BenTheMan

someguy--- You have the same misconceptions as Farsight. The fact is that one can look at the Lorentz group (the SAME Lorentz group that predicts Lorentz Invariance) as [math]SO(3,1) \cong SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R[/math]. This is very beautiful, and is why we have left handed and right handed spinors. The idea of chirality is only around because time and space are more or less the exact same. Whether or not time travel is possible isn't an issue---if it is, it is. If it's not, then so be it. As I said in another thread, neither your ideas nor Farsight's ideas are enough to kill it. This was Einstein's greatest contribution to science---the idea that one should treat time and space on equal footing. Farsight has misunderstood this idea so severely that he claims Einstein was working on it in his dying years. No, if time is only a result of motion, as Farsight claims, then the Lorentz group is SO(3). Period. IF this is the case, then there is no chirality. Period. I know because I can do the calculations.

A few comments to others before Farsight. First to elas--- Yes and no. Many events are disregarded because of the sheer volume of data acquisition that is required. This is called ``triggering''. With the technological limits we have, it is literally impossible to observe every single piece of data that the LHC will give us. Thousands of scientists have worked for decades on this project, and there has been much discussion about the design of the triggers. While they are designed to (specifically) trigger on certain types of events, the collider signatures are general enough so that anything weird that happens will be quickly identified. So don'y worry your pretty little head about the LHC not finding your theory. If it's right, and has predictions for LHC physics, the very capable people in Geneva will find it. Kalynos--- This was my first objection to Farsight's ideas: And one that he is aparently still bitter about...four vectors are tied very closely to Lorentz invariance. If you can't write a four vector (as in Farsight's notion of time), you don't have Lorentz invariance. Plain and simple. One very important example. Farsight would be right if he were talking about quantum mechanics. That is, the time evolution of the Schroedinger equation is goverened by a unitary operator, [math]e^{i\mathcal{H}t}[/math], where [math]\mathcal{H}[/math] is the hamiltonian. So in a sense, Farsight is exactly right, if we were alive 100 years ago. But Einstein showed, in General Relativity, that time was actually a direction, which is WHY we have four vectors, and this is WHY we need the Dirac equation---the Schroedinger equation doesn't incorporate Lorentz invariance. Now to Farsight. Again I will use the Standard Model to show you that this is wrong. We know that there are chiral fermions in the standard model. Chirality is a special feature only in even numbers of dimensions. Specifically, one can only define left-handed and right-handed parity operators in even numbers of dimensions. I have linked to the wikipedia article if you should need to refresh yourself on these ideas (as I did): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28physics%29#Chiral_Theories Now, why do we know there are chiral fermions? The answer is weak interractions, which are naturally incorporated into the electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam won the Nobel prize in 1979), and was first written down by Fermi in the 1930's. Experimentally, we have observed that left-handed particles interract under the Weak force, but right handed particles do not. Thus, chirality is a natural feature for fermions in an even number of dimensions, but impossible to define in an odd number of dimensions. If you would like to see experimental data (read: actual experimental data), I can link it for you, but only if you promise to look at it.

Shit--- You are correct. Perhaps I should have done a google search myself

pioneer--- What you have described is more or less the twins paradox. Presumably NASA must accelerate the house to light speed? Time dialation only works at constant velocity. So as your friends accelerate, they age more quickly. They are as old as you are when they return to Earth. Do a google search if you don't believe me.

Probably because there is another frame which kills your argument Essentially what you are saying is correct, but only for an observer at infinity. For all other observers, the observer really does fall in. Not sure what this means. Logs never asymptote? Either way, this sounds like exactly what I said. Generally, what these GR thought experiments fail to mention is that the observers are point-like in these thought experiments. Having extended observers causes many problems. So, for example, a space-ship falling into a black hole causes the mass to increase, and the horizon to increase in area. This is why non-asymptotic observers actually see the ship fall in---the ship gets closer and closer to the horizon, then the horizon increases in size and swallows the ship. Again, my GR is not that strong, so don't take any of this at face value. But I am fairly certain (i.e. I discussed this with a bunch of people who knew more than I do) that observers that aren't at infinity definitely see the infalling observer fall in. This is also how Hawking has resolved the information paradox, at least in his mind.

What was this thread about, again? someguy---if you use phrases like ``I think'' or ``it should work like this'', without providing at least an idea how one would justify this mathematically, then you aren't doing science. I'm sorry. Math and science are inseparable, because math is the language in which we quantify observations. The act of describing the world through quantitative (read: NOT qualitative) observations is what science is. If we cannot quantify observations, then there can be no science, plain and simple. THEN you are doing philosophy. THEN your ideas should be ``speculation'' and not ``science''. iNow--- I am but a simple redneck of humble origins, trying to teach people that physics is more than crapping from their mouths about Einstein ``We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves. '' --Galileo.

I'm not sure norm---I think this is only for observers at infinity. Locally, the observers see a black hole form, and information IS lost.

Neither am I---but I am not willing to discard the possibility that it plays a significant role. Perhaps it was a bad example---it seems to have confused many people. The point is that, if we allow for the possibility that certain decisions in the brain are made based on quantum measurements, then it trivially follows that there is no ``fate'', and you could be faced with the same decision many times, and have a range of responses, based on the particular quantum measurement made. Sure, because the probability to do so is probably something like 1 over Avagadro's number, or something. Debating with me about physics is only pointless if you can't admit that you are wrong, or that you don't know as much as I do. When talking about physics with others, I can assure you, I am never hesitant to admit that I am wrong, or I don't know something, if I judge that person to know more than me. I respect anyone who is willing to listen to me, and disrespect anyone who tells me I am wrong only for the sake of it. If there are equations that I know, there is probably good reason for it. Why are you taking this personally? I am not talking about your mother---I just pointed out to you where your reasoning was wrong, and now I'm a bad guy? I can live with theat. If you don't want to be told you're wrong, then you should have posted your ideas in the ``Speculations'' category. I can infer from your posts that you don't know what you're talking about. And from your reaction that you are easily insulted. The correct statement is that the idea has not been proven OR disproven. This isn't like the justice system---false until proven true. Either it happens or it doesn't---I am in no position to say either way. I couldn't have said it better myslef. The difference is that your default position is an inherintly unscientific one. If you disallow for the possibility, then of COURSE it doesn't exist. ============= Dear someguy--- Please learn to use paragraphs. Thank you GOD I hope not. I disagree, but it is probably on a semantic level. I would categorize anything that involves an experiment, an empirical observation or a measurement to be science. Predictions are to be tested, always, both for mathematical consistency and experimental accuracy. Philosophers are free to wax poetic about things that can never be tested. For example, there was an article in the New York Times about a philospher who showed that we may be living in a giant computer simulation. Anyone who groups this into the category ``Science'' (as the wise people at the NYT did) don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. Now you're out of your league. The math of four dimensions PRECISELY tells you that one direction is time---this is why the Lorentz Group is SO(3,1).... hree space directions, one time direction. Absolutely not. Density has the wrong units to be a direction, first of all. There is no philosophy---only mathematical consistency, AND agreement with Nature. How many scientists do you know? There is a difference between ``theory'' and ``philosophy''. The difference is that theory hopes to someday be clever enough to find a way to be tested. Philosophy knows no such ambition. Sure the math is a description of nature, I never said otherwise. But it is a good description. And if you have two descriptions of nature, then they should be mathematically consistent with each other. This is the trouble with quantum gravity. Newton? No. Einstein? Yes. Not even Einstein could get away with theories which don't relate to the real world---this is why he was ignored once he got to Princeton. What I said was rather flippant, because I know that what you said was wrong. You don't really know what you're talking about. What is reality except an experiment? If I predict a pion decay, then go into the lab and measure it, isn't that reality?

The thing is, they read quotes by Galileo that invigorate them---the persecution vindicates them, in some sense: When they should be reading this one:

pioneer---your point is that black holes don't exist because they take an infinite amount of time to build. This is not the case. For example, This is flat out wrong. The infalling observer always reaches the singularity in a finite amount of time. A stationary external observer (at infinity) never sees the infalling observer reach even the horizon. But this is only true for an observer at infinity. Nearby, the outside observer watches the infalling observer fall into the hole, perhaps with some wierd effects. Meaningless. More meaningless crap. Missing the point completely. Like I said, pioneer. Information loss is EASY TO SHOW for a black hole. Your main argument, that black holes take an infinite amount of time to form so there are no black holes, is wrong.

To whom? I certainly hope that that isn't true---if so then I wouldn't respect Einstein anymore.

Is there anywhere where one can see where they sit on the grand scale of all scinece forums.net members, in terms of reputation?

Basically this is exactly what I said earlier. You leave one universe and go to another one. There's no guarantee (i.e. 0 probability) that you return to the same universe, or that anything in that universe is the same as when you left. This is exactly because the universe is governed by laws at the quantum level, which inherintly is random. Now, one could probably argue quite successfully that the universe you return to will be MOSTLY the same. Macroscopic systems don't seem to exhibit quantum behavior. But anything that depends on the result of a quantum measurement will definitely turn out differently.

Show me an experimental result which violates conservation of charge. Conservation of mass is not a symmetry of nature.

Sure, why not? Quantum Mechanics tells me as much. Most of the rest of the statements in your post aren't really based on any kind of science... Hmmm. So there's only one electron in the universe? That'd be cool... Calculations would be easier, at least:)

Alien---I have pointed this out in other places where I've come across Farsight. He even says some of the same things, i.e. ``The higgs boson is just a theory.'' I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice this.

I guess Farsight's definition of ``red herring'' must be ``it kills my theory completely''.

The higgs self coupling lambda is related to the vacuum expectation value of the higgs field, so I would say that there are REAL consequences. Ahh, but no. If you redefine the field, you still get the same vev.] The yukawa sector may make trouble for you, but I think, again, you'll get lambdas in all the right places to compensate. The thing is that you have to do it uniformly---if you rescale the interaction term, you have to rescale all of the other terms, too. My guess is that you'd get factors of lambda in all the right places (i.e. the propogator) to make up for the lambda you took away in the interraction. Finally, you want a perturbative series in the coupling, so you probably want lambda to be much less than 4 pi. Otherwise, the series doesn't converge. Again, I suspect that you'll get lambdas in all the right places so that everything works out to be the same. This is an EXCELLENT question for a midterm Ahh you mathematicians. Isn't this the easy way to do renormalization?

elas: You don't conserve charge in this reaction. My diagram is right. You predict five particles and three are observed. Because we have been doing the experiments on neutrons and protons for 70 years, I'd say this pretty well rules your theory out. Because math is the framework in which we describe nature. If nature cannot be described with math, then it cannot be understood. Period. Careful:) Some consider this flaming. Ok, what exerts the force? The point, which you have again missed, is that if there is no energy required to form particles, as you JUST said above, one expects the particles to be in equilibrium. Thus we should see that there are just as many photons as particles in the universe. This is simple physics really---I learned about equilibria in high school, and could have formed this argument then. What keeps particles from falling into equilibrium with photons? Awesome. Farsight, I can assure you, most vigrously, that I want my name to be NO PART of Relativity+. I have shown you where it was wrong. And I actually said that what you are saying resembles string theory, in that all particles are excitations of one fundamental entity. I promise to you Farsight---Relativity+ is (and never will be) part of the edifice which is string theory. Plus, GR has been shown to be a low energy limit of string theory. This is done in many textbooks on the subject, and is completely expected, because (after all) it IS a theory of gravity. In fact, if it DIDN'T give GR, we'd probably have tossed it out in the eighties. Likewise, Farsight, you will declare any criticism I give you irrational and unscientific, despite the experimental data to back it up. You still violate Lorentz Invariance, you still haven't explained pion decays, you still haven't explained neutrinos, you still haven't told me why photons should go into little mobius strips... You haven't answered any of these questions. At least he's appologizing you you swanson. Perhaps I can command the same respect one day:) Fat Chance.

This is simply not true. To make it more aparent that this isn't true, consider basing an event on the measurement of a spin of an electron. Suppose you have a cat. If you measure the electron to be spin up, the cat dies. If you measure the electron to be spin down, the cat lives. You preform the experiment, then go back in time and preform it again. Do you get the same result? No, absolutely not---quantum mechanics tells us as much. In fact, if you DID consistently get the same result, we'd have a HUGE problem with our current interpretations of quantum theory. And I feel that I should be sleeping with supermodels. FEELING something doesn't make it true. Just because you think that nature should behave in one manner does not mean that nature behaves as you wish it to. Why is this such a difficult concept?

And what does the little gold box mean that says ``BenTheMan will be famous soon enough''???

The experiment might be too hard. Or it might be impossible. Or it might only be possible if you fall into a black hole. I don't know. But I'm not willing to call it ``impossible'' based on superstision---I will wait untill it has been actually PROVED impossible, before dismissing the possibility. Which is akin to taking on faith (your words) the idea that time travel is impossible. I say Next, you say But here you say: This is exactly your argument. You want experimental proof, we have none, and so you dismiss it outright. Underlying this dismissal is the assumption that we are smart enough to have done the experiments. I am quite confused by this. I think we may have crossed lines somewhere. The past isn't really recorded anywhere, except in the boundary conditions of the future, I guess. Quantum measurements, however, will always turn out randomly. I suppose to make your statement precise, you'd have to really understand how quantum decisions are made in our brains. Here's an example. Suppose you have a choice between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream, two flavors which you like equally well. Suppose on Teusday you choose chocolate. Will you always choose chocolate? IF you travel back in time from Wednesday, and watch yourself choose, knowing equally well what you chose in YOUR past, will it still be chocolate? I have no idea---it all comes down to whatever quantum measurement you made on whatever neurons were working at that instant in your brain. Quantum mechanically we KNOW that 50% of the time you will choose chocolate and 50% you'll choose vanilla. But your future self may watch your past self make a different decision! And besides, what is so bad about determinism? Are you scared that there might not be free will? Is it bad if you choose chocolate every time? None of your arguments against time travel are mathematical---they are only hand wavy. So find a mathematical argument, and we can talk. Until then, I will point to Godel's solutions to Einstein's equation as proof that time travel is possible, at least in principle. Are you implying that math doesn't always give the same answer?

ummmm I thought that the first property of a group was associativity of the group operation, in this case multiplication? a.(b.c)=(a.b).c? Am I completely wrong? You'll forgive my maths, I hope. And perhaps the post was poorly thought out/worded, because negative integers weren't a group to begin with.

foodchain---a few things. First, point one is incoherent and confusing, and things go down from there. Second, you seem to be falling into the trap that many seem to fall into. We are in no position to impose our understanding on Nature. Nature acts in it's own way, and it is up to us to understand it. Just because something doesn't make sense to us is no reason to abandon that possibility. I am currently trying to make this point to a very stubborn individual. All we have is experiment---we build a model, and compare it to experiment. If that model is accurate, then we use it untill something better comes along. Enter GR. GR is a fantastic success. It has been tested and accepted, until something better comes along. Now, GR admits mathematically consistent solutions which allow time travel. We are in absolutely no position to disregard these solutions just because they don't make sense. If we can find some way to disregard these solutions based on some symmetry, or deeper principle, then so be it. But otherwise we are stuck with them, like it or not. This argument is ``It hasn't been done yet, so it MUST be impossible''. This reminds me of a quote I once heard... http://news.com.com/5208-1008-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=14985&messageID=125657&start=-161 In a sense, you are implying that the future knows about the past. Classically, one can know exact positions and momenta, and presumably understand the full past and future of the system. This works untill we include quantum effects, which destroy this knowledge. Further, for certain observers (say, one moving at the speed of light), there IS no past or future. I don't know what kind of math you are talking about, but it is always clear what ``math gives''. ???

Well, I started with 10. Now I have 63. I was working under the assumption that when someone gave you reputation, everyone gave an equal amount. So dividing up 53 reputation points can only be done two ways---1 point 53 times (unlikely) and 53 points 1 time (equally unlikely). But aparently it is weighted by reputation or total posts or something, so this makes everything clear.