[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 297 KB, 2202x1362, GettyImages-475158089-57f676975f9b586c35f96dc5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16541597 No.16541597 [Reply] [Original]

If you move a particle, but then move it back to where it was, how is this in any way distinguishable from time travel?

>> No.16541628

>this is the average /sci/ post today
sad

>> No.16541696

>>16541628
If you travel to the past, how would that be any different than just reordering the future?

>> No.16541726

>>16541597
Holy shit you're retarded aren't you.

>> No.16541787

>>16541726
no u

Just imagine, if you put one lelectron in a box, take the box with you and go to another room then come back. Lelectron effectively time traveled.

>> No.16541795

>>16541787
woah! Bro, that’s like so derpy and cool if you think about it!

Lay off the weed, anon.

>> No.16541799

>>16541795
I don't smoke. Now answer the godamn question.

>> No.16541823

>>16541726
If the states are indistinguishable, how are they different?

>> No.16541825

Hey if the whole universe is two objects at rest with respect to one another,
Can time even be said to be passing at all?

>> No.16541858

>>16541597
I've thought about this. Rewinding time is essentially putting everything back where it was before. So is that literally it?

>> No.16542036
File: 1.67 MB, 498x498, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16542036

>>16541825
If all matter is made of light, and light doesn't experience time, can it be said that time even exists at all?

>> No.16542039

>>16541597
Its not, because time is not real.
Like 9.81 m/s^2
Whats a square second?
Its not real its an illusion

>> No.16542083

>>16542039
I guess you think no velocity can change over a period of time. It is just impossible to go 60 mph then back down 0 mph.

>> No.16542086

>>16541597
Because you start off with wrong assumption and you get to the wrong conclusion.

1) Abandon the stupid copenhagen interpretation about destructive collapse nonsense. There's no collapse. There's just various entanglement at play where those that are entangled "see" each other. And those that aren't dont "see" each other. Measurement is just entanglement. There are no collapse. And certainly timetraveling particle is nonsense fiction. Collapse isnt part of the QM. Its an extra heuristics to explain the measurement.

2) Quantumized particles is also wrong entirely. The particles and them being entangled are just wrong/inadequete description of reality as well.

>> No.16542736

>>16542083
The point is that a square second is just a mathematical thing not a real one, maths is a language that describes physics to humans and humans think with this concept of time which is in fact not real, thats why on paper something like a square second can exist but not in reality.
Please in the future dont aggressively misunderstand my point, thats quite rude.