[grey cells]

Thanks , martini .I decided to start a new topic , as you suggested.

I do not know how many of you out there would have heard about Quantum Physics . It is one of the hot-and-happening topics in the field of science . For those who have not heard about lt , who would be very few , I will share what little I know and I will be brief.

According to Quantum Physics , for every second that passes , a parallel universe is created . Not even a second , for every miniscule fraction of time passed , another universe is created . Then imagine the number of universes that would have been formed by now and are forming now , even as I am typing and even as you are reading.

The following information , I will be quoting from Michael Crichton's novel "TIMELINE":

" There is no such thing as time travel . The only way to go into the past or into the future is to travel to another parallel universe . In one parallel universe(also referred to as multiverse) Adolf Hitler is dead , in yet another he may be alive."

The above information I have not quoted exactly from TIMELINE but the content is the same as far as I can remember.

And those who are interested in the topic of multiverse , TIMELINE is a must read.Excellent book.

For those who believe that time travel is travelling only through time and quantum physics is rubbish , please post your arguments.

And others who support the theory of quantum physics , please do give additional information.

[Guest]

OK then here I go. The theory of multiverses can be refuted by simply noting that in order to create any theory about multi-dimensional reality one must assume that parallel universes exist. This applies to String, M-Theory, Universe Bubbles and the 4 levels of the Multiverse Theory. Making this assumption is a huge leap in logic. It defies the much simpler reasoning that can be accomplished by just dealing with the one universe that we know exists.

When dealing with such unobservable matters our best guide may be some variation of Occam's Razor (the common-sense principle that the simplest explanation is the best one). The idea is a good one, though much misunderstood and misused. I personally am a little at odds with the principle as stated in the Wikipedia article I just linked to; "selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities". Firstly, I see no need to "select a theory", only to assess the relative merits of theories on offer. Secondly the reference to "fewest entities" is I think a red herring which would lead people to dismiss something like multiverse theory on account of the greater quantity of "stuff" that must therefore exist. My own version of Occam's Razor would be:

Any useful theory must fit observations. If several such theories exist and it is impossible to eliminate them by further observation, it makes sense to favour theories which make fewer assumptions and are simpler in their structure.

In quantum physics we have apparent randomness to explain. You could explain it by proposing multiple futures or simply say that random events happen. On the face of it, the second explanation looks simpler. But it leaves a few question marks. Randomness does not otherwise appear to be a part of the structure of our universe. A random event leaves open the question of how the event is selected. Do we have some universal mechanism for picking one of many outcomes? Perhaps that theory isn't so simple, perhaps it doesn't make sense at all.

Proposing multiple futures requires there to be an incredible amount of "stuff" in existence, but the theory itself is simpler, and fits in better with wave-particle duality. We are simply saying that any possible outcome of an event happens. If there is more than one possible outcome, all the possible outcomes happen. The underlying theory is simple (is it a theory or a tautology? - more on that later), even if the consequences are mind-boggling. It's like generating a fractal from a simple mathematical process. The outcome has complexity but the process does not. This is, in my opinion, a much better application of Occam's Razor.

If you say that the universe you are experiencing is all that exists, you are minimising the amount of "stuff" in existence. But your theory leaves open the question of why that universe exists, and not any other. The apparent improbability of fine-tuned universal constants leaves yet more to be explained. Answering these points could make your theory more complex than it needs to be.

But leaving Occam's Razor to one side, I'd say there are logical reasons to believe that multiple universes self-evidently must exist. The topic Virtual reality - what's virtual about it? is there to propose that notion. Considering the boldness of my proposition I've had surprisingly little comment on it. Must be the crap title putting people off.

As for the Bubble theory, I've little to say on the matter. It may be feasible but I'd just like to show that we don't need it.

[Guest]

Everyone knows time travel is possible. It's made possible by the flux capacitor powered by plutonium which can generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricity

You got that from back to the future didn't you?

[Guest]

Everyone knows time travel is possible. It's made possible by the flux capacitor powered by plutonium which can generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricity

You got that from back to the future didn't you?

[Guest]

Everyone knows time travel is possible. It's made possible by the flux capacitor powered by plutonium which can generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricity

Actually, according to the Doc, it's 1.21 "jiggawatts" Goodness only knows how many 10 to the powers that baby corresponds to.

Time travel is possible. Only, it's limited to a very slow forwards direction. Sort of like a 1000cc car with a broken gearbox and a stuck throttle. If time travel weren't possible nobody would ever get anything done.

Taking the assumption that every combination of every possible outcome of every moment is played out in a vast and ever increasing number of universes/multiverses, the action of moving to a parallel universe wouldn't involve journeying to a different time. It's travelling to a different possible universe, with a unique and different past. You can see the influences of that past (extending the Timeline example, Hitler lives and becomes subject to the greatest war crimes tribunal the world has ever seen) but you cannot exist in that past, or that future.

[Guest]

maybe if someone were travel to different universes, maybe it would only repeat certain memories of that persons life because it said every second their is a new universe created. maybe it could be possible just to travel to places that we've already been and only places we've been to in our lifetime. maybe people would be limited to their own memories unless they traveled with someone else to theirs.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Naruto Uzumaki

[hugemonkey]

A simple answer to your question is , yes, time travel is possible.

We are all move forward through time.

Einstein teaches us that time is relative meaning that we can compress or stretch certain local areas (moments?) of space-time based on our relative speed and/or mass but we can’t move backwards through it.

Assuming that you could some how fix your location on the same relative position on the surface of the Earth. If you were to compress time around you but everwhere else it remained the same you would seem to move faster than usual (think "the Flash"). If you were able to extend time around you but the rest of the world remained the same you could speedily move to to future (like if you were in suspended animation).

Quantum physics does imply an infinite number of universes (the multi-verse) that represent every possible (those having a probability greater than zero) chain of events. This means that not only alternate futures exist branching from one “now” but also alternate pasts exist that could have gotten you to the same “now” point. There is also the possibility (now really a good word choice here) that universes exist that contain impossible events but that these never intersect the multi-verse that we can explain.

So time travel may "exisist" in the full Hollywood/Jules Vern sense of it, but in an impossible universe.

Woah, this is getting a little too heavy for me right now, and no I am not stoned.

[Guest]

Sooo.. we could just create enough vacuum to pull apart the layers of time and just move around behind the curtains. The only problem would be hopping back in so alterations to the past could not be made. We look at time more than most regarding distance traveled when true time travel would be an explosion into time rather than moving from point A to B on the surface.

Anyways.. I think its possible. Every environment contains individual properties, the same rules that apply in air do not apply in water..etc. If we were talking about distance from A to B.. a light propelling an object would work great if possible. Then you have your whole, speed of light thing down.

Time doesn't move, it collapses onto itself and bleeds to the next frame of state where an object that is moving has had an initial force placed upon it and the new state of the object can be determined as "moving" because it has been altered in time.

[Guest]

You would have to get there b4 u left, possible? idk

[Guest]

Well.. currently the only true time travel right now is manipulation. If you manipulate the present to control the future's outcome then you are somewhat changing the past to make the future. Saying one thing to someone evaluating the reaction that it may have on them but seemingly covering all outcomes before they happen works well. Its like playing chess on a "life" scale. Understand all avenues that a person can take before you say something to them and have a response and systematic guide for the direction of each of their responses and so on. Like writing a book two pages ahead of what someone is reading but they don't realize that you are holding the pen.