The 10th Dimension

[coder0xff]

I don't think the scientific community ever agreed on the radicle idea that all possible outcomes exist as a separate reality. That is science fiction. In fact, lest the seemingly random nature of quantum mechanics is truly random, only one future is possible, because that future solely depends upon the current state of reality, and the laws that govern the progression of reality (unless you believe in a soul affecting human decision and such nonsense - and strictly speaking it is nonsense because we currently have no sensible way to provide empirical evidence that it does).

As for the time/space effect of high speed travel, the person is not traveling "back" in time, they are merely progressing through time at a slower rate. In our modern world of particle accelerators and such, this is reproduced daily.

Overall, I'm actually inclined to agree with korge on this one, with the idea of time machines in general. However, this time machine is different. As stated, it can only send messages back as far as the time the machine is turned on. They don't mention however, that the machine must also be on continuously from the time of reception through to the time of transmission. This is because the particle doesn't instantaneously travel back to the intended time, but actually does so gradually. To be more clear: Say you drop a particle in at 5 seconds. At some point it will be back at 4s, and the machine (at that time in the past) continues to move it back to second 3 etc. Unless the creator implements a way to pull a particle out at a given time, all transmissions will pile up and become present at the exact moment the machine becomes operational, hence only good for a one time transmission with only as much data as can be stored in a glob of particles (possibly trying to be instantiated in the same physical space) at one moment in time. Why can't he pull a particle out? Because each particle will only be present for an infinitesimal amount of time at any given reference. If you try to "catch" one particle, you'll catch all of them (up until the next "catch" or when the machine is not operating)...

Hmmm... my solution: Have two of these devices. Perform catches periodically, alternating between the two devices. Any data that was not intended for the current catch is fed into the partner device before it's next catch. Kinda like climbing down a ladder, one step at a time, alternating feet.

[Mr. Happy]

I just want to point out the level of debate in the scientific community, though most physiscists are resigned to what is known as the copenhagen interpretation, not all are. Not all ascribe to string theory either, and not all ascribe to the same VARIETY of string theory even if they believe in string theory at all!

I don't think the scientific community ever agreed on the radicle idea that all possible outcomes exist as a separate reality. That is science fiction. In fact, lest the seemingly random nature of quantum mechanics is truly random, only one future is possible, because that future solely depends upon the current state of reality, and the laws that govern the progression of reality (unless you believe in a soul affecting human decision and such nonsense - and strictly speaking it is nonsense because we currently have no sensible way to provide empirical evidence that it does).

The scientific community has enver completely agreed on anything since quantum mechanics was first discovered about a hundred years ago Seriously though, the many-worlds interpretation (as the idea that all possible universes exist is known) and the copenhagen interpretation (the idea that observers create reality by measuring quantum events) have traditionally been very seperate. Tbere is alot of debate about these various metaphysical interpretations of physics, especially since (as i understand it) the maths for each is all the same.

It's kind of arrogant for you to say that the idea of a soul is nonsense (though I agree) because of the "progression of reality" and the lack of "empirical evidence." There is alot of debate in philosophy, about how you interpret logical and scientific observation and theory (wether or not empiracle evidence is full evidence, etc., is a question of epistemology. For example, though events may be influenced by previous events (determinism) that does not mean that that is the only piossible outcome of the event (fatalism), or even that causation exists (metaphysical libertarianism).

Think about this, if time is a spatial dimension in the way that x,y,z are spatial dimensions, rather than a dimension that contains those three dimensions, then movement becomes possible around in time, and the equations and laws that we typically think of as PREDICTING reality do not do so but instead DESCRIBE reality.

Also, about a soul, I agree that the idea of a seperate soul is problematic, it is even more problematic that there isn't some sort of decision making since we clearly experience consiousness! Saying there is a property of the mind that is not physical does not neccesisarily mean a soul, you might also talk about various types of emergence which i think is maybe the most beautifull idea ever put forward by a brit!

[oneups]

I got this book a few years back. Pretty interesting. Definitely worth a read. Certainly opens up the mind to other possibilities. Neat stuff.

[Athlete{UK}]

I don't think the scientific community ever agreed on the radicle idea that all possible outcomes exist as a separate reality. That is science fiction.

The scientific community has never agreed that gravity is what makes an apple fall from a tree. So what's your point?

Speaking in completes as you do is pretty pointless when it comes to any of this stuff all anyone can do is offer their best guess regardless of how educated that guess may be.

Quite frankly there are many models in which the idea of there being any kind of predictability in what we know as the universe is complete nonesense.

[oneups]

I don't think the scientific community ever agreed on the radicle idea that all possible outcomes exist as a separate reality. That is science fiction.

The scientific community has never agreed that gravity is what makes an apple fall from a tree. So what's your point?

Speaking in completes as you do is pretty pointless when it comes to any of this stuff all anyone can do is offer their best guess regardless of how educated that guess may be.

Quite frankly there are many models in which the idea of there being any kind of predictability in what we know as the universe is complete nonesense.

Well said. Can't add much more to that. Kind of a tangent here but everyone hear about the hadron collider going on this spring?

[coder0xff]

My point is that the presentation of the 10 dimensions (except the first few) is a fabrication, and it imparts no concept of how much the idea of 10 dimensions implies, however much that may or may not be. I could compare ten dimensions to the story of little red riding hood, but that doesn't mean I should tote it around like it's legitimate.

I'm kinda dissapointed that noone had anything to say about the rest of my post; but only to refute what I said about the video. Which is within your rights and the thread topic... but geez...

---------
Edit: Mr. Happy, I did enjoy reading your reply. It was insightfull, and I learned something. That, I appreciate.

[Athlete{UK}]

Well as a matter of fact if you read the book the introduction sees the writer point out that his books isn't a publishing of an indepth theory of ten dimensional space and isn't toted as legitimate. Quite the opposite infact.

The book is intended as a kind of stepping stones for the average man to grasp the fundamentals of moving beyond four dimension space in certain theoretical models.

At no point does he ever say "this is how it is." He is completely open about the flaws in his theories and suggests books to move onto afterwards in order or get a better idea of contemporary theories.

I find the book a very easy read and a great mental exercises to play around with on a weekend.

[Spike]

Newton FTW

[coder0xff]

I think Newton would be blown away with the strange and unintuitive things we have now, so far from what he discovered.

[Mr. Happy]

I re-read what you said about the messages piling up, I think that's a very interesting problem. I feel like this would not happen because I think the length of the machine defines in concrete units the length of time traversed. It seems like by twisting space into a vortex time gets laid side by side the vector which defines the center of the vortex, so it can only push the particle back in time by an amount of time equivalent to the length of the vortex. So, for example, 1 meter of space = 1 hour backwards in time.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea whether or not this makes any sense, or what the guys theory is!

I'm sorry I must have missed it, what book are you guys talking about? Something the guy who made the video wrote but I didn't see anyone mention a title?

I think Newton would be blown away with the strange and unintuitive things we have now, so far from what he discovered.

I don't know about newton, but I just the other day saw this great quote by Heisenberg (one of the principle men behind quantum mechanics) in a book I'm reading called Quantum Reality: Beyond the N ew Physics

"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair, and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: "Can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?" --Werner Heisenberg (Quoted as epigraph to ch. 4, Quantum Reality)

[unclep4ul]

Just watched the video.

What a load of bollocks.

[coder0xff]

You are correct about the relation between the length of the vortex and the time traversed, but only as a maximum. If only half the time is traversed before reaching the time when the machine began operation then the vortex no longer exists, and the progress backwards through time ends. If the machine is continuously operational, then yes, particles will arrive in order - assuming they are entered at the top of the vortex.

It'd be interesting to do a combination of a penning trap with this device making a torus out of the vortex. There could be a break in the vortex where particles are received and transmitted, making it only necessary to have one device to have controlled communication, similar to how I explained with the two parallel devices.

-------
Edit: I just realized that the paradox of technological advancement would be limited by the bandwidth of the device. As we built bigger and better system, it would become more and more drastic, but it would never be infinite.

-------
Edit: I think the real question about the pilling up problem is: how far back would one of these devices send particles? If it's only a few seconds, then nothing special is needed. But if it's huge, then... yeah.

[Jitterbug]

HEY
I remember watching this video a while back! A couple years ago, to be accurate.
Really got me thinking about the concepts proposed in the video. Cool stuff.

[Rasky_26]

Alright, so I watched the video about the creation of the theoretical time machine and the part that I'm unclear on is how light manipulates space (@ time: 1:35). The idea of space bending and curving light has been around and it makes sense because of observations and gravitational forcings. However, I can't quite grasp how light can manipulate space into a cylindrical form to make this feasible. Anyone offer insight?

[ghost12332]

Mind=Dead

I'll let the physicists, philosophers, and regligionists fight each other until something understandable and concrete comes out.