[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]

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

I know zero about this subject, but I ask in response to the original post, WHY is it assumed a parallel universe is created? Further, if this parallel universe is created, where is it created, and how does it correspond with anything that goes on in our universe? For example, is the parallel universe supposed to be kind of like "Groundhog Day" where everything is exactly the same, or is it just a random collection of atoms that might add up to living beings or it might just be a big block of rock?

[grey cells]

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

I know zero about this subject, but I ask in response to the original post, WHY is it assumed a parallel universe is created? Further, if this parallel universe is created, where is it created, and how does it correspond with anything that goes on in our universe? For example, is the parallel universe supposed to be kind of like "Groundhog Day" where everything is exactly the same, or is it just a random collection of atoms that might add up to living beings or it might just be a big block of rock?

My knowledge on this subject is limited to TIMELINE. But quite a lot of detail was covered in that novel.

The creation of a parallel universe was assumed when , during an experiment with photons(parcels of light energy) , when a single photon was passed through a electron spectrometer , the photons formed a particular pattern . the scientists arrive at a conclusion that the pattern could be formed , only with the help of interference with other photons from a parallel universe.

And as to the location of the multiverse , I guess mankind has a long way to go , since we as of now do not even know the exact location of our universe.

And the creation of a parallel universe is more than just an assumption . Just a month or two back , videotapes relating to some revelations in quantum physics were discovered , when the son(incidentally a rock musician) discovered the tapes of his father who did research in the early 1960's. But as far as I know , the contents of the videotape have been kept confidential.

Edited March 29, 2008 by grey cells

[grey cells]

CLARIFICATION:

The base I started this debate was on the matter whether we can really travel through time (or) is time travel merely travelling from one universe to another.

[Guest]

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 .

Quantum physics just means "physics involving things that are really, really small". It doesn't suggest or prove that there are zillions of parallel universes, only that there MIGHT be zillions of parallel universes.

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 definition of "universe" is "everything that observes, is observed by, or interacts with anything". Different universes would exist separately from ours. If it were possible to move between universes or observe them or interact with them in any way, they wouldn't be universes anymore, but rather just one singular universe.

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

That's . . . a novel. Not a physics textbook.

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.

You aren't defining quantum physics correctly, or time travel. Those are arguments.

And to answer the question, "Is time travel possible ?", no one knows. I've noticed over the years that physicists keep tossing up ideas for time travel, and others keep shooting them down. I'm reminded strongly of the era before the laws of thermodynamics were formulated, and a perpetual motion machine was considered a reasonable thing to try to invent, and many smart people tried; they didn't know why it was impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some undiscovered law of conservation that prevents time travel.

Or, perhaps not, and time travel really is possible. Bottom line, we don't know for sure.

[grey cells]

Yes , Scraff.As I have pointed out earlier my knowledge on this subject is limited. And I too am not telling that there is definite proof of multiple universes existing, I only quoted the content of TIMELINE.For that matter , isn't almost everything in physics theoritical? Is there proof that we are the only inhabitants of this universe? Leave aside the universe , is there proof that we are the only inhabitants with the so-called six senses on earth? We do not know what lies beneath the bowels of earth. We are assuming that just the lower strata of organisms are living below, what if thay were a superior race to us.

Ok . Coming back to the present topic. I know that TIMELINE is not a textbook ,but in each and everything is there not an iota of truth ?

And comparing time travel with the existence of multiverse , I think knowing that we do not even know the size of our universe,the probability of a multiverse existing becomes even higher.

[Guest]

You can't address time travel here until you establish the fundamentals you're asserting. So we have the 1st law of thermodynamics - energy can not be created or destroyed (which I'm guessing is basis physicists assume some parallel universe must exist and some energy change must happen there since within their closed system the photons may appear to be influenced by energy). I disagree with the sci/fi notion that parallel universes are created just because there may exist properties intrinsic to subatomic particles which we do not have the means to study/realize they exist. Sounds like a solution was created to fit the current knowledge, where a more valid approach would have been to expand the knowledge base to better document our understanding of areas we can quantify. Anyways, doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics (universe tends toward entropy) stipulate that time travel is impossible because it would involve restoring some order to the universe?? Since it is a LAW, and by definition a LAW is right without exception, can we not rule out time travel automatically?

[grey cells]

You can't address time travel here until you establish the fundamentals you're asserting. So we have the 1st law of thermodynamics - energy can not be created or destroyed (which I'm guessing is basis physicists assume some parallel universe must exist and some energy change must happen there since within their closed system the photons may appear to be influenced by energy). I disagree with the sci/fi notion that parallel universes are created just because there may exist properties intrinsic to subatomic particles which we do not have the means to study/realize they exist. Sounds like a solution was created to fit the current knowledge, where a more valid approach would have been to expand the knowledge base to better document our understanding of areas we can quantify. Anyways, doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics (universe tends toward entropy) stipulate that time travel is impossible because it would involve restoring some order to the universe?? Since it is a LAW, and by definition a LAW is right without exception, can we not rule out time travel automatically?

I agree with you , Largeneal , that a sound fundamental basis is required for any topic. And isn't the law of conservation of energy used as a basic principle in most of the phenomenons in this universe? I am sure that the physicists would not proceed with further research in this field without a sound proof or theory to back it . And I accept that I do not have proof of that "proof".

But anyway as most of the concepts of physics is theoritical , our discussion of the existence of time travel through multiverse is also theoritical.

And the definition of LAW you speak of is certainly not perennial. When Nicolaus Copernicus argued that the Earth was not the centre of the universe , but the sun was , physicists had to reanalyse their work. And now there is no doubt in our minds that the sun is in the centre and earth along with the other planets revolves around the sun.

The concepts we are speaking of now , may be devalued in the future by physicists having access to more advanced technology. No concept or law , we know can be proved to be eternal.

Time travel through multiverse is a definite possibility , if not a truth.

[Guest]

imo i feel that timetravel is possible... The only problem is that Date travelling is not.

The way i see it is that is you keep going west you go back in time and if you go east you go forward in time. The only problem with this is that is you keep going east then you will go to the next day. If you go to the next day though it doesn't change and you end up at 00:00 today so you will end up going back in time and vice versa with travelling west.

[grey cells]

imo i feel that timetravel is possible... The only problem is that Date travelling is not.

The way i see it is that is you keep going west you go back in time and if you go east you go forward in time. The only problem with this is that is you keep going east then you will go to the next day. If you go to the next day though it doesn't change and you end up at 00:00 today so you will end up going back in time and vice versa with travelling west.

I think what you are mentioning here is called "sidereal time". Though it may be somehow related to time travel , I dont think this will help in explaining the logic of multiverse. Maybe then you are supporting the concept of travelling through time ,i.e. , to the past and future . So then , I am still on favour of multiverse existing , than believing in travelling to the past and future in a time machine.

[Guest]

I agree with you , Largeneal , that a sound fundamental basis is required for any topic. And isn't the law of conservation of energy used as a basic principle in most of the phenomenons in this universe? I am sure that the physicists would not proceed with further research in this field without a sound proof or theory to back it . And I accept that I do not have proof of that "proof".

But anyway as most of the concepts of physics is theoritical , our discussion of the existence of time travel through multiverse is also theoritical.

And the definition of LAW you speak of is certainly not perennial. When Nicolaus Copernicus argued that the Earth was not the centre of the universe , but the sun was , physicists had to reanalyse their work. And now there is no doubt in our minds that the sun is in the centre and earth along with the other planets revolves around the sun.

The concepts we are speaking of now , may be devalued in the future by physicists having access to more advanced technology. No concept or law , we know can be proved to be eternal.

Time travel through multiverse is a definite possibility , if not a truth.

Well, within my sector of the industry we tend to accept laws as dogmatic. Is it possible these laws are fallible? Yes. Is it possible for a group of 8 year old basketball players to go out and beat an NBA All Star Team? Yes to that, too. Sitting there trying to refute years upon years of empirical findings will generally get you beat with a stick . Unfortunately, reality is a little more practical within research than pipe dreams of laws being refutable.

[grey cells]

Well, within my sector of the industry we tend to accept laws as dogmatic. Is it possible these laws are fallible? Yes. Is it possible for a group of 8 year old basketball players to go out and beat an NBA All Star Team? Yes to that, too. Sitting there trying to refute years upon years of empirical findings will generally get you beat with a stick . Unfortunately, reality is a little more practical within research than pipe dreams of laws being refutable.

Yes . I agree with you that the laws that have been formulated have been the result of years and years of hard work. And we cannot simply negate them sitting here and I apologise to those who may have been hurt by my statements . But the bitter truth maybe(just maybe , not is), that is physicists , again after years and years of hardwork may arrive at a conclusion , that may not agree with the already existing laws. But then this all just mere hypothesis and the idea of discussing time travel on this forum here is also just theoritical. So I assume there are no hard feelings.

[Guest]

Oh, I'm easily offended by statements on here and have to see a counselor on a daily basis so I can sleep at night.

Discussions are meant to have different viewpoints to provoke thoughts. If everyone thought the same, things would be boring. Someone else having a different viewpoint causes me to evaluate mine to see why I actually agree with it and if I'm able to justify it. So, never worry about what other people think of your thoughts - you provided them in a very academic fashion that in no way should offend anyone

[grey cells]

Thanks Largeneal. And I was sure it would not have offended you. Just joking.

But seriously , I think , like rules are meant to be broken , Laws are meant to be rectified.

[Guest]

Yeah, I have always questioned MANY laws in place (luckily I'm a molecular biologist so our laws are a little more definitive and harder to second guess), but nobody ever wants to fund someone trying to disprove a law. Further, any attempt to "rectify/improve" existing laws is no different in the eyes of grant committees than completely trying to disprove them. That's the problem with science - too many scientists contribute so much to one thing, that there's always a myriad of documentation that all points to one direction, leading to an immutable "law."

[grey cells]

Yes . Point taken , Largeneal . But I can assure you that the day is not far when the same people will rejoice and start on a funding spree , when there is definite proof of a law being proven conceptually . And coming to the topic of time travel , GO Multiverse !

[Guest]

I believe time travel is possible, but only to the future. Because:

If you are traveling the extremely fast to some distant place, you will age slower than people at your original starting point. For example, if you were to somehow travel faster than the speed of light to a star such as Proxima Centauri, and be traveling fast enough to get there and back before dying of old age, when you return to earth everything will have aged a lot further. And depending on how fast you go, the people who were the same age as you would be dramatically older than you.

(Source: book I read in 6th grade on time travel & game online where you compare age on earth to someone who traveled some percentage of the speed of light to a distant star or other object outside our solar system)

[grey cells]

Hi Harvey , I can see that you are in favour of the theory of actual time travel. And you yourself have stated that one can travel only into the future , not into the past . This in itself is a major setback to the theory of travelling through time .

But according to the theory of multiverse , one can travel to the future or to the past .

I would love to hear someone try to refute the theory of multiverse.

[itachi-san]

Hi Harvey , I can see that you are in favour of the theory of actual time travel. And you yourself have stated that one can travel only into the future , not into the past . This in itself is a major setback to the theory of travelling through time .

But according to the theory of multiverse , one can travel to the future or to the past .

I would love to hear someone try to refute the theory of multiverse.

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.

Furthermore, just to play devil's advocate and agree that parallel universes exist and are created every moment, then why should anyone reason that their futures will differ from the future of this current universe? Why would Hitler be alive? Why wouldn't the exact same set of effects take place given the exact same set of causes? I propose that if there were innumerable parallel universes then they would all be exactly the same and therefore useless in time travel because they should be advancing in terms of time identically with the universe from which they spawned.

Now, to continue making different points the Bubble Theory is interesting because it suggests the creation of universes from the quantum stuff of a parent universe. On a very small scale there are energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form. Now, we would stil have to make a huge assumption and say that the energy difference will effect time and/or physics.

For now, I'm going to stick with a one universe ideology. In this universe we cannot travel back in time. We can travel forward in a sense as harvey45 pointed out (also works with long-term frozen hibernation). I believe, for now, that the multiverse and other theories assume too much and then theorize based off of those unproven assumptions.

[Guest]

But according to the theory of multiverse , one can travel to the future or to the past .

I would love to hear someone try to refute the theory of multiverse.

Wow, I feel like I just ended up in a twisted version of the god/no-god debate.

Theist: "I believe in God! I'd like to see someone prove otherwise."

Atheist: "But you can't prove God doesn't exist."

Theist: "See? I knew you'd understand."

or

Atheist: "Science provides adequate explanations for all the phenomenon you attribute to God."

Theist: "I don't believe that it does. I think many of the explanations are insufficient and lacking evidence."

Atheist: "Oh yeah? Prove it."

It also reminds me of a discussion between Calvin and Hobbes:

Calvin: "My powerful brain has come up with a topic for my paper"

Hobbes: "Great"

Calvin: "I'll write about the debate over Tyrannosaurs. Were they fearsome predators or disgusting scavengers?"

Hobbes: "Which side will you defend?"

Calvin: "Oh, I believe they were fearsome predators, definitely."

Hobbes: "How come?"

Calvin: "They're so much cooler that way."

[grey cells]

Sorry for not replying for so long guys . As you know my exams were going on.

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.

If it boils down to assumptions , where in the name of god , is the definite proof for the Big Bang theory. As the physicists have not been able to come up with a more plausible theory , they are sticking with the Big B theory . The Big Bang theory is balancing itself on : the Cosmological principle(based on Copernican's theory) and the major assumption that the laws of Physics are universally applicable . If there is definitive proof of the Big Bang theory , I am ready to accept it , i.e. if I am being ignorant of it.

Furthermore, just to play devil's advocate and agree that parallel universes exist and are created every moment, then why should anyone reason that their futures will differ from the future of this current universe? Why would Hitler be alive? Why wouldn't the exact same set of effects take place given the exact same set of causes? I propose that if there were innumerable parallel universes then they would all be exactly the same and therefore useless in time travel because they should be advancing in terms of time identically with the universe from which they spawned.

The future existing in one universe would vary from the future of another universe and Hitler would be alive in not one universe but many because he would be present in the universes ranging from the instant he was born to the instant he was dead . So to meet Hitler we would necessarily have to go to those universes , which would be the equivalent of going into the past.

Now, to continue making different points the Bubble Theory is interesting because it suggests the creation of universes from the quantum stuff of a parent universe. On a very small scale there are energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form. Now, we would still have to make a huge assumption and say that the energy difference will effect time and/or physics.

Again it all boils down to assumptions proving that Physics is one greay assumption .

EDIT : Typo

Edited May 15, 2008 by grey cells

[grey cells]

Wow, I feel like I just ended up in a twisted version of the god/no-god debate.

Theist: "I believe in God! I'd like to see someone prove otherwise."

Atheist: "But you can't prove God doesn't exist."

Theist: "See? I knew you'd understand."

or

Atheist: "Science provides adequate explanations for all the phenomenon you attribute to God."

Theist: "I don't believe that it does. I think many of the explanations are insufficient and lacking evidence."

Atheist: "Oh yeah? Prove it."

It also reminds me of a discussion between Calvin and Hobbes:

Calvin: "My powerful brain has come up with a topic for my paper"

Hobbes: "Great"

Calvin: "I'll write about the debate over Tyrannosaurs. Were they fearsome predators or disgusting scavengers?"

Hobbes: "Which side will you defend?"

Calvin: "Oh, I believe they were fearsome predators, definitely."

Hobbes: "How come?"

Calvin: "They're so much cooler that way."

Puck , please don't suck me into that never ending discussion of proving the presence of god . Or has it arrived at a satisfactory conclusion ? I read that topic and wow , do you guys argue?

I know it is difficult to arrive at a logical , proven conclusion . But what's the harm in trying.

I love Calvin and Hobbes . By the way , is Calvin a Theist or Atheist?

[akaslickster]

Back to the subject of time travel. Until anything is proven I remain skeptical and dont believe in that or any quantams. Yes it is interesting to think about it but why discuss dreams or thoughts. For what good?

Edited May 15, 2008 by akaslickster

[grey cells]

Back to the subject of time travel. Until anything is proven I remain skeptical and dont believe in that or any quantams. Yes it is interesting to think about it but why discuss dreams or thoughts. For what good?

Aka , these are not dreams but they are definitely thoughts . I for one am very curious to learn the secrets of this universe . These discussions are just a illusionary way by which we can satisfy our hunger . Eventhough no definite conclusion can be reached , it definitely leads to ideas . And you will remain sceptical , as the proof will not be coming anytime soon , since even the Big Bang theory has not yet been proved conclusively.

[akaslickster]

Aka , these are not dreams but they are definitely thoughts . I for one am very curious to learn the secrets of this universe . These discussions are just a illusionary way by which we can satisfy our hunger . Eventhough no definite conclusion can be reached , it definitely leads to ideas . And you will remain sceptical , as the proof will not be coming anytime soon , since even the Big Bang theory has not yet been proved conclusively.

I prefer to watch the old Dr. Who episodes including the first 6 doctors, and daleks.

[Guest]

Okay, this is so weird that I read this. I have imagined ever since I was a little kid about time travel. Not only that but I have always imagined, there were multiuniverses. I have dreamed about them, thought about them, and now with the chance they might be real is amazing.