|
Grex > Agora41 > #67: UConn Prof to build time machine -- by fall 2002! (Boston Globe) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 19 new of 68 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 50 of 68:
| 
May 1 13:31 UTC 2002 |
now *that* is irony.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 68:
|
May 1 18:39 UTC 2002 |
Bacteria certainly live in 3 dimensions. They live in 3 dimensions as well
as any cell in your body. You and they experience space and time just as
you do, even if not consciously. So, I don't understand that part of the
argument. Then, I observe that we "sense" time just as well as we sense
anything else. What we observe are relations between what are our
constructs of mass, distance, time and force, which are extremely, and
mathematically, rigid. That's how we observe it works, and no one has
been able to change any of it. We don't yet understand the ultimate
"how", but it's there and it is reality.
|
jazz
|
|
response 52 of 68:
|
May 1 19:21 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, I didn't get the bit about waves living in the 3rd dimension,
either.
|
oval
|
|
response 53 of 68:
|
May 1 21:29 UTC 2002 |
being able to describe the 4th dimension mathematically is not the same as
experiencing it, i think was maybe his point. we can only experience the 4th
dimension at one point at a time, just a 2 dimensional object can only
experience the 3rd dimension at one point at a time.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 68:
|
May 1 23:37 UTC 2002 |
You do experience three spatial dimensions and time, making 4 dimensions.
In fact, you can experience a lot more than 4 dimensions. Add to space
(3) and time (1), temperature, light intensity, touch, etc. You always
live in an n-dimensional world. (Technically, every parameter of your
existence is a value in an n-dimensional vector.)
|
oval
|
|
response 55 of 68:
|
May 1 23:53 UTC 2002 |
technically, yes, if you want to see it that way, but if you think of the 4th
dimension as being a spacial representation of time, all those things can
still only be experienced at one point at a time. a n-dimensional vector that
cuts through reality one point at a time...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 56 of 68:
|
May 2 05:21 UTC 2002 |
That's what I said - time is a member of the vector. Unless I don't
understand what you mean by "spacial representation of time". The
n-dimensional vector is already in an n-dimensional "space", that is, it
has n-axes, and it is useful to visualize it that way.
|
gull
|
|
response 57 of 68:
|
May 2 13:38 UTC 2002 |
Bacteria exist in three dimensions, they just look two-dimensional under a
microscope.
|
other
|
|
response 58 of 68:
|
May 4 02:17 UTC 2002 |
The bit about waves sounded like an incomplete grasp of string theory...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 68:
|
May 4 03:51 UTC 2002 |
"Waves" are always handy when one can't think of anything else.
|
sms43
|
|
response 60 of 68:
|
Jun 7 19:10 UTC 2002 |
I have to disagree with several of the comments regarding travelling back in
time to kill a parent or grandfather etc... As i see it every option that
could have happened since the start of time has happened and exists in a
parralell way to our own. Thus by going back in time and killing your
grandfather, you weo would simply start a new dimention in which you shouldnt
exist but do due to time travel.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 68:
|
Jun 7 19:39 UTC 2002 |
Do you mean that there would then be two universes, one of which
is the one you left on your time travel back, which when you return
you discover you didn't have one parent (or gparent), and the other
in which....what?
|
scott
|
|
response 62 of 68:
|
Jun 7 20:05 UTC 2002 |
That's one of the theories, I think. I read some SF novel which used it as
a basis; every chance/choice resulted in yet another branching into a
different universe for each possible outcome, and the protagonist had built
a machine to allow moving (not very reliably) between the different branches.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 68:
|
Jun 8 04:57 UTC 2002 |
My question was (implied in #61) if A went "back" and killed his
father before he was born and then *returned* to the present, what would
be the situation in the revised universe with respect to his existence?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 64 of 68:
|
Jun 8 08:20 UTC 2002 |
Does anyone have an Occam razor I can borrow?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 68:
|
Jun 8 15:28 UTC 2002 |
You may just lose blood.
|
jazz
|
|
response 66 of 68:
|
Jun 10 17:14 UTC 2002 |
That all relies upon one theory of time travel being correct, namely
that you could travel into the past as you remember it and change events as
you remember them. It's entirely possible that there are multiple pasts for
each present, or that the act of time travel, if possible, creates another
possible (from the perspective of the traveller) past.
|
drew
|
|
response 67 of 68:
|
Jun 15 04:53 UTC 2002 |
I came across a short SF story the other week, titled _Of Causality Loops And
Scornful Women_, didn't get the author's name.
A new gigantic supercollider is being used for high energy experiments, and
it is discovered that subatomic particles are being sent back in time by a
few picoseconds. So the researcher in charge decides to use the data to design
an experimental chamber to send a person back 5 seconds as a follow-up test.
Of course, the head researcher decides that he, personally, will be the test
subject.
His assistant is reluctant to push the button, but the researcher insists most
strongly. So she finally pushes the button, and her suspicions are confirmed.
It turns out that what prevents grandfather paradoxes is that an object that
is sent back in time also gets sent off in a random direction, out to a
distance that is "essentially the speed of light times the amount of time
traversed". And c times 5 seconds is about 931,000 miles. Oops...
(Of course, this idea falls apart when a second time-displacement is
considered.)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 68 of 68:
|
Jun 16 22:10 UTC 2002 |
(It might work better if one were always sent in the same direction.
Given an infinite universe, that would ruin your chances of a return trip.)
|