Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] Israeli Researcher Develops New Theoretical Model of Time Machine

Expand Messages
  • Wayne Radinsky
    If time travel is possible, how come I have not been visited by people from the future? In Stephen Hawking s book, he says time travel, aka closed spacetime
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 11 11:32 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      If time travel is possible, how come I have not been visited by
      people from the future?

      In Stephen Hawking's book, he says time travel, aka "closed spacetime
      loops", are possible under string theory. However, while it may be
      possible for a subatomic particle (such as an electron) to travel
      backward in time, it is virtually impossible for a macro-sized object
      (such as a human being) even if the theory is true.

      Another problem is that string theory itself is an untested theory.
      This article doesn't mention string theory, only Einstein's general
      relativity.


      On 9/11/07, Michael Korns <mkorns@...> wrote:
      > Israeli Researcher Develops New Theoretical Model of Time Machine
      >
      > Technion Israel Institute of Technology researchers have developed a
      > theoretical model of a time machine that, in the distant future,
      > could possibly enable future generations to travel into the past. An
      > article on this research was published last week in the scientific
      > journal Physical Review.
      >
      > "In order to travel back in time, the spacetime structure must be
      > engineered appropriately," explains Prof. Amos Ori of the Technion's
      > Faculty of Physics. "This is what Einstein's theory of general
      > relativity deals with. It says that spacetime can be flat. That is –
      > it has a trivial, simple structure. But it can also be curved with
      > various configurations. According to the theory of relativity, the
      > essence of gravitational fields is in the curving of spacetime. The
      > theory of relativity also defines how space is curved and how this
      > curvature develops over time."
      >
      > The main question is – if according to the principles of curvature
      > development in the theory of relativity - can a time machine be
      > created? In other words – can we cause spacetime to curve in such a
      > way as to enable travel back in time? Such a journey requires a
      > significant curvature of spacetime, in a very special form.
      >
      > Traveling back in time is actually closing time-like curves so we can
      > go back to an event at which we were present in the past. In flat
      > space, it is not possible to close curves and go back in time. In
      > order for closed time-like curves to exist, there has to be a
      > curvature of a specific form on spacetime.
      >
      > The question Prof. Ori is investigating is – do the laws of gravity
      > permit the development of spacetime with the required curvature
      > (closed time-like curves)? In the past, scientists raised a number of
      > objections to this possibility.
      >
      > Prof. Ori is proposing a theoretical model for spacetime that could
      > develop into a time machine. The model overcomes some of the
      > questions, which, until now, scientists have not succeeded in
      > solving. One of the difficult claims against a time machine was that,
      > in order to create a time machine, it would be necessary for it to
      > contain material with negative density. And since we do not have such
      > material – and it is also not clear if the laws of nature enable the
      > existence of such material in the quantities required - it is not
      > possible to build a time machine. Now, Prof. Ori comes along and
      > proposes a theoretical model that does not require material with
      > negative density. The model that he proposes is, essentially, a
      > vacuum space that contains a region field with standard positive
      > density material.
      >
      > "The machine is spacetime itself," he explains. "Today, if we were to
      > create a time machine – an area with a warp like this in space that
      > would enable time lines to close on themselves – it might enable
      > future generations to return to visit our time. We, apparently,
      > cannot return to previous ages because our predecessors did not
      > create this infrastructure for us."
      >
      > Prof. Ori emphasizes that we still do not have the technology to
      > control gravitational fields at will, despite the fact that the
      > theoretical principles of how to do this exist. "The model that we
      > developed at the Technion is a significant step but there still
      > remains a number of non-trivial open questions," he stresses. "It may
      > be that some of these questions also will not be solved in the
      > future. This is still not clear."
      >
      > As an example, he brings up the problem of instability according to
      > which in spacetime with a time machine there could be disturbances
      > with increasing strength so that spacetime would be disrupted to such
      > an extent that it would cancel out the time machine. Prof. Ori, one
      > of the few scientists in the world investigating this issue, hopes
      > that continued research will present a clearer picture with respect
      > to these questions.
      >
      > Source: Technion Israel Institute of Technology
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Paul King
      ... The implication is that a machine would need to be built already in the past in order to receive people from the future. People from the future cannot
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 12 9:25 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Wayne Radinsky wrote:
        > If time travel is possible, how come I have not been visited by
        > people from the future?

        This question is addressed in passing in the article:
        > "... We, apparently,
        > cannot return to previous ages because our predecessors did not
        > create this infrastructure for us."

        The implication is that a machine would need to be built already
        in the past in order to receive people from the future. People from
        the future cannot project themselves into the past unless the machine
        already exists there to receive them. Therefore people from
        the future cannot visit us because we have not built a time machine
        to receive them yet.

        Such a time machine would need to be robust enough to last for
        a long time into the future, since it would only be able to bridge
        time periods that are continuously connected by the ongoing
        existence of a functioning machine.

        A problematic implication of the model is that contiguous spatial
        locations would be connected into a time loop. Time would
        go forward around the location of the machine, but backward
        within the machine's time-travel corridor.

        A communication feedback loop such as this would create
        a problematic information singularity. It would be like the "infinity"
        double-mirror devices, or like pointing a video camera at the television
        set displaying its video signal.

        If the time machine's feedback loop was isolated from the rest
        of the world (e.g. via an event horizon), it would be the roach motel
        of time travel -- you could enter the machine but you could
        never leave. If it were informationally connected to the rest
        of the world, it would have infinite computing power, because
        an unlimited number of computing iterations could be performed
        instantaneously inside the time loop. This would seem to violate
        a law of physics somewhere, and would certainly create a problem
        for the theory of entropy.

        One things is for sure. If civilization ever built such a device
        to receive information or entities from the future, the world
        would start to get very strange very quickly.

        Paul
      • Wayne Radinsky
        ... That s a good point. If you could bring knowledge of how to build computing machines from the future, you could essentially short-circuit Moore s Law,
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 12 11:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On 9/12/07, Paul King <email@...> wrote:
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > A communication feedback loop such as this would create a problematic
          > information singularity. It would be like the "infinity"
          > double-mirror devices, or like pointing a video camera at the
          > television set displaying its video signal.
          >
          > If the time machine's feedback loop was isolated from the rest of the
          > world (e.g. via an event horizon), it would be the roach motel of
          > time travel -- you could enter the machine but you could never leave.
          > If it were informationally connected to the rest of the world, it
          > would have infinite computing power, because an unlimited number of
          > computing iterations could be performed instantaneously inside the
          > time loop. This would seem to violate a law of physics somewhere,
          > and would certainly create a problem for the theory of entropy.

          That's a good point. If you could bring knowledge of how to build
          computing machines from the future, you could essentially
          short-circuit Moore's Law, because you could repeat the process, and
          repeat it again, ad infinitum -- you could essentially get the most
          advanced computing machine possible by the laws of physics without
          taking the time it would normally take to figure out how to do that
          -- the time would be the length of time of your time loop and that's
          all.

          Sorry about the previous duplicate email, I thought the first one
          didn't send so I retyped it.
        • Joschka Fisher
          Greetings: You probably have been visited, several times. The issue is this. You can go back to the past..well up to certain limits. But...you can t interact
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 15 5:39 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Greetings:

            You probably have been visited, several times.

            The issue is this. You can go back to the past..well
            up to certain limits. But...you can't interact with
            it.

            There are several methods:

            a) Light from distant stars and planets come to Earth
            with basically a history of the environment
            "streaming" in the form ot electromagnetic energy. It
            would be a matter of a method and machine to "read"
            this information.
            Supposedly this was what they were working on at Area
            51.

            a(i)) You'd have the same issue if you could convert
            yourself into energy. You could intersect with
            previous streams but you couldn't interact with their
            activity.

            b) To go physically - "back" into time..to its very
            dimension would involve changing your electromagnetic
            signature to the one you're entering...but even then
            you'd be breaking the continuity of electromatter and
            I don't think that's possible unless in the vacinity
            of an astronomical singularity like a black hole.

            --- Paul King <email@...> a écrit :

            >
            > Wayne Radinsky wrote:
            > > If time travel is possible, how come I have not
            > been visited by
            > > people from the future?
            >
            > This question is addressed in passing in the
            > article:
            > > "... We, apparently,
            > > cannot return to previous ages because our
            > predecessors did not
            > > create this infrastructure for us."
            >
            > The implication is that a machine would need to be
            > built already
            > in the past in order to receive people from the
            > future. People from
            > the future cannot project themselves into the past
            > unless the machine
            > already exists there to receive them. Therefore
            > people from
            > the future cannot visit us because we have not built
            > a time machine
            > to receive them yet.
            >
            > Such a time machine would need to be robust enough
            > to last for
            > a long time into the future, since it would only be
            > able to bridge
            > time periods that are continuously connected by the
            > ongoing
            > existence of a functioning machine.
            >
            > A problematic implication of the model is that
            > contiguous spatial
            > locations would be connected into a time loop. Time
            > would
            > go forward around the location of the machine, but
            > backward
            > within the machine's time-travel corridor.
            >
            > A communication feedback loop such as this would
            > create
            > a problematic information singularity. It would be
            > like the "infinity"
            > double-mirror devices, or like pointing a video
            > camera at the television
            > set displaying its video signal.
            >
            > If the time machine's feedback loop was isolated
            > from the rest
            > of the world (e.g. via an event horizon), it would
            > be the roach motel
            > of time travel -- you could enter the machine but
            > you could
            > never leave. If it were informationally connected
            > to the rest
            > of the world, it would have infinite computing
            > power, because
            > an unlimited number of computing iterations could be
            > performed
            > instantaneously inside the time loop. This would
            > seem to violate
            > a law of physics somewhere, and would certainly
            > create a problem
            > for the theory of entropy.
            >
            > One things is for sure. If civilization ever built
            > such a device
            > to receive information or entities from the future,
            > the world
            > would start to get very strange very quickly.
            >
            > Paul
            >
            >
            >



            _____________________________________________________________________________
            Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
          • Wayne Radinsky
            ... You don t need Area 51. You do this every time you look in a telescope. Actually you don t even need a telescope, all you need to is look at the night sky.
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 20 1:35 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On 9/15/07, Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...> wrote:
              >
              > Greetings:
              >
              > You probably have been visited, several times.
              >
              > The issue is this. You can go back to the past..well up to certain
              > limits. But...you can't interact with it.
              >
              > There are several methods:
              >
              > a) Light from distant stars and planets come to Earth with basically
              > a history of the environment "streaming" in the form ot
              > electromagnetic energy. It would be a matter of a method and machine
              > to "read" this information. Supposedly this was what they were
              > working on at Area 51.

              You don't need Area 51. You do this every time you look in a
              telescope. Actually you don't even need a telescope, all you need to
              is look at the night sky. Thankfully, it looks like there will soon
              be enough light pollution that this won't be possible any more.

              Anyway, saying that light from distant stars, light-years in the
              past, constitutes "being visited" by beings from the past... is
              really stretching it.

              > a(i)) You'd have the same issue if you could convert yourself into
              > energy. You could intersect with previous streams but you couldn't
              > interact with their activity.

              This doesn't make sense. But I'd only have this issue "if I could
              convert myself into energy" which I can't, so who cares.

              > b) To go physically - "back" into time..to its very dimension would
              > involve changing your electromagnetic signature to the one you're
              > entering...but even then you'd be breaking the continuity of
              > electromatter and I don't think that's possible unless in the
              > vacinity of an astronomical singularity like a black hole.

              You forgot you'd also need a little jibber jabber to rotate the
              coordinates of your spacetime continuum snizzle dizzle fo fizzle.



              > --- Paul King <email@...> a écrit :
              >
              > >
              > > Wayne Radinsky wrote:
              > > > If time travel is possible, how come I have not
              > > been visited by
              > > > people from the future?
              > >
              > > This question is addressed in passing in the
              > > article:
              > > > "... We, apparently,
              > > > cannot return to previous ages because our
              > > predecessors did not
              > > > create this infrastructure for us."
              > >
              > > The implication is that a machine would need to be
              > > built already
              > > in the past in order to receive people from the
              > > future. People from
              > > the future cannot project themselves into the past
              > > unless the machine
              > > already exists there to receive them. Therefore
              > > people from
              > > the future cannot visit us because we have not built
              > > a time machine
              > > to receive them yet.
              > >
              > > Such a time machine would need to be robust enough
              > > to last for
              > > a long time into the future, since it would only be
              > > able to bridge
              > > time periods that are continuously connected by the
              > > ongoing
              > > existence of a functioning machine.
              > >
              > > A problematic implication of the model is that
              > > contiguous spatial
              > > locations would be connected into a time loop. Time
              > > would
              > > go forward around the location of the machine, but
              > > backward
              > > within the machine's time-travel corridor.
              > >
              > > A communication feedback loop such as this would
              > > create
              > > a problematic information singularity. It would be
              > > like the "infinity"
              > > double-mirror devices, or like pointing a video
              > > camera at the television
              > > set displaying its video signal.
              > >
              > > If the time machine's feedback loop was isolated
              > > from the rest
              > > of the world (e.g. via an event horizon), it would
              > > be the roach motel
              > > of time travel -- you could enter the machine but
              > > you could
              > > never leave. If it were informationally connected
              > > to the rest
              > > of the world, it would have infinite computing
              > > power, because
              > > an unlimited number of computing iterations could be
              > > performed
              > > instantaneously inside the time loop. This would
              > > seem to violate
              > > a law of physics somewhere, and would certainly
              > > create a problem
              > > for the theory of entropy.
              > >
              > > One things is for sure. If civilization ever built
              > > such a device
              > > to receive information or entities from the future,
              > > the world
              > > would start to get very strange very quickly.
              > >
              > > Paul
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > _____________________________________________________________________________
              > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Scott Solmonson
              On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:35:34 -0700, Wayne Radinsky ... I ve been getting high quality jibber-jabbers from these guys:
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 20 7:13 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:35:34 -0700, Wayne Radinsky <waynerad@...>
                wrote:

                > On 9/15/07, Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> b) To go physically - "back" into time..to its very dimension would
                >> involve changing your electromagnetic signature to the one you're
                >> entering...but even then you'd be breaking the continuity of
                >> electromatter and I don't think that's possible unless in the
                >> vacinity of an astronomical singularity like a black hole.
                >
                > You forgot you'd also need a little jibber jabber to rotate the
                > coordinates of your spacetime continuum snizzle dizzle fo fizzle.

                I've been getting high quality jibber-jabbers from these guys:

                http://chronos.ws/timegates.html

                Also Joschka, I can't help but see your spelling of vicinity with a G
                where the C is.
                That's my smile for the day :)

                -SS
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.