Theories - Time Travel, Parallel Dimensions, Etc.

[nog]

Science is the study of reality. If something takes place, and there is (irrefutable) evidence of it taking place, then it can be explained by science in some way, regardless of how weird it is.

Science doesn't explain dark matter, why the universe is expanding, are sub-atomic particles point particles, what creates gravity, the EM force, etc. There are plenty of things, that we have evidence for that science doesn't explain.

My examples are more Physics related, but we can get more into all sorts of other fields that we have evidence for yet still are unable to fully explain it.

 

[FortyTwo]

Science doesn't explain dark matter, why the universe is expanding, are sub-atomic particles point particles, what creates gravity, the EM force, etc. There are plenty of things, that we have evidence for that science doesn't explain.

My examples are more Physics related, but we can get more into all sorts of other fields that we have evidence for yet still are unable to fully explain it.

But it can explain them, with time and research and more time. Saying that something is outside of science doesn't make sense, because science strives to explain everything, and if it exists it can be explained by science even if it makes very little sense or is wacky.

As for the long quote post, I'm making a graphic reply to that, so it should be up in a few. It's easier to visualize concepts on a drawing board.

 

[FortyTwo]

 

[Blobbenstein]

The present could be seen as a store of information, so I don't see a problem in the idea that the past and future are also stored.

The difference between time and a spacial dimension is cause and effect.
In time one thing leads to another, but that isn't the same with space. Having a TV at a place in space doesn't necessarily lead to having a settee being next to it, but dropping a cup will probably lead to it falling on the flour.

 

[FortyTwo]

The present could be seen as a store of information, so I don't see a problem in the idea that the past and future are also stored.

The difference between time and a spacial dimension is cause and effect.
In time one thing leads to another, but that isn't the same with space. Having a TV at a place in space doesn't necessarily lead to having a settee being next to it, but dropping a cup will probably lead to it falling on the flour.

Particles move about in space and that's that. There doesn't have to be a timeline for physics to work.

The present is one gigantic store of information, but it changes state constantly because of this movement and interaction between particles. There isn't any past because the particles simply move around and interact, and nothing else. Everything that happens from there simply happens because it does.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Is all this argument because you really just want to time travel?

 

[FortyTwo]

Is all this argument because you really just want to time travel?

No, I don't think it's possible. I'm speaking entirely theoretically, except about the spatial model of the dimensions because that's mathematically supported.

 

[nog]

But it can explain them, with time and research and more time. Saying that something is outside of science doesn't make sense, because science strives to explain everything, and if it exists it can be explained by science even if it makes very little sense or is wacky.

I didn't say that someone was outside science. My point was that there are things that science currently does not and cannot answer. Perhaps it's true that with time and research and more time (although I thought you don't believe in time), one day 'science' will answer those questions, that's simply speculation. It's beyond the realm that I have evidence for and there's not need to say science can explain it.

I would assume that if you don't think time exists, and there is no future nor past, and there's only the present, then science at this very point has a lot of un-answered questions. I'd go so far as to say there are more unanswered questions than answered questions.

As for your graphic, yes it appears to me that time is linear (approximately, since time isn't simply a steady rate all across the universe). I kind of see what you're saying with there is only the present, however we do have 'evidence' for the past. Say in our current state we know that light takes time to travel from point A to point B, so the further away the object, the further 'back' in time one is looking. We have the evidence of fossils and rock formations and so on. All this goes beyond our simple memories.

Further, everything about physics (a foundational science) requires a time component. We can look at trajectories, predict (into the future) where something will go and when it will happen. We can also look into the past based on science, when things happened and where they happened given current evidence. So there is more about past and future than simply our memories.

As for your 1) and 2), I'm not sure what you mean by 1) the universe has to store of information. The only evidence is what we currently have. I'm not going to assume that the present stores all the information to everything, but based on what we currently see, it stores something of past states of the universe. I'd make the analogy with space. Every point in space does not require all the knowledge of every other point. Looking at your example earlier (although I'll state that 1 - D is not a point, but a line), so why would anyone assume that the universe is required to store up all the states the universe has ever been in, if in space, if we look at a 2D segment, we do not assume that any given 2D segment stores all the information of all the other 2D segments. The analogy to me is that we exist in the universe (a given 3D space set) that moves along time. Not unlike scanning a 2D grid that moves along space (still time). Each 2D grid is related to the parts 'before' and 'after' yet each 2 D grid does not contain all the data of the totality of the 3D space. That exists in 3D space.

So for use, time is a set of universes, each universe being a given 3 D space.

As for 2) there is no evidence for a 5th dimension (other than the music group I referenced earlier). So I don't know why you insist that if time is the 4th dimension, then we could fold it in the 5th dimension. I suppose it's possible, yet we don't see instant spatial travel because we have a 4th dimension, so I don't know why having a 5th dimension would mean instant temporal travel.

Even having 3 D spaces doesn't really connect two separate points in a 2 D grid.

--

So going back to the 4D, 5D, 6D space, I don't think there is any evidence for such a thing. Those are mathematical concepts based on extrapolation of a 3D euclidean space. I have heard of and read about 4 D objects (like the tesseract) but they remain mathematical concepts that aren't necessarily related to reality. The reason why time being the 4th dimension is confusing is that it's not based on euclidean space (what seems to be true in our world and very limited experience, yet doesn't hold true with say relativity) but the minkowski space. Minkowski space is required to make sense of relativity. Our to put it another way, our world is not euclidean even though our everyday experience seems to indicate otherwise.

Euclidean space is useful for Newtonian physics, but doesn't hold for modern physics.

 

[nog]

Also, it's not that I think parallel universes are simply fantasy, it's that we have no evidence for them, so at this point, the best I can say is that they can make for interesting discussion or sometimes interesting sci-fi (although, in general, I'm not a big fan of time travel or parallel universes in sci-fi).

 

[FortyTwo]

I honestly don't think you understand what I'm saying about time, and I don't know if that's my fault or what.

I'm not saying that the past never happened, or that the future won't happen. I'm saying that there doesn't need to be an existing past, or an existing future, while the present is existing.

Of course time exists, but not in the way people seem to think. Time only exists in our heads, and because we have our lives revolve around it, it seems much more meaningful than it actually is.

For example, take one second. One second is simply a human measurement of one state of the Universe, to another. Just because time elapses between them doesn't mean that the past exists in any sense other than in our minds and as a collective memory.

I can't respond to your discussion of multi-dimensional space in any more depth than I already have because I am absolutely terrible with advanced mathematics (that probably comes from the fact that I'm just going into my junior year of high school and we've really only learned to a certain point, as well as the simple truth that math is not my thing). But 1D would have to be a point, wouldn't it? Because if it were a line, it would be required to have some width, or else it simply wouldn't exist. And a line would be a connecting of two points, which would mean that it existed in 2D space.

The whole "store of information" thing made a lot more sense to me in my head. I guess I just meant what I've been saying - the past and future don't exist aside from our conceptualization of them. "Storing" them somewhere is like what you said, imagining a 3D world moving along a 4D timeline (with time being the fourth dimension) - that timeline would have to exist, and that just doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

Anyways, I'm probably trying to debate this in a lot more depth than I am even capable of understanding in the first place, given my limited life experience and education. It's fun, though.

ETA: Also I mainly brought up folding through the fifth dimension because I wanted to make the timeline screwup joke. I doubt that, even given that there is a fifth dimension, we would ever have the technology to fold through it.

 

[nog]

I'm saying that there doesn't need to be an existing past, or an existing future, while the present is existing.

Well then I think we both agree. The past and future cannot exist while the present is existing. That doesn't make sense.

Of course time exists, but not in the way people seem to think.

I agree with that, in that I think the next revolution in Physics will come with a more fundamental understanding of time and perhaps space. I think we our stuck in a paradigm which is why Physics is kind of stagnant. Sure we've improved upon past ideas, but in terms of fundamental discoveries we've done very little since Relativity and QM.

But 1D would have to be a point, wouldn't it? Because if it were a line, it would be required to have some width, or else it simply wouldn't exist. And a line would be a connecting of two points, which would mean that it existed in 2D space.

No. Look at it this way, a point has no dimensions. A line has one dimension, a plane has two dimensions, a 'space' has 3 dimensions.

Or you can look at it by adding points. Start with a point (no dimensions). Move a distance away from the point, you now have 1 dimension. Any distance between those two points can be described by a variable, say x.

Now take another point some distance from the line. The point can be described by a perpendicular distance using a variable called y away from the line (in addition to a variable along the line). Now you can talk about a plane (they all have to lie on a plane). You can create a grid using two variables now, x and y. You now have 2 dimensions.

Now take another point, not in the plane, but some fixed distance away from the plane. Let's describe that as a perpendicular distance from the plane as z. Now you have three variables and therefore three dimensions.

I don't know if that helps.

Perhaps this may:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#Spatial_dimensions

 

[FortyTwo]

But for example, even this line is 1 or 2 pixels thick:

____________________________

That gives it length and width, which makes it two-dimensional. A perfect line would be 1D but would look like this:



And you really can't prove anything with empty space, so a perfect line only exists in theory. Even a line one atom thick would still be one atom thick, giving it width.

ETA: Though I suppose you could say that about a point, too.

.

That has length and width.

 

[nog]

But for example, even this line is 1 or 2 pixels thick:

____________________________

That gives it length and width, which makes it two-dimensional. A perfect line would be 1D but would look like this:



And you really can't prove anything with empty space, so a perfect line only exists in theory. Even a line one atom thick would still be one atom thick, giving it width.

ETA: Though I suppose you could say that about a point, too.

.

That has length and width.

Yeah, the difficulties in representing an object with less than 2 dimensions in two dimensions.

Here's a reference for a point on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

In geometry, points are zero-dimensional; i.e., they do not have volume, area, length, or any other higher-dimensional analogue.

 

[FortyTwo]

Ah, okay. I see. That makes more sense.

 

[nog]

Ah, okay. I see. That makes more sense.

But that's all a side issue to your earlier point (not the non-dimensional type) about time not existing.

I think it's most likely the case that time doesn't exist in the way we think it does. I think we need some ground-breaking in some fundamental ways to view space and time.

On the notion of theories, ideas, etc, I think one issue with our modern life is that quick communication is so convenient and readily available. We don't have people isolated as much (in terms of access to information and other ideas) and so people are influenced by other people's idea making it less likely to come up with an original idea.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think if someone is going to have an original idea, they are going to have an original idea.
I get ideas of my own when I read other people's idea, sometimes.

 

[nog]

I think if someone is going to have an original idea, they are going to have an original idea.
I get ideas of my own when I read other people's idea, sometimes.

Possibly. I guess, to me, it seems like there could be two things going on.
1. Since there is more homogeneity and communication (as well as information available) to start with than in the past there is less opportunity to come up with an idea that isn't heavily influenced by surroundings.
a. If we're bombarded by ideas, via learning, reading, hearing, etc they'll be incorporated into the way we view the world. We'll be less likely to avoid those influences. So I guess I'm just saying the statistical likelihood goes down.
b. One could argue that with more people now than in the past (around 7 billion now vs ~1.6 billion in 1900), that it's not clear how that affects the probability.

2. With more communication/homogeneity, even if people do come up with 'an original idea' they're less likely to pursue it, since one can look information up quickly (or communicate quickly with others) and be less likely to develop or pursue the idea. They may be discouraged by naysayers (since they'll have quick feedback) or simply find a suitable 'answer' that seems to answer the question, but the deeper reality (that sometimes comes with developing the idea further) ends up being lost.

3. People are ultimately minimizers. We're lazy and we tend to minimize our efforts.

So with all three of those reasons, I think the likelihood is less now than in the past.

I think, historically, major advances in science and math come from those not mired deep in current paradigms, but those on the outskirts who learned enough and then had time to pursue their own ideas without those ideas being squashed by pessimism or the ability to find an answer quickly.

It's possible I'm having a selection bias, but that's just the way it seems to me, in general.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think it is good to learn to be able to see paradigms for what they are, and be able to detach oneself from them, and form new ones, if necessary.

I think some people are really stuck on the even horizon one. I feel that they are psychologically addicted to the idea of holes in space; places where they can chuck their emotional garbage.

 

[nog]

I think it is good to learn to be able to see paradigms for what they are, and be able to detach oneself from them, and form new ones, if necessary.

I think some people are really stuck on the even horizon one. I feel that they are psychologically addicted to the idea of holes in space; places where they can chuck their emotional garbage.

What? I throw all my garbage into holes in space.

 

[Blobbenstein]

have you thought about recycling?