time travel and wormholes

[BenTheMan]

I'll save Farsight the trouble:

 

so are your interpretations of the "hypothesis" inaccurate as well?

 

No.

 

can you put some evidence that support your "theory"?

 

No.

[insane_alien]

well, it seems that in very short order BenTheMan has sussed(for our USAian readers: figured out) farsight quite accurately.

[Xerxes]

you have to think of electrodynamics in terms of

elastodynamics.

Somebody help me here; is "elastodynamics" an accepted term? Although I'm no physicist, I've never heard it

OK, the real world is three-dimensional, I can't show you that.

Of course you can't, as it is manifestly false; the "real world", as you choose to call it, is most definitely 4-dimensional. Specifically, it is a 4-manifold.

I've got essays on this entitled BLACK HOLES EXPLAINED and SPACE EXPLAINED, so I could back this up. But these essays contain some knockout stuff so I'm sitting on them for now.

Well, first, it's probably NOT knockout stuff, at least judging by your posts at http:http:////www.thescienceforum.com/index.php?sid=d9779770e7fc8a45f5b273aaebed7cfb. And second, you are an arrogantly tedious moron on any forum you choose to infect, who should learn to back his claims with something other than wishful thinking.

[fattyjwoods]

Somebody help me here; is "elastodynamics" an accepted term? Although I'm no physicist, I've never heard it Of course you can't, as it is manifestly false; the "real world", as you choose to call it, is most definitely 4-dimensional. Specifically, it is a 4-manifold.

Well, first, it's probably NOT knockout stuff, at least judging by your posts at http:http:////www.thescienceforum.com/index.php?sid=d9779770e7fc8a45f5b273aaebed7cfb. And second, you are an arrogantly tedious moron on any forum you choose to infect, who should learn to back his claims with something other than wishful thinking.

 

 

it really isnt anything much except there is stuff on Google about it

 

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=elastodynamics&meta=

 

to BENTHEMAN

so what farsight is saying is rubbish?

[BenTheMan]

well, it seems that in very short order BenTheMan has sussed(for our USAian readers: figured out) farsight quite accurately.

 

Yeah I met him on another forum, polluting the internet and purporting to ``explain'' things he didn't even understand himself.

 

to BENTHEMAN

so what farsight is saying is rubbish?

 

100% bullshit (or ``bollocks'' for the EUers). You have to make up your own mind about these things, of course. The trouble is, Farsight has presented himself as an expert, which is what pisses me off...he spouts off a bunch of bad science, and people who don't know any better take him seriously. It's like getting medical advice from a bar tender.

 

Time travel is technically possible, as there are solutions to Einstein's equations which allow it (a fact pointed out by Goedel, and which Einstein was loathe to admit). There are also wormhole solutions to Einstein's equaitons, a fact which no learned physicist will dispute. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, however, I think that (quite generally) wormholes are hidden by horizons (I haven't done the calculation myself, so don't trust me). This means that you could fall into a wormhole, but never get out again. So what happens after you cross the horizon is between you and Allah

 

Warning: This is long and detailed. I hope that someone will read it so that I haven't spent this hour in vain

 

Let me dispute a few of Farsight's claims:

 

Instead time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. This means that right now, anything that has ever fallen into a black hole has not reached the centre, and never ever will. Look up the "Weinberg Interpretation" and "frozen stars".

 

I think I stated earlier that this is not true in general. It is only true for an observer infinitely far away. This means that I can watch a star collapse, and I can watch a black hole form, as long as I am not watching it happen from infinitely far away.

 

True, but note that gravity can't get any "stronger" than it gets at the event horizon.

 

This is just wrong, and I can show you why with equations (in stead of waving hands, as Farsight does). All you have to do is imagine a black hole that is massive enough. For a sufficiently large black hole, the gravitational pull at the event horizon could be even less than the gravitational pull that you are experiencing sitting in your chair right now. I can show you equations, if you REALLY want to see them, or I could walk you through the calculation so YOU could calculate it.

 

This next one is in response to the idea that space and time are inseparable (post #10):

 

You have no actual evidence for this interpretation. I've thought a great deal about this, and am no totally confident that it's the wrong concept.

 

Farsight screws up one of the most fundamental concepts to theoretical physics---the idea of Lorentz Invariance. In my mind, Lorentz Invariance is the most fundamental concept in all of physics. It tells you why you have particles with integer and half integer spins, it tells you why lengths get contracted, but most of all, it tells you that you can NEVER separate space and time. Farsight has yet to understand this.

 

I've ended up with something that seems very much like "Einstein's geometrical dream", where forces and matter can be described in terms of space geometry.

 

This could be cut and paste from any crackpot rant anywhere on the internet Einstein was brilliant for a few years in his career, then he stopped doing anything useful. Even the graduate students at Princeton in Einstein's later years thought that he was more or less useless---he didn't believe in quantum mechanics and he basically ignored half of the physics that was happening in his latter years in favor of his own brain wanderings.

 

I hope you realize what a tremendous claim this is, besides. Farsight is claiming (on the internet, no less) to understand things that very smart people have dedicated their lives to understanding for over 100 years.

 

It's only a toy model, with no mathematical rigour. But it involves "moebius solitons", and it's only recently that the moebius strip has been described mathematically.

 

For some reason, this really gets on my nerves... The Mobius strip is understood quite well, at a topological level. In fact, it's typically the third example that people talk about when they start learning topology (the circle and torus are first and second).

 

If you want a visceral conceptual idea of what a black hole really is you have to think of electrodynamics in terms of elastodynamics.

 

If you're confused about this, you're not alone. I've never heard of elastodynamics, and I have been studying physics for a long time.

 

Yes, they're wrong, and their opinions concerning a currently accepted hypothesis is not evidence.

 

Again, farsight is claiming to be the only one who understands how the universe works. While this certainly isn't impossible, he also makes statements like

 

I can't give you any actual evidence.

 

Again, I hope you realize what you're dealing with

 

There's plenty of people who agree with me, or vice versa if you prefer. You might find it difficult to accept, but one of these people was Schwarzschild himself. He thought his solution was an unreal solution, and he was right.

 

This is amusing in and of itself. What Schwarzchild thought doesn't matter---he is dead (I think). What YOU should know is that the Schwarzchild metric is used to describe the gravitational field of our sun when calculating the perhilion of Mercury, which is generally considered to be one of General Relativity's greatest successes.

 

So, fatty---make up your own mind. Read things and think for yourself. Listen to me, and listen to Farsight. Ask questions---this is what science is about. I can tell you that I think Farsight is an idiot, and I can tell you about my degrees and publications, but at the end of the day, that doesn't matter much because this is the internet, the ultimate democracy.

 

Anyway, I hope this hasn't been for naught If you'll notice, Farsight has ignored me thusfar. He will probably start bitching about me not actually reading his ``... Exlained'' posts---he is right. I read untill I found the first mistake, then stopped and asked him about it. He never answered, so I never felt obliged to continue reading.

[Sayonara]

Farsight:

 

When members ask questions about physics, we respond in terms of the current model.

 

If you wish to provide explanations from alternative models, you must clearly label them as such, and not attempt to pass them off as "the explanation".

[pioneer]

If we could go back into time doesn't that means that the molecules of the body would also have to redistribute to where they were in the past? Some of my body water might have to go back into a cloud. The DNA of childhood may have to go back into the cow that gave the beef that I ate. I am sort of playing, but most people imagine themselves staying the same when going back in time, only the rest of the universe will change. Even if it was possible, how do you keep your body in synche with one time and only change the entire universe for a different time?

 

If one went back in time exactly 10 years, with both you and the universe staying in synche, you might not even be aware that you came from the future, since everything in your body would be just like it was. You might feel a little dizzy as the last future stuff leaves, maybe even feeling a vague memory trace for an instant, sort of like a deja vu. The path back to the future may not be the same if one believes in chaos. If could only be the same if the universe was integrated in a systematic way such that the lowering potential to the future always reaches the same state.

 

Chaos theory should not allow for time travel since going back to the future, from the past, would change the future. You go back unaware that you traveled back. The bird crap that hit you that day (first time around) now hits the person next to you due to chaos. The auto accident that was a near miss now gets you. At a cross road of life, you now chose another path. When it should be time, to be the first to time travel, you are somewhere else. So it never happens.

[BenTheMan]

Even if it was possible, how do you keep your body in synche with one time and only change the entire universe for a different time?

 

Well, a quantum system can't ``remember'' what state it WAS in. So I don't think it would be a problem.

[whaThehell]

hmm...im not really good at relativity..tho i have read stuff abt it...heres what i think...

 

i have read that to travel thru time,you need to travel faster than the speed of light...some law or something...and because to travel at a certsin speed you need a certain amt of energy or something...so like some guy before explained...the speed you travel at or someything like that is represented as c.so the faster you go the more energy you need or something...so eventually you go so fast that you need a great amt of energy...so if you travel at the speed of light you would need infinite energy...i would take my encyclopedia and refer but im too lazy...

 

and the thing abt time travel...i heard that scientist are playing with the idea of merging a blackhole and whitehole together...that forms your wormhole...how its supposed to transport you thru time,i have no idea...

 

and anyway,if you travel thru time,wouldnt you end up in the middle of space or something?since the earth revolves,your probably gonna end up in the same place you were at a few hunderd years before or after but the earth would be some where else...unless you could travel with pinpoint accuracy...you might even end up finding your self in the core of the earth...right?i think i might need to explain this abit more...but my fingers are tired...

 

oh.and one more thing.if you went back thru time and kicked a rock which hit some guy accidentally you might end up screwing life...and if you died while in the future you would screw life up as well...and not to mention you would need infinite energy just to turn the universe back or forward in time,since the universe is infinite...

 

heh maybe im stupid or something...but whats a lepton???

[BenTheMan]

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[pioneer]

If one went back into time to a place they had never been then that was not the past. That past did not include you. Check the history books. If one went back to their own past, that past did not include you being your current self. Again one can check the records. It didn't happen.

 

Think of it this way, if I could time travel back to cavemen times and appear with body in tact, and add myself highly evolved with no evolutionary precidence, it would sort of be like Adam/creationism. Something with no historical precidence would appear all assembled apart from the natural physics and history of that planet.

 

Here is a fictional sci-fi scenario. The planet earth's history was uneventful all the way to its destruction. It was lush but nothing high evolved. So way in the future, someone decided to time travel to earth and change its future. Adam was the the time travel pioneer that changed the balance so the future could change, with evolution being given the kicked it needed. The job was tough and Adam stopped working. So they time travel him a babe called Eve to be his lab assistant. Now Adam is working again. God was the next generation time traveler that kept the body behind. That way he could shuttle back and forth and give instruction from high council. I am just kidding. But you are doing a creationism scenario. Or at least unconsciously given them the physics to make it possible. We can take the scientists out of religion but not religion out of the scientists.

[BenTheMan]

If one went back into time to a place they had never been then that was not the past. That past did not include you. Check the history books. If one went back to their own past, that past did not include you being your current self. Again one can check the records. It didn't happen.

 

We're getting pretty far afield of actual physics here. This argument isn't very good---presumably you'd be smart enough as a time traveler to realize that any thing you influenced in the past could have terrible reprecussions in the future.

[Sayonara]

presumably you'd be smart enough as a time traveler to realize that any thing you influenced in the past could have terrible reprecussions in the future.

You'd be amazed how far people will go to avoid engaging that point.

 

Even Hawking completely ignored it, although admittedly he did sort of admit that in a very *cough* kind of way.

[john5746]

Think of it this way, if I could time travel back to cavemen times and appear with body in tact, and add myself highly evolved with no evolutionary precidence, it would sort of be like Adam/creationism. Something with no historical precidence would appear all assembled apart from the natural physics and history of that planet.

 

Yes and evidence of you thousands of years later would most likely not be found.

[someguy]

what if it was impossible to change the past because you could say that in our past right now everybody that will ever go back to the past has already done that. therefore let's say that tomorrow i wanted to go back in time and stop the capture of jesus christ, i will not be able to succeed because in my past right now i would have already tried that and failed, going back in time to try to do it would only end up showing me how i failed. maybe it would show me that i actually caused the event in the first place who knows. but then you get stuck with a chicken and the egg problem.

[BenTheMan]

ugh. Can we talk about physics?

[foodchain]

what if it was impossible to change the past because you could say that in our past right now everybody that will ever go back to the past has already done that. therefore let's say that tomorrow i wanted to go back in time and stop the capture of jesus christ, i will not be able to succeed because in my past right now i would have already tried that and failed, going back in time to try to do it would only end up showing me how i failed. maybe it would show me that i actually caused the event in the first place who knows. but then you get stuck with a chicken and the egg problem.

 

Actually giving evolution the egg came before the chicken. If I were to go back into the past and change an event, every event "entangled"> with that one would then be altered to some degree.

[Xerxes]

ugh. Can we talk about physics?

Probably not, if the past is any guide for the future. Tell me, though; is this considered a serious topic among physicists? It would surprise me somewhat, although I am quite aware that judicious changing of signs in any equality preserves that equality.

 

Browsing through A. Pais's excellent biography of Einstein (if you haven't read it, you really should), I found this quote from Planck:

 

All equations of mechanics have the property that they admit of sign inversion in the temporal quantities. That is to say, theoretically perfectly mechanical processes can develop equally well forward and backward [in time] p.83

 

It's true he seems to have been making a rather different point, one that I believe Boltzmann's treatment (invention?) of the second law of thermodynamics addresses. I have a rather dim recollection from college that this employs just the sort of probabilistic arguments the quantum jockeys use - mm.. well no I see this is not quite right, see if I can dig out my notes (if anyone cares).

 

But there - even the father of quantum theory believed in time travel!! (just kidding, I know he didn't - that was precisely the context of the quote I gave)

[bombus]

Have you not heard of John Titor?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

 

Ssshhurly it just MUST be true...

[BenTheMan]

Tell me, though; is this considered a serious topic among physicists?

 

Depends on the physicist. Many physicsts like to think about these things because there are technically possible, and physically relaizable solutions to Einstein's equations which allow things like wormholes and time travel. Remember the guys who you went to high school with who memorized stats about how many photon torpedos the starship Enterprise carried? Well they all became physicsts.

 

Few people actually WORK in this area, though. Mostly because it isn't taken THAT seriously by other physicists.

 

I think the thing that got under my skin in this thread is people saying things like this:

 

what if it was impossible to change the past because you could say that in our past right now everybody that will ever go back to the past has already done that. therefore let's say that tomorrow i wanted to go back in time and stop the capture of jesus christ, i will not be able to succeed because in my past right now i would have already tried that and failed, going back in time to try to do it would only end up showing me how i failed. maybe it would show me that i actually caused the event in the first place who knows. but then you get stuck with a chicken and the egg problem.

 

This really sounds like someone smoked about a quarter ounce of good, sticky weed and then went to posting random thoughts on the internet.

[Farsight]

See Chandra X-ray Observatory.

 

Sorry I'm tardy, I don't visit this forum much. It's rather dead these days. Don't think I dispute that black holes exist. I do not. I dispute the interpretation. There's plenty of evidence that objects have fallen to an event horizon, but no evidence whatsoever that any object has ever fallen through an event horizon.

 

Could be that they didn't work. That's the beauty of science, it's amenable. However, perhaps you'd be so kind as to give more information on the Weinberg Interpretation you reference, preferably a few links? It seems, upon quick search, to be related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM, and I'm not sure how/why it would apply here in this discussion. I'd prefer not to email you, but thanks for your PM. Please post here if you have further information.

 

Sorry, I'm struggling to find it. Have a read of this though. It doesn't entirely support my case, but you should find it useful.

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm.

 

Huh? Relative to what? Why do you think we have tides in the oceans here on Earth? There's a relative difference in the effect of gravity at the two ends (while this results from the moon, my contention relates specifically to tidal forces). Same with an object falling into a blackhole. Can you support your comment that "gravity can't get any stronger than at the EH?"

It's related to my assertion that an object can't fall through an event horizon. If you dropped an object from John Michell's "infinite height" it would be travelling at c at the event horizon, where time dilation is now infinite. It can't go faster than c. That's the speed limit. It takes an infinite time to get through the event horizon, which means it never does. Its proper time is not "proper", but instead has become an abstraction.

 

You see, the EH is simply the point where the effect of gravity overwhelms the ability of light to escape... it's being pulled into the BH faster than it's velocity in the opposite direction (much like a spaceship must have a greater upward thrust than the gravity at the surface of earth pulling it back down, the light's "thrust" is not great enough to escape... it's escape velocity is too slow... once past the event horizon). This does not mean that the effect of gravity cannot still become greater further into the BH.

 

No, sorry. Your mental model of a black hole is wrong. Even Schwarzschild thought his solution was non-real.

 

I too would like for us to better understand the nature of the cosmos, but you seem to be arguing against well established information which has been consistently replicated. In the spirit of Einstein's work improving that which was done by Newton, can you instead propose something which works better?

 

I'm arguing against the interpretation, not the evidence. What I propose is RELATIVITY+, which is a geometrical model along the lines of Einstein's pure marble dream. It explains time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, and space. It's only a qualitative "toy" model, but it does unify electromagnetism and gravity in terms you can grasp. I need to look into the strong force and the Standard Model to take it further, and of course it will need mathematical rigor.

 

To see the publication which really prompted our current discussion, be sure to check out the following:

 

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1

 

I've just had a look.

 

"It is argued that, if the laws of physics permit an advanced civilization to create and maintain a wormhole in space for interstellar travel, then that wormhole can be converted into a time machine with which causality might be violatable. Whether wormholes can be created and maintained entails deep, ill-understood issues about cosmic censorship, quantum gravity, and quantum field theory, including the question of whether field theory enforces an averaged version of the weak energy condition..."

 

I'm not paying for it because time travel is crackpot. That's a strong word I know. But you can't travel in time. Time is a relative measure of motion through space. You can't travel through a relative measure of motion through space. That would be like literally climbing to a higher temperature, or travelling through travel. Time travel is an abstraction, and when you understand time empirically rather than in terms of Minkowski's mathematical space, you realise why.

[whaThehell]

a week looking thru everything in this thread and im still lost...my brain hurts...

[BenTheMan]

We should all be very clear that this is 100% wrong:

 

Time is a relative measure of motion through space. You can't travel through a relative measure of motion through space.

 

This is at the heart of his ideas, and it is just wrong. It is not how time is understood physically.

 

I want to point out that Farsight is not speaking form a position of any authority, and ``Relativity+'' in and of itself is a crackpot theory. If you don't believe me, I can link you to another forum where he posted this bullshit and the ensuing discussion where he couldn't answer simple questions.

[Farsight]

We should all be very clear that this is 100% wrong:

 

Time is a relative measure of motion through space. You can't travel through a relative measure of motion through space.

 

This is at the heart of his ideas, and it is just wrong. It is not how time is understood physically.

 

I want to point out that Farsight is not speaking form a position of any authority, and ``Relativity+'' in and of itself is a crackpot theory. If you don't believe me, I can link you to another forum where he posted this bullshit and the ensuing discussion where he couldn't answer simple questions.

 

Ben doesn't know the meaning of honesty. Of course I could answer simple questions. He comes out with this nonsense because he cannot refute the concept delivered by TIME EXPLAINED, nor can he justify his own concept using any actual evidence. Hence he resorts to lies and obfuscation, and will quite deliberately start an unpleasant argument in an attempt to spoil a thread that he disapproves of. You'll find him claiming that I don't understand Lorentz Invariance, and that I breach the "laws of physics". What he doesn't tell you is that I actually explain why Lorentz Invariance holds - the deeper truth is that we are, in simple terms, "made of light". We can never measure a change in the speed of light directly because our clocks and atoms are electromagnetic in nature. This principle of immersive scale change also applies to other measurements. However the Shapiro Time Delay allows an indirect measurement.

 

What Ben will also try to conceal, is that I'm in line with Einstein in many many respects. That's why the model I offer is called RELATIVITY+. But perhaps he's changing tack and lining things up to tell you that Einstein was a crackpot too.

 

Guys, listen up: he's a paid String Theorist who goes round forums rubbishing the competition and being abusive. Since String Theory makes no predictions it is not actually a theory. Moreover it no longer involves strings. And BenTheMan is just a dishonest pseudoscientist quack.

[Xerxes]

This really sounds like someone smoked about a quarter ounce of good, sticky weed and then went to posting random thoughts on the internet.

Yeah? Then how about this

the deeper truth is that we are' date=' in simple terms, "made of light".[/quote']Don't hog that joint, my friend, pass it over to me (as the song goes)

 

More seriously, this

What he doesn't tell you is that I actually explain why Lorentz Invariance holds

I really doubt you understand the subtleties here. Get yourself a good text, and read about gauge theory - no, I don't understand it, if you must know (but you will, right? as you are cleverer that the rest of us). There you will learn about gauge invariance, and how it relates to Lorentz invariance.