Comments on: The squashed bug.

By: Ovidio

Ovidio — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:11:27 +0000

So if the probability of changing the past and rise a paradox when you travel is p=1 then your chances of traveling are q <= 1-p = 0

By: Ovidio

Ovidio — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:11:27 +0000

So if the probability of changing the past and rise a paradox when you travel is p=1 then your chances of traveling are q <= 1-p = 0

By: Ovidio

Ovidio — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:11:27 +0000

So if the probability of changing the past and rise a paradox when you travel is p=1 then your chances of traveling are q <= 1-p = 0

By: andrewstrader

andrewstrader — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:00:36 +0000

What can I say? I have thought about time travel a lot, for some reason.

By: andrewstrader

andrewstrader — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:00:36 +0000

What can I say? I have thought about time travel a lot, for some reason.

By: 3rdmartini

3rdmartini — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:26:33 +0000

I think that's the most serious comment/answer to a post that anyone's ever written on this site.

By: andrewstrader

andrewstrader — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:29:13 +0000

Very interesting. The alternative theory, of course, is that if you travel to the past, any influence you have will inexorably alter the course of events, so that you could never return to the future you once knew. Even disrupting a single atom can kill Schroedinger's cat. But the consistency problem is more likely to be resolved by the fact that real time travel would involve first travelling through space so fast and so far that you exit your own “light cone”. Then any influence you have on “past” events wouldn't manifest themselves in your original light cone until after the space-time point that you left, thus preserving causality. For example, if you left Earth in the year 2000 and travelled to the year 1500, then you would have to end up in some location that was more than 500 light-years away from Earth. Even if you fired lasers at Earth from your new location, it would take them 500 years to get there, thus preventing any paradox such as you killing yourself with a laser two seconds before you departed in your time-travelling vehicle. This is in keeping with the apparent restriction of having to use black holes for time travel. You'd actually have to use two very large black holes (large enough that tidal forces wouldn't atomize you — galactic nexi are good candidates). You would fly into the gravitational field of one black hole, accelerate beneath its event horizon, and sling shot yourself through hyperspace. Of course you'd have to aim directly for the event horizon of another, distant black hole, so you could slow yourself back down. Otherwise, you'd be trapped in the wrong inertial frame, unable to return to your own familiar space-time continuum. If you're lucky, you might permanently slingshot yourself into a parallel dimension, where events had taken a course more to your liking, even if they would have been paradoxical within your home matter-energy matrix. Oh, and did I mentioned that your space ship might have to be made of dark matter? Improbability engines would help with navigation too, but I don't know how those would work.

By: 3rdmartini

3rdmartini — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:26:33 +0000

I think that's the most serious comment/answer to a post that anyone's ever written on this site.

By: andrewstrader

andrewstrader — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:13 +0000

Very interesting. The alternative theory, of course, is that if you travel to the past, any influence you have will inexorably alter the course of events, so that you could never return to the future you once knew. Even disrupting a single atom can kill Schroedinger's cat. But the consistency problem is more likely to be resolved by the fact that real time travel would involve first travelling through space so fast and so far that you exit your own “light cone”. Then any influence you have on “past” events wouldn't manifest themselves in your original light cone until after the space-time point that you left, thus preserving causality. For example, if you left Earth in the year 2000 and travelled to the year 1500, then you would have to end up in some location that was more than 500 light-years away from Earth. Even if you fired lasers at Earth from your new location, it would take them 500 years to get there, thus preventing any paradox such as you killing yourself with a laser two seconds before you departed in your time-travelling vehicle. This is in keeping with the apparent restriction of having to use black holes for time travel. You'd actually have to use two very large black holes (large enough that tidal forces wouldn't atomize you — galactic nexuses are good candidates). You would fly into the gravitational field of one black hole, accelerate beneath its event horizon, and sling shot yourself through hyperspace. Of course you'd have to aim directly for the event horizon of another, distant black hole, so you could slow yourself back down. Otherwise, you'd be trapped in the wrong inertial frame, unable to return to your own familiar space-time continuum. If you're lucky, you might permanently slingshot yourself into a parallel dimension, where events had taken a course more to your liking, even if they would have been paradoxical within your home matter-energy matrix. Oh, and did I mentioned that your space ship might have to be made of dark matter?