Posted on 12/20/2014 7:58:27 PM PST by LibWhacker
“This is not important. For us who are convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.”
I wonder if Einstein ever got out of a parking ticket with argument?
Are you saying time is as real as she is? Because she’s not real!!! :-)
Time is certainly real to me. “And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee” - John Donne”
So let's assume that we live in one space-time continuum.
You probably could travel back in time, just as we travel spatially. What keeps it from happening though is that it takes a huge amount of energy (because you're changing the fabric of space-time to a much greater degree when you time travel than when you space travel), so it's not going to happen.
Gravity and time both go one way. Go figure.
Albert Einstein’s secretary was so burdened with inquiries as to the meaning of “relativity” that the professor decided to help her out. He told her to answer the inquiries as follows: “When you sit with a nice girl for two hours you think it’s only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That’s relativity.”
Talked to a guy a few days ago that said something like....Time is merely a convenient choice to experience the physical world. There is no there. And if anything is moving or occupying place it is consciousness.
He did have good wine.
Never considered that before, but it's true... Whether you're going very far into the future, or the past according to some theories, the energy expenditure is enormous, thanks! I won't forget; it says something about the nature of the temporal dimension.
And good weed I’ll bet, too! ;-)
He has lots of spare time?
This poor woman seems to do the same thing time and time again
Interesting. At least some physicists seem to be approaching an understanding of the Eternal Now.
Time travel is analogous to ordinary space travel as follows:
To do other than inertial space travel, you apply force to an object’s ordinary matter. (F = ma.)
To do other than inertial time travel, you apply force to an object’s “time-matter.” (Inertial time travel is the usual past-present-future time flow.)
The problem is, “time-matter,” unlike ordinary matter, is an enormous number.
That’s why you only see inertial time travel.
Possibly for a subatomic particle like a photon, the measure of “time-matter” is small enough that we might send one on noninertial time travel.
In previous post, it’d be better to say “mass” and “time-mass” rather than “matter” and “time-matter.”
(The theory is still under construction.)
Now we have to look at "time-mass."
You know about quantum entanglement. There’s also “time entanglement.” This is where our present conditions are a function of past conditions. Our present-time is “time-entangled” with the past.
Now if you go back in time and change the past, AND assuming that there’s no “many-world” situation where you have multiple timelines, you’re going to change the future.
This “time-entanglement” then ripples through space-time and changes everything.
Can you imagine how much energy this would entail? Practically infinite for a human-level past-changing event. Which is why it never happens.
But for a photon, the ripple from time-traveling may be small enough that it would have a minimal effect, or be swamped by background “noise.”
And there’s another analogy — quantum fluctuations and time fluctuations. Maybe they’re the same thing.
Itr could be that the enormous value of “time-mass” compared to ordinary mass, is that “time-entanglement” is much stickier than quantum entanglement.
In fact, time-mass and time-entanglement may be the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.