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

Re: Israeli Researcher Develops New Theoretical Model of Time Machine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Sep 12, 2007
    • 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 2 of 8 , Sep 12, 2007
      • 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 3 of 8 , Sep 15, 2007
        • 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 4 of 8 , Sep 20, 2007
          • 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 5 of 8 , Sep 20, 2007
            • 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.