Why do we think time paradoxes exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stryder said:
Consider it like this, If you travel fast enough you could stop and hear yourself approaching.
Click to expand...

this is not a paradox. the waves are in motion. if you are travelling faster than the waves, then of course you could stop and hear them. there's nothing paradoxical about that.
 
Roy, There is still a paradox what do you think creates a "Sonic Boom"?
 
time travel does not and will never exist, because time itself does not exist as anything more than an abstract measuring device.


peace,
 
Image:Sonic_boom_diagram.png

Look carefully at the image, it's not so much about the sound being paradoxal but the actual way the sound moves out from it's source.

Sound as you should know can only move through the use of freefloating atoms/molecules, What makes the sound when an aircraft is shooting across the sky at speed is pretty much friction of one sort or another, be it an aerodynamic eddy, actual friction with a surface or actual thermodynamic combustion.

The aircraft fly through our atomsphere and it's weather systems which we declare to be "Chaotic" in nature. The assumption was simply identifying the spacial alignment of sound relative to where it will eventually expand out to in regards to the aircrafts speed and the knowledge that what makes the sound is chaotic, ergo creating a paradox in nature.

Another such paradox is Distance runners on the runners block watching for a Pistol to fire. Some will know to listen for the sound before they sprint, while others in turn might look for the flash and smoke. As you can tell no races are run like this because of the number of false starts, however if it was left to choice or preference it would be paradoxal.

You could suggest that if you wanted to be absolutely diehard about paradoxes that "None occur naturally", but it doesn't rule out those that can "Observe" creating them.

For instance getting "Butterflies in your stomach", lets say that you have to stand in front of several thousand people to read something important to them or sing in a musical production (not that anybody does the latter). You might well find yourself nervous about the predicament which results in having a gammy stomach. You have two choices that are usually taken here, the First is to pull the plug as you feel unwell, usually when done the feeling subsides pretty quickly. The other choice is to just grin and bare it, doing so also usually means the butterflies subsiding too.

You can suggest that being observed or not observed (depending on your choice) by so many people actually creates this reaction, since causality would suggest that those people will either walk away with some enlightening pearl of wisdom, ear ache from your attempted singing or just the loss of anything in regards to you from your overall abscence. There is then the Butterfly Effect of what those people that viewed you, or didn't view you then do in response to whatever it is you did. All of this is in the balance when you have that 50/50 decision of whether you stand infront of them all or run and hide.
 
hmmm... one day I was watching a program about a preson that was crazy. Another person (I am guessing it was a shrink) was explaining why the crazy rants showed that the guy was very mixed up. Then I changed the channel and heard another mixed up person talking, only at the end he concluded by saying "which is how time works and some of the paradoxes yet to be answered". Maybe it just me but I saw a connection.

So it seem you are not the only person confused out there about this subject. I am forced to say that I have never head a workable concept of it.
 
Actually Scott, it's just down to me not proof reading. I could probably sit there for a few hours and write something that is absolutely crystal clear, however I can't be asciid.

I will state though the reason why you might find it unclear is there is alot of things that build up to the overall conclusion that aren't mentioned, which pretty much means you see a couple of pieces of a puzzle and miss some of the other pieces.

I've never claimed to be a person to hold the absolute correct answer for anything, my conclusions and theories are about making other posters "grey matter" work once in a while.
 
Stryder said:
Image:Sonic_boom_diagram.png

Look carefully at the image, it's not so much about the sound being paradoxal but the actual way the sound moves out from it's source.

Sound as you should know can only move through the use of freefloating atoms/molecules, What makes the sound when an aircraft is shooting across the sky at speed is pretty much friction of one sort or another, be it an aerodynamic eddy, actual friction with a surface or actual thermodynamic combustion.

The aircraft fly through our atomsphere and it's weather systems which we declare to be "Chaotic" in nature. The assumption was simply identifying the spacial alignment of sound relative to where it will eventually expand out to in regards to the aircrafts speed and the knowledge that what makes the sound is chaotic, ergo creating a paradox in nature.

Another such paradox is Distance runners on the runners block watching for a Pistol to fire. Some will know to listen for the sound before they sprint, while others in turn might look for the flash and smoke. As you can tell no races are run like this because of the number of false starts, however if it was left to choice or preference it would be paradoxal.

You could suggest that if you wanted to be absolutely diehard about paradoxes that "None occur naturally", but it doesn't rule out those that can "Observe" creating them.

For instance getting "Butterflies in your stomach", lets say that you have to stand in front of several thousand people to read something important to them or sing in a musical production (not that anybody does the latter). You might well find yourself nervous about the predicament which results in having a gammy stomach. You have two choices that are usually taken here, the First is to pull the plug as you feel unwell, usually when done the feeling subsides pretty quickly. The other choice is to just grin and bare it, doing so also usually means the butterflies subsiding too.

You can suggest that being observed or not observed (depending on your choice) by so many people actually creates this reaction, since causality would suggest that those people will either walk away with some enlightening pearl of wisdom, ear ache from your attempted singing or just the loss of anything in regards to you from your overall abscence. There is then the Butterfly Effect of what those people that viewed you, or didn't view you then do in response to whatever it is you did. All of this is in the balance when you have that 50/50 decision of whether you stand infront of them all or run and hide.
Click to expand...

none of which are paradoxes.

i don't know what the term means to you, but to everyone else, paradox means a situation which should not be physically possible according to known laws of physics. the solution to a paradox is to either modify the laws of physics accordingly, or determine if our perception of what is happening is incorrect.

a sonic boom can be explained with simple physics; nothing in the action (that you or i know of) contradicts modern physics. so it is not a paradox.

pretty much any paradox that people talk about is hypothetical anyways, though. we are getting closer and closer to revealing that time travel (in the ideal sense) is impossible (in the present and familiar state of the universe).
 
In Richard Feynman's book QED, he discusses experimental example of electrons appearing to spit out a photon prior to absorbing the photon. the electron is traveling along, and then spits out a photon and simultaniously is lifted to an excited state, and then a photon comes in from off-screen, hits the electron, which then reduces the electron back to it's ground state.

I take that as the electron energy level going backwards in time - it released the absorbed photon prior to the actual absorbtion event.

This was back in the 70's, however, so maybe there is an answer for this occurance that I haven't heard about yet.

But that, plus alot of other little things, have caused me to determine that all time simple exists, all at once. We experience it linearly, but it doesn't really move. All events exist now, and now, and now, but we are only capable of experiencing them sequentially. Time travel is then stepping sideways, instead of back or foreward, however no changes or paradoxes would be made, because all that has happened in the past is truely concurrent with our "timeline". If you go back to kill Hitler, then you failed, because my History text book explains how he died, and you weren't involved. If you go back to kill Tim the bloodletter, then you were very possibly successful, cause I've never heard of him.

So going back to kill your parent would not be successful, because you are here. Give it a shot, and something will happen such that you fail; simply because there is no "timeline", and you exist because you failed.
 
river-wind said:
In Richard Feynman's book QED, he discusses experimental example of electrons appearing to spit out a photon prior to absorbing the photon. the electron is traveling along, and then spits out a photon and simultaniously is lifted to an excited state, and then a photon comes in from off-screen, hits the electron, which then reduces the electron back to it's ground state.

I take that as the electron energy level going backwards in time - it released the absorbed photon prior to the actual absorbtion event.

This was back in the 70's, however, so maybe there is an answer for this occurance that I haven't heard about yet.

But that, plus alot of other little things, have caused me to determine that all time simple exists, all at once. We experience it linearly, but it doesn't really move. All events exist now, and now, and now, but we are only capable of experiencing them sequentially. Time travel is then stepping sideways, instead of back or foreward, however no changes or paradoxes would be made, because all that has happened in the past is truely concurrent with our "timeline". If you go back to kill Hitler, then you failed, because my History text book explains how he died, and you weren't involved. If you go back to kill Tim the bloodletter, then you were very possibly successful, cause I've never heard of him.

So going back to kill your parent would not be successful, because you are here. Give it a shot, and something will happen such that you fail; simply because there is no "timeline", and you exist because you failed.
Click to expand...

i would say that if time travel were possible, it would be like you say: without paradox. it reminds me of the novel "a door into summer" by heinlein.
 
RoyLennigan said:
none of which are paradoxes.

i don't know what the term means to you, but to everyone else, paradox means a situation which should not be physically possible according to known laws of physics. the solution to a paradox is to either modify the laws of physics accordingly, or determine if our perception of what is happening is incorrect.

a sonic boom can be explained with simple physics; nothing in the action (that you or i know of) contradicts modern physics. so it is not a paradox.

pretty much any paradox that people talk about is hypothetical anyways, though. we are getting closer and closer to revealing that time travel (in the ideal sense) is impossible (in the present and familiar state of the universe).
Click to expand...

Lets go with a very simple one Roy, What about Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle? or Particle-Waveform dualities?

I guess saying the above though I am looking at it from a slightly different angle and dimension.
 
river-wind said:
In Richard Feynman's book QED, he discusses experimental example of electrons appearing to spit out a photon prior to absorbing the photon. the electron is traveling along, and then spits out a photon and simultaniously is lifted to an excited state, and then a photon comes in from off-screen, hits the electron, which then reduces the electron back to it's ground state.

I take that as the electron energy level going backwards in time - it released the absorbed photon prior to the actual absorbtion event.

This was back in the 70's, however, so maybe there is an answer for this occurance that I haven't heard about yet.

But that, plus alot of other little things, have caused me to determine that all time simple exists, all at once. We experience it linearly, but it doesn't really move. All events exist now, and now, and now, but we are only capable of experiencing them sequentially. Time travel is then stepping sideways, instead of back or foreward, however no changes or paradoxes would be made, because all that has happened in the past is truely concurrent with our "timeline". If you go back to kill Hitler, then you failed, because my History text book explains how he died, and you weren't involved. If you go back to kill Tim the bloodletter, then you were very possibly successful, cause I've never heard of him.

So going back to kill your parent would not be successful, because you are here. Give it a shot, and something will happen such that you fail; simply because there is no "timeline", and you exist because you failed.
Click to expand...

I think there was a snipet in "What the Bleep do we know?", where the relationship of how sub-atomic particles operate at ever decreasing sizes to suggest that perhaps there is no singular linear timeline but multiple universes. Even Einstein couldn't rule out time dialations caused by gravitation through out the universe, which in turn suggests the universe does have occurances from different timepoints all occuring at the same time.

The question however isn't so much "How do we create parallel universes?" as to "How do we connect with those that already exist?" since it's suggested that IF it was possible to create a parallel it would obviously take as much energy as it intially took to create our universe, unless of course the parallels were actually preportion to the universes initial creation meaning they coexist to this day.
 
Farsight said:
Ain't no parallel universes, Stryder. Sorry.
Same as there ain't lots of everythings.
Click to expand...

Quantum Mechanics suggest there are, however I'm not suggesting you could just jump into one with some television channel changer or some such device.
 
Stryder said:
Lets go with a very simple one Roy, What about Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle? or Particle-Waveform dualities?

I guess saying the above though I am looking at it from a slightly different angle and dimension.
Click to expand...

the uncertainty principle is an attempted solution to (what could be called) the paradox of particle-waveform dualities. by stating that a particle cannot be pinpointed to any specific point in space at a given time because of its momentum and tiny scale, the principle slightly clarifies the idea that sub-atomic particle motion seems to act both as a wave and a particle.

the thing is... paradoxes don't actually exist. a paradox is just our inability (either due to our mental/sensory limitation or because of a logical mistake) to realize the exact nature of the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top