Professor Predicts Human Time Travel This Century (1 Viewer)

[drobbins]

I see no way the multiple universe theory can be true. Picture any event where an action takes place. From that action there is another and another etc... if any if these actions happened differently, there is a whole different chain of events that follow. Now picture the number of actions that can happen per second not just on earth but in the universe and multiply that by the number of seconds since time began. My head hurts! :frowning: There would be an infinite number of "alternate" dimensions or universes with an infinite number of realities. In many, the earth would not even exist and in others, I might be the richest man on earth. So time travel wounden't be as much traveling along a time line as it would be switching alternate universes. How could the zillions and zillions of universes co-exist? Even in different dimensions? When you traveled to an alternate universe where you are a billionaire, would you want hundreds of alternate "you" from other realities, showing up at the same time, to live your life?

Now picture time as a line. Kind of like watching a movie. The first time you watch it, you and the characters on screen don't know what the future brings and make the best decisions that you can based on the info you have at the time. Some are good and some are bad and the movie usually has a happy ending. Now you watch the movie again. You see the character going to make the same decisions again and again. To the characters they are doing things for the first time, but to you it is history. If you could communicate to them, and tell them the future, would you be seen as a prophet?

Now picture a screen that can look across time. What would you look back on? The beginning of time? The beginning of mankind? Would you look back 2 seconds ago at what happened in you neighbors house? Scary huh?

If the past can't be changed, then the future is already set also. Remember that tomorrow is already the futures past.

Dave

 

[BrianW]

Not just hundreds - it could be infinite. I remember an Outer Limits episode wherein someone tried to switch places with another self in a different universe in which he was a rich billionaire, but he ended up switching places with the self in the universe in which he was a serial killer. The him in this universe was clever enough to figure out a way to travel between alternate universes, but he didn't think the other hims would be clever enough to foil his agenda. Poor sap.

So let that be a lesson to you: If you ever become a billionaire in this universe, before going to bed at night, be sure not only to lock all the doors and windows, but also be sure to check the time-fork-portal thingy to make sure another more wretched you from another universe isn't coming through to steal your life.

If time travel ever becomes possible, I would expect Trans-Universe Identity Theft to supplant Evil Twin Treachery as the most-used plot point in daytime television screenplays.

 

[RobertR]

I've always had a nitpick with the terminology of "multiple universes", because the Universe is supposed to be the sum total of all that exists. But I see that definition has essentially been abandoned. What we used to call the "Universe" is now the "Multiverse".

That changes the debate over the fate of, er, Existence. Even if this universe keeps expanding and experiences heat death, there are infinitely more universes that would still be around (infinitely more Big Bangs? Except they don't seem so big anymore).

 

[BrianW]

Robert, you're right. But with the new concepts of higher dimensions, quantum foam, and colliding branes (among others), I think we've indeed had to rethink our notion of what constitutes a universe. "All that is" used to be "All that is accessible" using a (hypothetical) infinite-speed space ship. But that's no longer the case. If these new concepts turn out to be correct, then the vast majority of all that exists will forever remain inaccessible, even with an infinite number of infinite-speed ships.

In other words, if it exists, and you can point to it, no matter how small, how big, or how far away it is, then it's in our Universe. It used to be the case that all that could be pointed to was the self-same set as all that existed. But now that's no longer the case, a distinction definitely needs to be made.

So our Universe comprises only that which exists that is accessible using an infinite-speed ship (i.e., can be pointed to). Anything that exists that is inaccessible using our fleet of infinite-speed ships is not in our Universe. And we've come up with the term "multiverse" to refer to the collection of universes, which now refers to all that exists.

I actually prefer that kind of terminology (and it is just terminology), not only because it extends the comfortable notion that everything in our Universe can at least be pointed to, no matter how small, how big, or how far away it is, but also because the existence of things we can't point to can be referenced simply by adding to our vocabulary the term "multiverse", whose meaning is as clear and immediately obvious as a new theoretical term is ever likely be.

The alternative is that we'd continue to refer to the UNIVERSE as all that exists, and we'd have to come up with another word that would refer to our, um, Universe, as some sort of hotel room within the vast UNIVERSE of all that exists. And I can't think of a term (hotel room, bubble, brane, cell, chamber, cosmic booger, etc.) whose meaning is nearly as intuitively obvious at that scale as "multiverse" is at the other end of the scale.

 

[RobertR]

 

[MarkHastings]

According to what, though? The human brain came up with that theory, and the human brain is no where near capable of managing the complete secrets of the universe. It's like trying to run the Space Shuttle with a AAA battery.

The best we can do is take old information and keep building upon it (or revising it).

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

And where would you ever find time to dust them?

More seriously, if you can conceive of an infinite anything you can conceive of an infinite number of anythings. So I don't see this as being any more of a problem than any other instance of an infinity.

Actually the two concepts I can never quite wrap my brain around are the finite and the infinite. Because infinity itself violates my experience in the real world that everythng has limits, yet as soon as I can imagine anything, including the universe, to have "limits" or "borders" or any definite "edge" that make it finite and lend it shape, I have to image some kind of space "outside" those borders or that shape in which the thing exists.

So I just live with the paradox and go on with my life. Because, as Alvy Singer's mother once explained, "Brooklyn is not expanding"



Regards,

Joe

 

[ChristopherDAC]

They used to call galaxies, particularly our own Milky Way Galaxy [and considering that "Milky Way" is just a translation of Gk. galxein that's about as dumb a term as you can get] "universes" with a small "u" — you may still find the phrase "island universe" somewhere. The word "Universe" itself denotes by its literal meaning the totality of all existence ; in fact "multiverse" would be a better name for one of the little "chunks", to indicate that there may be several. In fact I am not certain whether it is reasonable to hold with the "parallel timelines" idea, since it is necessary only to a strict determinist mentality coming in contact with quantum indeterminacy.

 

[Steve Deacon]

An infinite number of universes, and I get stuck in this one.

 

[RobertR]

I don't think "multiverse" quite fits for one of the "chunks" (maybe we could invent something else), but I would like to see "Universe" used to describe EVERYTHING.

 

[BrianW]

If "universe" is used to describe EVERYTHING, then I propose calling each individual chunk (including our neck of the woods) a "subverse".



Hey, it's better than "cosmic booger".

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I don't know about that, I might have been a much better student if terms like Cosmic Booger had shown up in textbooks more often. Its unique, which would be a good advertisement for our little corner of the expanse of space and time. I mean you'd be more likely to remember "Cosmic booger" than say Subuniverse 132457673456677889. Cause we couldn't possibly be arogant enough to call ourselves subuniverse 1 now could we?

Ok, so am I the only one that's worried that someone might have traveled back in time, landed in our little subverse and read this thread determining that we were all hopeless and boring, and that we must have no value for time anyway?

 

[drobbins]

Even if it is possible to take something apart on the atomic level and send it through time, that is a far cry from sending something living. If a machine were built that would disassemble a person on the atomic level and send the atoms back or forward in time, what would there be on the destination side to put them all back in the correct arraignment? I think that there would be just a pile of atoms on the other side. When matter is sucked into a black hole it is destroyed on the atomic or subatomic level.

Speaking of time travel, I checked today and found out that I have spent 5 days 45 minutes and 12 seconds of time logged into HTF

Dave

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Meanwhile former Marlin and Phillie's player Darren Daulton thinks he can travel through time as well. Oh, and he knows when the world is going to end. (But he doesn't know the meaning of the word "metaphysics".) I'm watching a profile of him on ESPN right now. You can also read about Daulton's, er, interesting take on life at the Sports Illustrated web site

Regards,

Joe

 

[MarkHastings]

Perhaps we need to see some stats on how many times Darren was hit by a pitch (to the head).

 

[drobbins]

Originally I agreed with this 100% then I had this thought:
Time travel was possible. Some men already traveled to their past and changed it from their perspective. Because of the chain reaction, they no longer exist or their time machine. We are here now.

 

[Cees Alons]

Mmmm.

If we cannot travel back or forth in time (at least not faster than we do normally) in our own universe, because of the inconsistencies and paradoxes, then time travel doesn't involve free will: we can only travel to a universe where our intention to "alter the past" is already realized (e.g. I kill my grandfather in a universe where he is killed, so "I" do not exist there in the first place).

And if the fact that we don't meet any time travelers from the future (including ourselves) is indeed explained by the inability to visit our own universe when time-traveling, then apparently time travel isn't invented in many universes. Perhaps even our own universe only, because we also haven't met any travelers from the future of other universes, do we?

Here's another thought: if the paradox of creating an inconsistent universe through an act of time travel is solved by the inability to time-travel in the same universe, wouldn't the threat of performing an act that would render our multiverse inconsistent (no longer belong to each other) be solved by the inability to visit our own multiverse in the past or future? So actually, we visit another multiverse, of course.
So are there infinite multiverses? I think so!
Now lets call them all together a polymultiverse, then wouldn't the threat ....


Cees

 

[Rex Bachmann]

ChristopherDAC wrote (post #57):


The "invading alternates" are cleverer in the old Twilight Zone episode, "Mirror, Mirror" (1959), where both secretary Millicent Barnes (Vera Miles) and (adman?) Paul Grinstead (Martin Milner) fall prey to their aggressive and highly determined counterparts.

The story doesn't tell us how these alternates come into "our world"---there is an awful lot of lightening and natural electrical discharge in the atmosphere when these events occur. You be the judge---, but the story makes it clear that they, the "invaders", know that they've come onto an "alternate Earth", while their home counterparts have not a clue as to what's happening to them---until it's too late.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Main Entry: gal·axy Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: galks, -si sometimes gl-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: Middle English galaxie, galaxias, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin galaxia, from Latin galaxias, from Greek, from galakt-, gala milk; akin to Latin lac milk
1 a often capitalized : MILKY WAY GALAXY b : one of billions of large systems of stars including not only stars but nebulae, star clusters, globular clusters, and interstellar matter that make up the universe -- called also extragalactic nebula
2 : an assemblage of brilliant, noted, or notable persons or things
3 : GALAX 2


"galaxy." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 Apr. 2006).
© 2005-2006 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

The English Milky Way is a direct translation of the Latin via lactea.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Joseph DeMartino wrote (post #59):


That should read "allegedly akin to Latin lac", to be more accurate. It's long been presumed, but yet to be proven, and the problems with the equation have not gone---and won't just go---away.