've resolved the nature of time itself through our intense discussion, we put the answer on the Uberboard. Anyone got a dollar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to it. Feel free to linkwhore here so I don't miss it.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:41:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
There can't be a constraint otherwise you are not talking about infinity... Am I right? This stuff really fries my brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What of the miiror example? There is the constraint of the image. That said metaphysics is not my strong suit, so I'll tell you what; we'll ignore all my previous analogies (analogies are dodgy anyway) and focus on the knub of the thing. Namely what is and is not conceivable and what happens when the concept of the infinite is thrown into the mix.
Essentially your statement is that if there are infinite variables then there are an infinite number of reasons why we should have had our shit ruined, if not by invaders from another dimension then by Micky J Fox driving an ill-planned automobile and boning his mum. From this you argue that as this has not happened, we can safely assume that such shenanigans are impossible.
Um... I'm a bit worried about whether or not I've misunderstood your entire point so could you tell me if I'm right or not? Otherwise I'll end up banging on about some nonsense, bore everyone for no good reason and make myself look like an ass.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:40:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:26:55 (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for doing drugs.
a) time is not infinite, at least in our known universe. that's a proven scientific fact.
b) space is not infinite, probably.
c) douglas adams said exactly what you said in about 1000 fewer words:
"In an infinite universe, EVERYTHING is probable. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) How can you prove time is not infinite? Who reached the end to prove it?... Furthermore are you Draqus' brother?- that's a very rigid view of science you have there.
b) That's not much of a discussion Tim.
c) That's not much of an exploration Tim
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-21 08:32:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
42
Submitted by thorpe (