Utopia and Time Travel

[Donn]

Great find!

I became very bored with the old plot line of time travelers going back to "fix" a historic wrong and I began to think- if there is time travel how could we know what the "real" (unaltered) history might have been? Maybe time travelers went back in time to change a "real" (unaltered) history (e.g. the Titanic missed the ice berg at the last minute) into an altered one that we only think is the "real" history (e.g. the Titanic hits the ice berg). The reasons could be many, but I would presume hypothetically that the repercussions of the Titanic missing the ice berg were much worse than having it hit the ice berg (one of the passengers would, if not drowned, have later ensured a Nazi victory in WW2??), so the time travelers had to make the ship hit the berg whereas it wouldn't otherwise have done so.

Of course this entire thread makes me think of the Time Travelers Convention at MIT in 2013. When one of the organizers was asked by a reporter if they planned to make it an annual event, the organizer asked, "Why?" Brilliant!

Travelers could be changing every last detail across all ages multiple times per second and we'd still have our constant history. There's no way to know.

 

[Navigator]

No - there isn't. There is only a subjective now. And your subjective now might be different from my subjective now.

This is 100-year old science. It may seem strange, but it's true.

You are saying that the universe as an object in timespace does is not in a universal state of now? Because when I said there is a universal now, I wasn't speaking of subjective observation as in 'there is a universal subjective observation of now.

Are you sure it's subjective? I thought I could always calculate your now objectively through observation of our relative states of motion (under SR).

I'm not an expert, so you may be technically right. However, your now may be different from my now. That's what I meant by it being subjective. We know for sure that our perceptions of time can be different. What you measure as an hour may be longer than what I measure as an hour, depending on our relative states of motion. This has been empirically demonstrated using atomic clocks.

Subjective perceptions of anything seem to be different, but that was not what I meant by universal now.

I was going off what you said earlier about time existing external, but seconds being a thing of the mind...which I took to mean that the measuring of time exists in the mind.

Think of the earth without time-zones. Don't even think of day and night as indicators of different times (they are different states) and put aside the notion that anywhere in the world is a day ahead or behind.

Once that cupboard is cleared, think about how everyone on the planet is actually experiencing now, in the same moment.

You have said it isn't so. Is there a simple way in which this is demonstrated that you can link.

 

[Belz...]

I have developed some new thinking concerning time travel and Utopia.
Honestly, it makes me feel sick thinking about it.

So, about five days ago I was watching something about time travel. some new thinking came about.My first thought was " its not possible to time travel ". next I thought " maybe my kids will see the day ". That is when it hit me. Why time travel when I could just have someone from the future do it for me?

The plan would work something like this:
I would forward think myself into a position where myself or someone else from the future ( someone with the ability )... would travel back FOR me.

This does seem a little far fetched.

However, I do think this is possible AND easy! Its really just a matter of leaving a message for the future traveler to find. If your a conspiracy theorist ( like me ) the odds are greater because you already know time travel exist and the opportunity is all around us.

I also developed a way to use time travel in a way to build Utopia. For now I'd just like to hear the hate people have for me posting this, lol. See how many people attack my selling and grammar!I would like honest opinions about my thinking.

I think this can be done.... and done easily.

Why time travel... when you can simply get someone from the future , that has the ability, to do it for you?

Time travel is impossible. If it weren't, there'd be time travelers in our history. QED.

 

[Apathia]

I write spec fiction and science fiction. The concept of time travel came out of fiction (thank you, H.G. Wells). While the concepts of altering space-time to go backwards are loads of fun, and make for great books, TV, and movies the fact is that going back in time will require command of a whole class of physics that doesn't exist, and likely will never exist.

Going forward in time? No problem, just figure out lightspeed propulsion, which again requires huge evolutionary changes to physics and engineering.

I'm not a scientist, but I fairly sure I'm solid on this.

So to address the OP, here's your problem:

Someone who has traveled back in time is going to come from a society so far advanced that they will not be able to relate to you on an individual level, any more than a biologist can relate to Marine Iguanas on Galapagos. They are not going to talk to you, and they're not going to be talked into some kind of temporal game. If they were to take you back to their future you'd end up in a lab cage, or a zoo.

Something else to consider is that a civilization advanced enough to time-travel will not risk using such technology for the same reasons we just don't solve conflicts with nuclear weapons. If such technology existed the warning label on the machine would look like the London phone book. I suspect that when the day comes that such technology exists it would be used as a lifeboat to escape some cataclysm, and not for science or recreation.

This. And for added measure, beings capable of temporal dislocation of this sort would be so very different from our biological base, that we would hardly recognize that they were around.

 

[Apathia]

No I haven't. I don't have a lot of time for reading books, what with the internet and all. I like the book in my head anyway...

But the trouble with reading off the monitor is that it much to often comes down to skimming what has already been sound-bitten. You don't get the depth and the process of digesting what you read. Literature becomes Cliff Notes. Concepts lose context and foundation.

Please do yourself the immense favor of reading books. It will give your creations priceless foundation and depth.

 

[Navigator]

But the trouble with reading off the monitor is that it much to often comes down to skimming what has already been sound-bitten. You don't get the depth and the process of digesting what you read. Literature becomes Cliff Notes. Concepts lose context and foundation.

Please do yourself the immense favor of reading books. It will give your creations priceless foundation and depth.

Reading is reading Apathia. I have literally read volumes via the internet, and the effect is the same.

If it were just a matter of reading comments on net forums all day, or FB posts then maybe you would have a point.

There is no difference between reading from a screen and reading from paper - at least not in the way you are arguing.

The advantage of internet reading is that one can interact with the authors - one can also write.

 

[Apathia]

Reading is reading Apathia. I have literally read volumes via the internet, and the effect is the same.

If it were just a matter of reading comments on net forums all day, or FB posts then maybe you would have a point.

There is no difference between reading from a screen and reading from paper - at least not in the way you are arguing.

The advantage of internet reading is that one can interact with the authors - one can also write.

Of course I didn't dis tablets and readers. Or magazine articles posted on Internet sites. You're reading whole books on the screen? Fine. That's better than articles written for Internet consumption that tend to be truncated in content. For example when it comes to Special Relativity, a well developed exposition is better than a wiki.

Carry On!

 

[Pianoro]

In special relativity, observers do not necessarily agree on whether events occur simultaneously when they are in relative motion to each other. Each observer has its own set of events that, for them, occur simultaneously or “now”. These events are said to be on their “plane of simultaneity”. How far away these events occur and for how long light would need to travel to reach the observer has nothing to do with simultaneity in special relativity. Examples that bring up distant stars and claim that they have a different “now” due to their distance are misleading. This is a different phenomenon.

For an observer on Earth, there are events that occur on Proxima Centauri b “now”. Because of its distance, the observer will only be able to see these events in 4.37 years. When he does, he will also be able to do the math and calculate that they occurred simultaneously to December 13, 2016 on Earth.
However, for two observers on Earth in relative motion to each other, events that occur on Proxima Centauri b “now” will be different (i.e. their planes of simultaneity are different) . For a stationary observer on Earth, a landslide on the distant planet may occur “now”, while in the “now” of a person moving past the stationary observer the ground on Proxima Centauri b might still be stable and the landslide would not have started yet. This is what Roger Penrose illustrated in the so-called Andromeda Paradox.

Because different observers have different planes of simultaneity, special relativity is only compatible with the philosophical view of four-dimensionalism which considers the universe an eternal block of spacetime. That special relativity necessitates this view is known as the Rietdijk–Putnam argument. The main alternative to four-dimensionalism is presentism, which considers the three-dimensional universe as moving through time and the past and future as non-existent. The idea of a universal “now” may be more compatible with presentism, but it is not with four-dimensionalism or special relativity.

 

[Pianoro]

Yes, even SR specifically rejects and disproves the concept of simultaneity. The concept of two events separated by some distance happening at the same time is not something you can declare with SR. One observer might measure the two events happening at the same time, but another observer will see A happen before B, and another B before A.

What special relativity rejects is that different observers would necessarily agree on simultaneity. For a single observer the concept is just fine and it is of course possible to declare two events separated by (even great) distances as occurring simultaneously.

That different observers would not agree on simultaneity is not related to distances but instead to their relative motion. Differences in simultaneity are amplified by distance, but ultimately caused by relative motion.

 

[Pianoro]

What I am saying is that the huge rockfall on that planet on the other side of this universe which is happening now, is happening in the same moment as I write this reply and that you are presently doing what you are doing in the same moment that I am doing what I am doing, while the pink unicorn is in a galaxy somewhere in this same universe, having a dump right at this same moment and that no matter how distant we are from each other, there is a universal now.

Stuff like that.

In other words...Everything that is happening in the universe right at this moment is happening NOW.

As per special relativity, this is correct for you as an observer. For every location in the universe, no matter how far, there is something that, from your perspective, happens "now". That you cannot observer this or can only observe it much later is irrelevant.

However, for other observers, what happens "now" is different. The set of events on their plane of simultaneity is different. Special relativity does not allow for a universal "now" that multiple observers must agree on.

 

[Navigator]

As per special relativity, this is correct for you as an observer. For every location in the universe, no matter how far, there is something that, from your perspective, happens "now". That you cannot observer this or can only observe it much later is irrelevant.

However, for other observers, what happens "now" is different. The set of events on their plane of simultaneity is different. Special relativity does not allow for a universal "now" that multiple observers must agree on.

I am certain that my point need not be misunderstood.

Objectively, the universe is in a constant state of now, regardless of how it is subjectively observed.

On that, we should all be able to agree on.

 

[alfaniner]

Your "now" is always somebody else's "then".

 

[Steve001]

Logical argument is sufficient. Where do you think is might not be. Be specific.

Your argument is equivalent to a preacher holding up a bible and claiming the words written within are proof of God. You are the preacher in this case holding up your bible and claiming what you have written to be true. We have no reason to trust your reasoning. You started a thread naively with no comprehension of whom your audience was. We are not swayed be logical argument. Only by evidence.

 

[Navigator]

Your "now" is always somebody else's "then".

Not my now. The universal now. The moment the universe (as one thing) is in.

I am bemused that some minds seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept and continue to revert to their argument regarding now in relation to subjective pov, as if an objective universe is incapable of exist in a state of now.

Ah well *Shrugs*

 

[Navigator]

Your argument is equivalent to a preacher holding up a bible and claiming the words written within are proof of God. You are the preacher in this case holding up your bible and claiming what you have written to be true. We have no reason to trust your reasoning. You started a thread naively with no comprehension of whom your audience was. We are not swayed be logical argument. Only by evidence.

Your preaching above is simply projecting. All I asked you to do was be specific. You quoted my whole post, made a reference which didn't make much sense on its own and so I asked you to be more specific and this is how you decide to answer? By projecting??

 

[alexi_drago]

Imagine there are 3 ships in space all in line maintaining equal distance between the 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd. There is no fixed reference to determine if they are in motion along the direction of the line they lie on.
The one in the middle emits a signal which is reflected back by both the others, the returned signals from both directions are recieved simultaneously by the middle ship regardless of whether they are all in motion or not.
According to the middle ship the reflections occurred simultaneously, but since there is no fixed reference to determine if the ships are moving or not then it's impossible to tell if the reflections did in fact occur simultaneously or if the reflection from one occurred before or after the reflection off the other.
For a universal now, i think you would require a fixed reference to the universe, an aether.

 

[JesseCuster]

One, I have a friend that is absolutely smarter then anyone here ( not to be an ass... but he is a mathamitition ) when it comes to math. Altho he does not believe in time travel he does see the logic in this and says this is this possible.

If your friend believes that your plan involving time travel is possible whilst simultaneously believing that time travel is not possible, then perhaps he isn't as smart as you think he is.

 

[psionl0]

There is a universal NOW.

Yet another amateur corrects Einstein.

The fact is that any two observers moving relative to each other will disagree about measurements made with respect to time and distance on the same object. There is no basis for saying that one of the observers is in the "correct" reference frame.

It appears that GR is concerned with subjective reality in relation to its equations, 'tis all.

Wrong. The non-existance of a "universal" reference frame is the most real theory of them all.

Does GR state that there is no Universal Now, or is it simply pointing out how subjectively the concept of 'now' can be taken?

GR states that there is no universal NOW. All measurements depend on the reference frame they were made from.

Does Albert Einstein's theory say that I am incorrect regarding the positions of those stars in the Universal Now?

No, he is saying that only pink unicorns can be observed in the universal Now.

 

[Navigator]

For a universal now, i think you would require a fixed reference to the universe, an aether.

No. You just require an understanding that the universe is one thing happening in the same moment in relation to objectivity. The understanding can be subjective, but the actuality is objective.

That no individual has the ability to see everything that happens in the universe at any given moment, is besides the point, and there is no need to go outside the universe to have subjective verification that it is one thing. The mind is capable of being able to perceive of such a simple concept, provided that one accepts that the universe is one thing of itself and that all things happening within it are happening simultaneously in relation to that one thing.

 

[Navigator]

Yet another amateur corrects Einstein.

You lost me right there.

But I did read the rest and see you are making the same mistake re what I am saying is a universal NOW. Its an objective thing related to the universe in its entirety, rather than what subjective povs are occurring within it.

But I get the feeling you know that is what I am saying anyway.