[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 334 KB, 1500x900, DD8E9D16-94C3-4665-A4CE-0BA05CBDFD6F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12629036 No.12629036 [Reply] [Original]

Is time travel possible

>> No.12629040

forward time traveling, yes
backward time traveling, i don't know

>> No.12629042

>>12629036
You're doing it right now

>> No.12629045

>>12629042
How do I go back

>> No.12629049

>>12629045
Do a 360 and walk into a black hole

>> No.12629114

>>12629036
No law forbids it

>> No.12629121

>>12629114
except for the law of my dick

>> No.12629155

>>12629036

potentially, considering that quantum particles seem to do some form of it all the time. it could just be that energy transfer can go through time, which allows particles to react temporally, but actual particles can't, in which case you're boned.

>> No.12629184

>>12629155
Doesn't that break conservation of energy
I thought the whole point was that it was static across time

>> No.12629189
File: 159 KB, 1000x1200, 1583565397497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12629189

>>12629036
Tooker says so, he doesn't say why. You'd be able to do stupid shit like kill your grandfather, so I think not.

>> No.12629190

>>12629184
Conservation of energy was already broken by virtual particles

>> No.12629211

>>12629045
won't stop you from sucking dick that's for sure

>> No.12629214

>>12629190
>He thinks virtual particles are real

>> No.12629218

>>12629155
If you consider time to be causality then yes. Schrodinger type questions can be answered with quantum physics without actually checking the status of the unknown.

>> No.12629261

>>12629214
Particles break conservation when they divide and decay.

>> No.12629336

>>12629036
>2021
>still believe in time

Good goy

>> No.12629356

>>12629114
2. Law of thermodynamics forbids it

>> No.12629563

>>12629356
>thermodynamics forbids us from traveling backwards in time....
you mean a process of entropy running forward thru time is itself the thing that proves no-one else can either?
>bad-sportsmanship

isn't entropy just a thing traveling forward in time, just like we are?

>> No.12629568

>>12629563
To travel back you need to reverse the process and make energy flow backwards which violates the law

>> No.12629569

>>12629036
Well aren’t antiparticles just regular particles travelling backwards in time?

>> No.12629570

>>12629356
quantum physics already breaks thermodynamics.

>> No.12629571

>>12629568
>To travel back you need to reverse the process and make energy flow backwards which violates the law
you're not reversing entropy, bro..
entropy and everything else "appears" to be traveling backwards to the observer only.

you're not reversing the universe, bro!!
entropy is still doing its thing "independently" from the time-traveler.

>> No.12629572

>>12629569
no, standard particles are traveling backwards in time, antiparticles are traveling forward.

>> No.12629573

>>12629570
It doesn't desu

>> No.12629574

>>12629569
>>12629572
Antimatter is in every precise meaningful sense matter moving backward in time. The notion of "moving backward in time" is nonsensical in a Hamiltonian formulation, because the whole description can only go forward in time. That's the definition of what the Hamiltonian does - it takes you forward in time a little bit. So if you formulate quantum mechanics the Hamiltonian way, this idea is difficult to understand (still it can be done - Stueckelberg discovered this connection before the path integral, when field Hamiltonians were the only tool).

But in Feynman's particle path-integral picture, when you parametrize particles by their worldline proper time, and you renounce a global causal picture in favor of particles splitting and joining, the particle trajectories are consistent with relativity, but only if the trajectories include back-in-time trajectories, where coordinate time ticks in the opposite sense to proper time.

Looked at in the Hamiltonian formalism, the coordinate time is the only notion of time. So those paths where the proper time ticks in the reverse direction look like a different type of particle, and these are the antiparticles.

Sometimes there is an idenification, so that a particle is its own antiparticle.

>> No.12629580

>>12629574
I agree with you, what I'm saying is that they have the directions backwards; anti-particles are forward relative to our perception, and particles are backwards relative to our perception. ie, the particles in the universe that we are made of, are moving reverse of the direction of our perception.

>> No.12629581

>>12629571
You literally are if you want to travel back because it would mean every process should go backwards entirely.
Or it can go forward but give the same outcome as if it was before.
If we make a small scale experiment with mixing red and white gas it would mean that to turn time back the purple gas mixture should split perfectly into red and blue gas for the time reversal to work.

>> No.12629582

>>12629581
*red and blue gas I mean

>> No.12629583

>>12629573
virtual particles, such as what is found in particle decay, by their sheer existence, break thermodynamics.

>> No.12629586

>>12629583
Those particles are just part of energy transfer

>> No.12629596

>>12629581
you're basically stating the "only" way to travel back in time is by reversing time for the entire universe....

seriously, bro?
this is seriously tardy, ey...

ALSO: what is a special-condition?
isn't a special-condition entirely separated & independent from this space-time-continuum?

what if you put a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition?

have I managed to separate you from this universe yet?

>> No.12629600

>>12629586
and yet it causes a temporary increase in energy that breaks thermodynamics.

>> No.12629603

>>12629596
>you're basically stating the "only" way to travel back in time is by reversing time for the entire universe....
How else would you achieve it? Reversing time on a small scale? Where would it leave you then? What's the relative point of your time reversal?

>> No.12629623

>>12629603
its just YOU traveling backwards in time, not YOU reversing the universe.

>How else would you achieve it? Reversing time on a small scale? Where would it leave you then? What's the relative point of your time reversal?
Hence the "truth", we have no working concepts at all.

you are indeed able to separate yourself via a special-condition, but how does one maneuver a localized special-condition to traverse the dimension of time backwards?

we can't even state why matter moves forward so how do we get it to travel backwards? what if it was anti-gravity? does mass travel one direction and antimass travel the other?

I got nothin..

>> No.12629627

>>12629623
You can't just put yourself back in time. This would mean you created energy out of nothing by putting your body in a place where your body doesn't exist
The overall amount of energy+matter converted to energy in a three dimensional space is constant, by putting yourself in that spot you are basically generating energy out of nothing
It doesnt work like that

>> No.12629629

>>12629627
not really, energy is just displaced forwards in time as you move backwards, maintaining equilibrium. this is why the particle-antiparticle shift causes an energy release.

>> No.12629636

>>12629627
>energy in a three dimensional space is constant, by putting yourself in that spot you are basically generating energy out of nothing
but vacuum energy is positrons and electrons erupting out of nowhere then annihilating...

so everyone trying to separate and capture electrons and positrons isn't free-energy?
conservation is still held, bro!!

>energy out of nothing by putting your body in a place where your body doesn't exist
so the presence of unknown matter in the universe will blow it up?
this isn't an argument bro.

>> No.12629638

>>12629629
>displacement.
I like this concept.

>> No.12629676
File: 413 KB, 641x480, carrot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12629676

>>12629189
Tooker? Dey Tooker?

>> No.12629698

>>12629636
said vacuum energy is just the electron/positron vibrating along the spacetime spatial dimension. it looks like two particles popping up, hitting each other, and annihilating, because the forward-backward vibration pattern looks like two simultaneous particles from our linear perspective.

>> No.12629700

>>12629356
>>12629568
>>12629330
>Abstract: One out of many emerging implications from solutions of Einstein's general relativity equations are closed timelike curves (CTCs), which are trajectories through spacetime that allow for time travel to the past without exceeding the speed of light. Two main quantum models of computation with the use of CTCs were introduced by Deutsch (D-CTC) and by Bennett and Schumacher (P-CTC). Unlike the classical theory in which CTCs lead to logical paradoxes, the quantum D-CTC model provides a solution that is logically consistent due to the self-consistency condition imposed on the evolving system, whereas the quantum P-CTC model chooses such solution through post-selection. Both models are non-equivalent and imply nonstandard phenomena in the field of quantum computation and quantum mechanics. In this work we study the implications of these two models on the second law of thermodynamics - the fundamental principle which states that in an isolated system the entropy never decreases. In particular, we construct CTC-based quantum circuits which lead to decrease of entropy.

>> No.12629707

>>12629700
>>12629327
>A concept of voyage through time has been puzzlingmodern physicists for a long time. Einstein’s general the-ory of relativity allows the existence of closed timelikecurves (CTCs) [1, 2], where an object could travel backin time and interact with a former version of itself.The possible existence of CTCs points to a variety oflogical paradoxes, such as famous grandfather paradox[3]. However, such paradoxes can be efficiently eliminatedin quantum theory. One of the models that does so wasproposed by Deutsch [4]. His model of CTC (D-CTC)operates within the density matrix formalism to describethe states of the two registers involved: a chronology-respecting (CR) system and a CTC chronology-violating(CV) quantum system, which interact with each otherviasome unitary operation. For any such unitary op-eration and state of the CR system, a self-consistencycondition [5] must be satisfied, where the state of theCV system prior to and after the interaction is set toremain the same. Such condition ensures the exclusionof the arising grandfather-like paradoxes, but also intro-duces a nonlinear evolution. This, in turn, gives rise topeculiar phenomena, e.g., violation of no-cloning theo-rem [6, 7], increasing entanglement with LOCC [8], anddistinguishing non-orthogonal quantum states [9] whichhas been experimentally simulated in [10]. In addition,there exist another unusual implications of this modelconcerning the possible enhancement of power of D-CTC-assisted computation, such as the equivalence of classicaland quantum computing or the ability to efficiently solveNP-complete and PSPACE-complete problems [11–13].
>
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08334

>> No.12629711

>>12629698
>because the forward-backward vibration pattern looks like two simultaneous particles from our linear perspective.
you just basically stated the same electron/positron pair moves forward and backward thru time forever...

pretty sure thats not true, bro.
you're suggesting if someone taps vacuum-energy then no more particle-pairs will erupt forward from that location because someone just stole them...

I really don't think so, bro.

>> No.12629728

>>12629711
there is no electron/positron pair, it's one individual particle vibrating/rotating in spacetime. if somebody taps into vacuum energy, it doesn't stop particles from rotating on that axis in the past or the future at points where the location isn't being siphoned.

you also assume that because a particle is vibrating/rotating on a spacetime axis, it is not moving on any other axis, which is not true. a particle seen to be rotating at one point in spacetime can still be moving along the spatial axes, and the vacuum energy is just an individual measured point along its vector.

>> No.12629738

>>12629728
yes, particles are magic and can be in multiple locations at the same time..

kys.

>> No.12629748

>>12629738
that is literally the basis of superposition you dumb cock.

>> No.12629763

>>12629748
That's not how reality works. Quantum mechanics just assume the probability of particle to be found in certain area because it makes the calculation possible since determining exact position of particle is impossible due to Schrödinger's equation

>> No.12629770

>>12629748
how many electrons exist?
is it all just the one electron?
are protons the same?
what about every other type of particle?
is this entire universe made up of just one of each particle?

if your supposing superposition is evidence for your crackpot theory then take your meds.

>> No.12629774

>>12629763
no, superpositioning is quite literally a particle being in multiple states simultaneously.

>> No.12629777

>>12629774
Electron doesn't exist on multiple places at once

>> No.12629778

>>12629777
prove it.

>> No.12629783

>>12629778
disprove it

>> No.12629787

>>12629783
double slit

>> No.12629788

>>12629787
Still one impact dot per electron on the screen

>> No.12629790

>>12629778
sorry for butting in.
it only suggests the particle is traveling as though it was actually now a wave instead of a particle..

it doesn't prove there are multiple particles..
its a wave interference pattern, bro...

>> No.12629798

>>12629790
a particle in multiple states, not multiple particles. it shocks me how many people on a /sci/ board don't understand that a particle in multiple states isn't analogous to having multiple particles. if a particle in one state, including a particle-antiparticle rotation, interacts with something, those other states can't exist.

>> No.12629806

>>12629798
>a particle in multiple states
you've just cited the "wave" state, bro!!

>> No.12629829

>>12629798
>particle-antiparticle rotation
how do you plan on proving this is real?

>> No.12629833

>>12629036
Time travel to the past should be possible, but it would require the energy of multiple stars and technology that is thousands upon thousands of years off without some miracle breakthroughs.

As for the future it's a bit trickier. You could only travel into the future from the past, and only so far as your original present was. That is, if you went to the past, you could travel back to the present you started from, the future from the past's point of view, but not into the future you've never knew that would have existed had you not gone into the past.

>> No.12629837

>>12629189
based Witten in casual dress and black denim poster

>> No.12629864 [DELETED] 

>>12629728
>there is no electron/positron pair, it's one individual particle vibrating/rotating in spacetime

then where does the gamma photon come from?
this back/forth of the same particles produces a "free" gamma photon every repetition....

is gamma in on it, too?

>> No.12629868

>>12629728
>there is no electron/positron pair, it's one individual particle vibrating/rotating in spacetime

then where does the gamma photon come from?
this back/forth of the same particle produces a "free" gamma photon every repetition....

is gamma in on it, too?

>> No.12629899

>>12629036
is it a question?

>> No.12629904

>>12629036
if time travel was possible we'd be either living an utopia since forever ago or completely destroyed since forever ago. Do you honestly believe humanity will be stable enough to invent time travel and then leave our past untouched? no way fag.

>> No.12629909

>>12629904
time-paradoxes are believed to create offshoot branches of separated time-paths anchored at its root-nexus point.
both the original & the new are theorized to still exist.

>> No.12629912
File: 90 KB, 539x558, becca_face_unimpressed1a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12629912

>>12629909
oh will you fuck off already with multiverse bullshit. It's not even pseudoscience.
MULTIVERSES ARE A COPE MECHANISM FOR LAZY PHYSICISTS
YOU MIGHT AS WELL START VALIDATING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AT THAT POINT

>> No.12629919

>>12629912
this is not multiverse-theory, its alternate time-branches attached to the original universe, bro.
it solves the grandfather-paradox, you inept retard.

>> No.12629931

>>12629919
it's just a different flavor for the same retarded concept
"if A is impossible, let's establish a theory that makes A possible with zero evidence to sustain it and then keep builing on top of it so far that it seems believable"
you believe in dark matter too don't you

>> No.12629956

>>12629912
You sound like a fun person, either one who didn't get and could benefit from getting smacked up side the head enough or got smacked too much.

Multiverse is a fun theory, you're just salty.

>> No.12629961

>>12629956
oh I'm sorry, I thought we were on /sci/ but we seem to be in /fun/ instead

>> No.12629963

>>12629931
>it's just a different flavor for the same retarded concept
No, it isn't.
if you travel to the past, then it instantly branches and you are then in the branch....
only one universe exists that is branched.

if you exist in a time-branch & want to get back to your original timeline you came from...
then time-travel back to the original nexus-point where you branched.. then travel-forward in the same space you originally traveled backwards from.. trying not to be noticed by yourself.
you moving forward in time, watching yourself originally coming backwards in time.
whatever worm-hole the time-travel was achieved thru is itself the way back by retracing your steps in reverse.
then you will be back in your own time-line.
it all just the one same universe, bro.

don't confuse this with crackpot shit like quantum-multiverse garbage, bro!!
that stuff is pure tripe.

>"if A is impossible, let's establish a theory that makes A possible with zero evidence to sustain it
thats why they're called theories, bro
>and then keep building on top of it so far that it seems believable"
>you believe in dark matter too don't you
lol, I've posted for years that dark matter is just virtual-particles & dark-energy is just the explosive repulsion from their anti-matter annihilations....
looks like science to starting to wake up..
https://www.space.com/25238-dark-energy-quantum-vacuum-theory.html

you've actually managed to find one of the few people on Earth against whom that argument isn't valid... lol.

>> No.12629972

>>12629961
two high sodium posts, let's roll for a 3rd.

>> No.12629974

>>12629963
you just explained >>12629919
in more detail, I remain not convinced. No evidence.

>> No.12629986

>>12629974
multiverse means multiple/separate universes.
time branching is all just one universe.

I'm sorry you look at trees & believe its a multitree.
it really is just the same tree, I swear!!

>> No.12629987

>>12629571
Entropy isn't a process, it's a measure of disorder. The 2nd law says entropy always increases, but time travel could cause entropy to decrease. You could throw a lot of thermalised junk into the past, thereby increasing the entropy in the past and decr4easing it in the future. This is not from the observer's perspective, but from the universe as a whole.

>> No.12630006

if information could be sent back in time..
an artificial intelligence could send it's own source code back in time.

every possible future with an AI that can transmit it's own source code back in time would do it.

>> No.12630018

>>12629636
>but vacuum energy is positrons and electrons erupting out of nowhere then annihilating...
The vacuum is Lorentz invariant: it doesn't go from nothing to particle pair and back to nothing, but you can think of it as a constant, unchanging superposition of such events.
>so everyone trying to separate and capture electrons and positrons isn't free-energy?
You can't capture that energy, that's just sci-fi nonsense. You can create electron-positron pairs with a strong electric field, but the energy is coming form the photons you're putting into the vacuum, not from nothing. Schwinger pair production isn't free energy at all. The vacuum is by definition the lowest energy state.
>so the presence of unknown matter in the universe will blow it up?
No, the sudden appearance of matter will. Where does the stuff that was already there go?
>>12629114
Causality. The grandfather paradox. The Polchinski paradox. Many such cases.

>> No.12630020

>>12629987
>Entropy isn't a process, it's a measure of disorder. The 2nd law says entropy always increases,
so going from order to disorder via entropy is not to be termed the process by which disorder came from order?
is being deliberately contentious your goal?

the rest of what you state is dribble.
ohh no the universe will blow up because you added more heat somewhere.......
pretty sure it will cope, bro..
it can manage with the extra me while it waits to catch up to the future time I originally departed from so then theres just the one me, again.

>> No.12630032

>>12629986
I refuse to entertain this theory, but I have to add:
if these "branches" are self-contained and don't really need the original trunk to exist and develop then it's wrong to even call them branches. This is why I see them closer to multiverses than time bifurcations.

>> No.12630045

>>12630018
>You can't capture that energy, that's just sci-fi nonsense.
lmao, this desperate to preserve your Lorentz rubbish!!!!
>No, the sudden appearance of matter will. Where does the stuff that was already there go?
you're shitting me, right?

we've already established you're now in a time-branch paradox;
that I can agree with, but the universe itself will not not end if matter from the future is present...
where will it go? so the doesn't have empty space? gas can't compress?
what exactly are you talking about?

>> No.12630063

>>12630032
>if these "branches" are self-contained and don't really need the original trunk to exist
what? it didn't pop out of nowhere and is still connected back to the original by time-travel.

its not a separate universe..
you just posted this tripe here >>12629904 and figured the time-paradox question would result in what your favorite sci-fi movie said it would.

>> No.12630092

>>12629569
No, not in general: C and T can be different symmetries. All (relativistic) QFTs have CPT symmetry, so reversing time is always the inverse of exchanging particles for anti-particles AND applying a parity transformation i.e a point reflection of the spatial dimensions.
This is easy to understand intuitively, since P reflects the spatial dimensions, T reflects the time dimension and C reverses the worldline orientation, so CPT is just a reflection of all spacetime and everything in it (the worldlines).

>> No.12630095

Honestly what is time? Do we even understand time?

>> No.12630124

>>12629600
No it doesn't. Energy, like any observable in QM, is only defined when you measure it. Between measurements it doesn't make sense to talk about how much energy the system has, just like it makes no sense to talk of a particle's position when you've just measured its momentum, or of its spin about the x-axis when you've just measured its spin about the z-axis.
It's worth noting that virtual particles are just calculational tools and are generally off-shell, meaning their energy doesn't correspond to their momentum the way an actual measurable particle's would. Since the states you can measure always satisfy the correct energy momentum relationship, and that energy is conserved, it is not true that QFT violates thermodynamics or the conservation of energy, though you do have to rephrase thermo in a quantum (that is, non-realist) way, as in quantum statistical mechanics.

>> No.12630152

>>12630063
>the time-paradox question would result in what your favorite sci-fi movie said it would.
I am yet to watch a sci-fi movie that treats time travel properly, and I've watched plenty. 99% of them entertain what YOU are saying, actually.

>> No.12630169

>>12630045
>lmao, this desperate to preserve your Lorentz rubbish!!!!
This rubbish has been proven time and time again in experiment. The vacuum is Lorentz invariant, that's one of the basic assumption of QFT and QFT is the most well tested and successful theory of physics in history. The vacuum is DEFINED as the lowest energy state of the theory -- if you can extract energy from a state that state cannot be the vacuum.
Moreover, Lorentz invariance (if that's what you mean by "your Lorentz rubbish") has been tested to trans-Planckian accuracy; it's not rubbish at all, it's experimentally certified. You clearly want this all to be untrue, but have no actual reasons for believing that to be the case, experimental or theoretical.

>we've already established you're now in a time-branch paradox;
No, you've claimed that to be the case, nothing has been established
>that I can agree with, but the universe itself will not not end if matter from the future is present...
>where will it go? so the doesn't have empty space? gas can't compress?
If the guy from the future arrives through a wormhole then there's no problem, this is only an issue if the time traveller teleports in.
If he teleports, the matter from the future instantly appears atop the matter that was already there. The existing matter receives an infinitely powerful kick as the new matter arrives. What direction does it move in? How quickly does it move? The force acting on that matter will be infinite, because this new matter has arrived on top of it in an instant. Won't this violate the Pauli exclusion principle?
Can you come up with an equation describing how matter would respond to an instant addition of new matter from the future?

If he uses a wormhole, you have the Polchinski paradox to contend with.

>> No.12630170

>>12630152
>I am yet to watch a sci-fi movie that treats time travel properly
this statement is useless without explaining what "treats time travel properly" is.

>> No.12630220

>>12630169
bro, vacuum energy is real, calling them virtual-particles does not make them "not-real".
they will indeed be harnessed, bro!!

the particle-pairs come from outside this universe and go bang emitting a gamma & radiating energy..

all this equilibrium-state is horseshit... particle-pairs bleed into this universe from somewhere else goes bang and energy comes from it..

the result is dark-energy...
this is why the universe expands, bro!!
https://www.space.com/25238-dark-energy-quantum-vacuum-theory.html
the universal expansion is evidence energy is being added, bro!!
is your model still sticking with dark energy has magical anti-gravity repulsion properties?
>teleport?
thats considered a legitimate thing?

>> No.12630244

>>12630170
the logical conclussion that it's impossible would be the only proper way to treat it, with a honorable mention of it's relativity. I guess you can say Interstellar partially does it, at least for the first half of the movie.

>> No.12630260

>>12630244
>the logical conclussion that it's impossible would be the only proper way to treat it,
why?
this just sweeps it under the rug and closes your eyes to any alternate.

the only way to logically conclude anything is by proving it.

>> No.12630294

>>12630260
>this just sweeps it under the rug and closes your eyes to any alternate.
much like the Pythagorean School closed our eyes to the alternative possibility of Earth being flat.

>> No.12630311

>>12630294
>much like the Pythagorean School closed our eyes to the alternative possibility of Earth being flat.
Earth not being flat can be proven, bro!!
just jump in a rocket & take a trip in orbit..
easy..

>> No.12630319

>>12630311
my point was that if every other known aspect about reality/physics/math/astronomy/etc is telling you that something isn't the way your theory claims, it is far more likely that your theory is wrong instead of everything else. All we know scientifically today supports the theory of time being a single line that cannot be traveled, only "sctretched" or "expanded" through very particular phenomena and only within a particular point or perspective in space/time applied only to the observer.

>> No.12630320

I don't want to travel back in time, I want to wake up being like 9 years old with all my current knowledge so I can do everything right and become a gigachad

>> No.12630337

>>12630320
Would still fuck over the laws of enthropy since it would mean you transfer your memories which are physical so its the same as transferring matter

>> No.12630341

>>12630319
yeh, but everything you stated is about things inside the universe interacting with other things also inside the universe.

time-travel would obviously involve taking yourself out of this universe via "special-condition" to do whatever it is you do to traverse the dimension of time backwards.

>> No.12630351

>>12630337
If memories are physical why can't I use them at will

>> No.12630353

>>12630341
as far as we know, the universe is literally all space and you cannot take yourself out of it. You're just adding more layers to your theory, like I metioned here >>12629931
I know it's fun to believe time travel is possible but I cannot bring myself to think it's not just fantasy wearing a theory hat, and nothing shared itt is helping.

>> No.12630369

>>12630353
>as far as we know, the universe is literally all space and you cannot take yourself out of it.
sorry, I utterly disagree with this statement.
such conditions exist naturally on the quantum level and I have no problem with creating an artificial environment decoupled.

a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition inside a special-condition with enough cascaded stages you're effeminately gonna be de-coupled eventually.

>> No.12630373

>>12630369
>effeminately
definitely

>> No.12630376

>>12629036
TLDR no one knows

>> No.12630378

>>12629045
No.
Time doesn't exist any more than numbers do.
It's an abstraction to describe reality.
Going backwards in time would require you to reverse causality in the entire universe, perfectly reversing the momentum of every bit of energy in the universe.

>> No.12630382

>>12630378
>Going backwards in time would require you to reverse causality in the entire universe
this retarded shit, again!!!!

>> No.12630383

>>12630369
quantum-level physics cannot be applied in a greater scale. Unless you manage to shrink your time machine into the size of a photon, they have no place in this discussion.

>> No.12630390

>>12630383
you do realize creating an artificial "special-condition" means you don't have to shrink anything, bro!!

>> No.12630401

>>12630390
I believe we have entered a circular argument.

>> No.12630412

>>12629036
I'm no theologist, but time is like god, it co-exists but it cannot be seen, as if existed and did not existed in the same spot.

you can tell time in it's environmental physical changes but you cannot tell what time itself looks like.

looking back how my neighborhood looked like in 2011 and nowdays I can easily assume which year is year.

Time is a matter evolution dynamic.

>> No.12630415

We don't know

>> No.12630417
File: 21 KB, 300x300, 1506694320714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630417

if time travel is possible then why has no one visited us from the future

>> No.12630418

>>12630401
not only have you universally decided time travel is impossible, but you also universally decided artificial special-condition is impossible.
>circular argument.
good logic, bro!!

>> No.12630441

>>12630412
(correcting)
I'm no theologist, but time is literally like god, it co-exists, but it cannot be seen, he's in front of our nose, we can feel it, but we cannot figure it, as it existed and did not existed in the same place/first place.

you can tell time expressed in it's environmental physical changes, but you cannot tell or draw how time looks without using a clock the time itself.

looking back how my borough looked like back in 2011 I can easily tell the difference which year is which.


Time is a matter evolution/dynamic alternance

sorry for not asking your question properly, but this is the general time topic we're discussing about

>> No.12630503

>>12630382
Explain how time travel works without making up unverifiable things or magic energy sources that can create enough energy for an entire universe whole cloth with the simple action of...flipping a coin.

>> No.12630535

>>12630503
time is a dimension of space.
you must traverse this axis backwards.

you are able to separate yourself from this time-space-continuum via an artificial special-condition.

the rest is unknown. how does traveling up down left right work if you are decoupled from this time-space-continuum?
I also have no problem negating the thing that stops us from traveling faster than light so add this to the previous sentence including velocities faster than light.

I have no problem with the artificial special-condition nor faster than light travel, but can only speculate until I'm there at that point seeing what happens.

>> No.12630542

>>12629036
No, but it will be

>> No.12630559

>>12630535
>time is a dimension of space.
Abstraction.
>you must traverse this axis backwards.
You can subtract 1 from 0 in math but not in reality. You're basically talking about similar abstractionisms.
>you are able to separate yourself from this time-space-continuum via an artificial special-condition.
>the rest is unknown.
It's unknown because your reasoning is breaking down and you know it doesn't make any sense to the point you can't even assign word-symbols to it in an effort to square the circle.

>> No.12630575
File: 55 KB, 215x607, IMG_20210126_145147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630575

>>12629036
Yeah, how else do you think I teleport through the boards.

Btw, if anyone finds my thread, would be nice if you point it out to me, been looking for it for hours.

>> No.12630579

>>12630559
>Abstraction.
only if its not possible
>You can subtract 1 from 0 in math but not in reality. You're basically talking about similar abstractionisms.
you're speculating about conditions not before existing.
>>12630559
>It's unknown because your reasoning is breaking down and you know it doesn't make any sense to the point you can't even assign word-symbols to it in an effort to square the circle.
I think you feel good with your dick in your mouth.
sucking on your own cock in front of a crowd helps you get out of bed in the morning.

>> No.12630616

>>12630418
I haven't decided anything, I merely said it's far more possible that time travel isn't a thing, based on everything we know.
I did decide that "universal special condition" is in fact artificial, just like you.

>> No.12630618

>>12630220
>bro, vacuum energy is real, calling them virtual-particles does not make them "not-real".
>they will indeed be harnessed, bro!!
Vacuum energy is real but it cannot, by definition, be harnessed. You are living in a sci-fi fantasy. In reality, these things are impossible.
>the particle-pairs come from outside this universe
No, they don't. Nobody thinks that, and how would you even go about testing that?
>all this equilibrium-state is horseshit... particle-pairs bleed into this universe from somewhere else goes bang and energy comes from it..
No, it's just that the lowest energy state in the universe involves a swarm of photons turning into particle-antiparticle pairs. Just go and study QFT instead of reading sci-fi.
>the result is dark-energy...
this is why the universe expands, bro!!
Yes, particle physics likely explains dark energy, but that doesn't mean you can harness the power of the vacuum or whatever nonsense you're on about that has nothing to do with time travel anyway. This vacuum energy is just a constant that cause the accelerated expansion.
>teleport?
>thats considered a legitimate thing?
No, but it sounds like that's what you're imagining time travel to be, teleporting through time.

>> No.12630628

>>12630018
>The grandfather paradox
When you kill your grandfather you create alternative timeline where you dont exist. So it wont affect your timeline because you already exist to travel in time to kill granddad.

>> No.12630649

>>12630618
>Vacuum energy is real but it cannot, by definition, be harnessed.
and your entire house of cards falls apart when it is.
>This vacuum energy is just a constant that cause the accelerated expansion.
the perfect constant that never degrades....
makes perfect sense bro, so much for entropy being universal.
or is entropy only universal when you idiots need it to be?
>No, but it sounds like that's what you're imagining time travel to be, teleporting through time.
No, I think teleportation is a bunch of shit

>> No.12630678 [DELETED] 
File: 3.28 MB, 1860x1339, GRAY & MANTIS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630678

>>12630616
>I did decide that "universal special condition" is in fact artificial, just like you.
but mastering special-condition is the core of what is the basic requirement of anti-gravity?
you really wanna hope there is no truth to any of that alien hype, shit ey?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDUh8F0TvPg

>> No.12630705
File: 3.28 MB, 1860x1339, GRAY & MANTIS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630705

>>12630616
>I did decide that "universal special condition" is in fact artificial, just like you.
but mastering special-condition is the core of what is the basic requirement of anti-gravity?
you really wanna hope there is no truth to any of that alien hype, shit ey?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLxHwkkuCQiCZfd8R_fCJ9z6sG54jNIBr

>> No.12630720
File: 59 KB, 620x473, johntitor_schemati_3478881b[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630720

>>12630417

>> No.12630742

the dumbest way i've thought of it is:

there are two axes in this graph, space-time, we can traverse in space, but we can't change time, i feel like time is the input to this mathematical function that gives us the output which is space, the increase in time allows us to move in space, but what if we inverse this function, stop our ability to move in space, but then be able to traverse in time. or rather, what if we just had a parametric equation? big brain,

yeah this makes no sense

>> No.12630759

>>12630369
>such conditions exist naturally on the quantum level and I have no problem with creating an artificial environment decoupled.
QM does not involve anything outside of our universe. The many world interpretation (aka bullshit nonsense interpretation) might phrase things that way, but you cannot interact with those other universes. Virtual particles are not arriving from another universe, they are a phenomenon of this one.

>> No.12630797
File: 13 KB, 225x225, 1608754704813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630797

>>12629045
I wasted it all

>> No.12630803

>>12629036
It is forbidden, please do not attempt it.

>> No.12630806

>>12630759
>The many world interpretation (aka bullshit nonsense interpretation)
please stop.
many world interpretation is shite.
if you create an artificial special-condition then you are no longer in this time-space-continuum, I didn't state that automatically puts you in some other universe, bro!!
>Virtual particles are not arriving from another universe, they are a phenomenon of this one.
they pop out of nowhere, bro..
you needed an energy to explain how the universe is expanding and made up a bullshit constant of free-lunch for everyone.
nothing more.

>> No.12630844

>>12630628
Where is the evidence for this?

>> No.12630863

>>12630806
>they pop out of nowhere, bro..
No, they are produced by the ground state of the photon field. Seriously, just get a QFT textbook and shut up until you've finished it.
>if you create an artificial special-condition then you are no longer in this time-space-continuum
What state are you describing; how do you create it? What equations describe its creation and evolution; what's its equation of motion?
It sounds like you're just conjuring up this magical state that can do whatever bullshit you need to facilitate time travel but without any basis in reality.

>> No.12630879

>>12630628
What is a timeline? If you move backwards in a physical dimension do you create an entirely new universe? Obviously not, so why is time supposed to be any different?
Is time a dimension or not?
What is even time?

>> No.12630888 [DELETED] 

>>12630863
>No, they are produced by the ground state of the photon field
and still manage it in isolation under test conditions every Planck distance across the entire universe.....
>NOOOOO, its magical tendrils of subspace ether, I tells ya!!!
>NOOOOO, passes thru everything I tells ya!!!

>What state are you describing; how do you create it? What equations describe its creation and evolution; what's blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
yeh, I'll you all about the blueprints, bro!!

>> No.12630909

>>12630863
wow, so as if by magic there is a constant of positrons and electrons popping into existence every plank distance but its not a free lunch....
it just happens, cause.

>> No.12630925
File: 51 KB, 500x500, 1557335493786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630925

>People seriously discussing time travel, timelines.

>> No.12630931
File: 2.71 MB, 1860x1338, GRAY & MANTIS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12630931

>>12630863
>What state are you describing; how do you create it? What equations describe its creation and evolution; what's its equation of motion?
>It sounds like you're just conjuring up this magical state that can do whatever bullshit you need to facilitate time travel but without any basis in reality.
but mastering special-condition is the core of what is the basic requirement of anti-gravity?
you really wanna hope there is no truth to any of that alien hype, shit ey?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLxHwkkuCQiCZfd8R_fCJ9z6sG54jNIBr

>> No.12630932

>>12629036
yes you have to move faster than light

>> No.12630943

>>12630932
can't possibly be that simple.

>> No.12630982

>>12630932
offset spacial divergence?

>> No.12631060

>>12630720
whats this ?

>> No.12631299
File: 720 KB, 1500x2274, WORMHOLE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12631299

>>12629036
>Is time travel possible
OK now lets talk about wormholes..
Lets just suppose we can create negative-mass and power-supply is no problem.

After making a wormhole, we just move one of the openings at relativistic speeds to offset its location in time relative to the other opening..

The big question is:
HOW DO WE MAKE WORMHOLES?

>> No.12631410

>>12631060
google john titor, a purported time traveller from 2036, posting online in 2000, who went back in time to the 70's to grab an ibm 5100, due to them having a unique feature that was not publicly known at the time, but was later confirmed to exist (basically they can debug and emulate code between various programming languages, a feature ibm kept secret to stop competitors from abusing it). supposedly the US government needed them to fix a looming 2038 unix timeout error, and the technology to fix it was depreciated and no longer existed.

he gave a few predictions that he said would be wrong at best and useless at worst, due to the complex nature of time travel and time divergence; his explanation of time travel was basically that travelling back on your own timeline is impossible, but you can travel "sideways" into a different timeline that is somewhat identical to what yours was X number of years in the past, but is otherwise divergent with an increasingly different future. titor said our timeline had a 2.5% divergence from his based on time distance traveled and accuracy of his machine. he also said that science of his time believes that world lines have a chance at all times to spontaneously cease to exist, seemingly at random. basically, the universe is unstable.

his predictions included a 2005 civil war, a 2015 nuclear war, a hidden mad cow pandemic where large portions of the the US have asymptomatic mad cow. also that time travel technology would not be made officially known to the public until 2034.

he accurately predicted the iraq war and that the US gov would use claims of WMD to invade. he also made comments about the workings of black holes and singularities that were considered impossible until 2004

>> No.12631449

>>12630559
agreed

>> No.12631928

>>12631449
>scitard go REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

>> No.12632273

"Time travel" to the future is theoretically possible through time dilation.

>> No.12632299

time dilation is sorta like time travel. you just gotta travel faster than 80% of the speed of light to have a good effect

>> No.12632512

>>12630705
that pic is cruisers slightly above the horizon, captured from the coast
you need to /x/ more

>> No.12632540 [DELETED] 
File: 107 KB, 411x247, unknown design.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632540

>>12632512
its not an ocean liner, dude.
thats easily the stupidest cope, sofar.

>> No.12632542

>>12629211
?????

>> No.12632547
File: 107 KB, 411x247, unknown design.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632547

>>12632512
its not an ocean liner lookout, dude.
thats easily the stupidest cope, sofar.

>> No.12632558

>>12632512
nigger, what are them aliens doin on a boat?

>> No.12632570

>>12632547
>>12632558
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2008-ufo-footage-from-turkey.9844/
retards

>> No.12632591
File: 618 KB, 494x213, nigger-green.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632591

>>12632570
where did all the glass windows go?
where's the pic of those seemless shutters looking anything like this?

is there any specific thing on that webpage I'm supposed to be impressed with?
so far its looks a bunch of shit..

>> No.12632613
File: 29 KB, 395x109, not the same.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12632613

>>12632570
looks nothing like it, bro.
if thats people then whole thing is too small.
are ocean liners that crammed for space?
lmao kek.

>> No.12633466

need a time machine bro

>> No.12634050

>>12629114
rules and laws are meant to be broken

>> No.12634356 [DELETED] 

>>12631299 >>12631410
>2006 device.
check

>> No.12634370

Im sure with advanced simulations time travel can become a real concept.
Though time travel "in reality" is a parlor trick of pop science

>> No.12634388 [DELETED] 

thnx everyone
have answer
>game-over<

>> No.12634401

>>12629036
If superstrings exists then you can go backwards through time by flying around a super string

>> No.12634760

>>12634401

ok we need a superstring

>> No.12634767

>>12629036
No. But it is easy enough to slow time down. Here, try this simple experiment: First stand still and place your legs firmly apart. Next ask some one with hard pointy shoes to give you a good solid kick in the nuts. As each second becomes filled with exquisite pain you will notice how time slows down.

>> No.12636393
File: 481 KB, 1920x1080, NEW IDEAS.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12636393

>>12629036
Are these these threads used by countries like China for data mining?

>> No.12636440

>>12629211
Would that make him spit dick instead?

>> No.12636472

>>12631410
>he came from a different future.
He'd create an alternate time-branch by coming here so our time-space originated & branched off his time-branch's past.

Jumping to other already established branches is an entirely different thing that he never claimed to have done.

>> No.12636990
File: 91 KB, 614x240, levitating ocean-liner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12636990

>>12632512
>>12632570
The ‘cruise ship’ hypothesis has been rebutted, mainly on the calculated elevation of the object, which is based on video fragments where the object and the moon were visible simultaneously and the moon’s position and angular size could be used as a yardstick (plus 7 additional counter arguments).
Source: http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/2013/02/multiple-reasons-suggest-turkey-ufo-was.html

>> No.12638336

need more time travel info

>> No.12638341

possible yes
likely no

>> No.12638341,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>12631410
He was wrong about everything else, Iraq was just a lucky coincidence.

>> No.12638341,2 [INTERNAL] 

>>12634050
You aren’t referring to PHYSICAL laws.