Time Travel? For Realz?

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Keyser Soze
The Devil
Posts: 1403
Joined: Jan 9th, 2005 at 12:37 am

Time Travel? For Realz?

Postby Keyser Soze » Jan 26th, 2006 at 5:44 am

Image
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jan 26th, 2006 at 8:34 am

Interesting. It seams like they're throwing everything out there. Anti-gravity, faster than light travel etc etc.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jan 26th, 2006 at 8:34 am

not time travel doofus, a hyperspace drive. Einstein made it clear that he thought time travel was impossible with a simple statement (grossly paraphrased): If time travel were a possibility why haven't we met anyone from the future?

Now, to the article:

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience.


I always thought that, according to the Theory of Relativity, no matter what your reference frame may be, the speed of light is always constant. I thought this was independent of what dimension your RF was in - but maybe I'm wrong ...

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jan 26th, 2006 at 8:37 am

Burzum wrote:Interesting. It seams like they're throwing everything out there. Anti-gravity, faster than light travel etc etc.


Code: Select all

seam    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sm)
n.

A line of junction formed by sewing together two pieces of material along their margins.
A similar line, ridge, or groove made by fitting, joining, or lapping together two sections along their edges.
A suture.
A scar.
A line across a surface, as a crack, fissure, or wrinkle.
A thin layer or stratum, as of coal or rock.


Code: Select all

seem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.


Sorry Burz (only because this mistake has been made before) :D

User avatar
Keyser Soze
The Devil
Posts: 1403
Joined: Jan 9th, 2005 at 12:37 am

Postby Keyser Soze » Jan 30th, 2006 at 6:17 am

It just means another dimension, rather than time travel. Who knows what could be on the other side.
Image

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jan 30th, 2006 at 8:29 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:
Burzum wrote:Interesting. It seams like they're throwing everything out there. Anti-gravity, faster than light travel etc etc.


Code: Select all

seam    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sm)
n.

A line of junction formed by sewing together two pieces of material along their margins.
A similar line, ridge, or groove made by fitting, joining, or lapping together two sections along their edges.
A suture.
A scar.
A line across a surface, as a crack, fissure, or wrinkle.
A thin layer or stratum, as of coal or rock.


Code: Select all

seem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.


Sorry Burz (only because this mistake has been made before) :D


lol
Ya know I've been making that same mistake since my first spelling classes! All geniuses suck at something. I guess I'll have to add spelling to my "you suck at this" list.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
b0ba
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sep 15th, 2002 at 10:17 am

Postby b0ba » Jan 30th, 2006 at 9:21 am

keyser if u believe this i have a bridge i want to sell u

User avatar
Catharsys
Senior Member
Posts: 566
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2005 at 12:57 am

Postby Catharsys » Jan 30th, 2006 at 11:12 am

timeline (the book) gives interesting views on 'time travel'

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Jan 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

Catharsys wrote:timeline (the book) gives interesting views on 'time travel'


One of my all time favorite books. The movie sucked though.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Jan 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm

It seems as though this guy developed this theory, with absolutely no knowledge of the rest of the world of physics.
The article stated that most physicists couldn't understand it. I don't believe that for a second. I think most physicists are probably unsure as to how it fits the other theories we have. But who knows... maybe this will turn out to be the M-theory everyone's been searching for.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Servo
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Dec 8th, 2004 at 6:19 am

Postby Servo » Jan 30th, 2006 at 6:54 pm

maybe this will turn out to be the M-theory everyone's been searching for.


Your making my head hurt. M-theory is a refinement of string theory, which is an attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. Burkhard Heim's theories are an unrelated attempt to do the same.

This is my favorite:
It seems as though this guy developed this theory, with absolutely no knowledge of the rest of the world of physics.

Maybe that is because he did most of his work in the 1950's, while string theory was developed through the late 60's and 70's.
The article stated that most physicists couldn't understand it. I don't believe that for a second

Really? You dont believe that people could be confused by some of the most complex mathematics ever attempted? It takes years for especially gifted mathematicians to achieve a resionable understanding of physical theories such as string theory, and that is within university systems which already contain experts on the theory. There are verry few experts on Heims theory currently, and from what I have read, the biggest obstical between it and acceptance is the lack of a "how to" book.

The major thing Heim's theory has going for it is that it predicts the mass of subatomic particles. Something that the standard model is unable to do. It is also testable with current technology, unlike string theory.

In short, RTFA

User avatar
Catalyst22
Elite Member
Posts: 3606
Joined: Sep 30th, 2004 at 8:21 pm

Postby Catalyst22 » Jan 30th, 2006 at 7:20 pm

Image
“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.â€

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Jan 30th, 2006 at 7:52 pm

i thought this:

He drew on Einstein's idea that the gravitational force emerges from the dimensions of space and time, but suggested that all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism, might emerge from a new, different set of dimensions.
...
In Heim's six-dimensional world, the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are coupled together.


was a stab at unifying relativity and QM. The only thing missing are weak and strong atomic forces, no? I'm not that into Relativity/QM so I'm not sure ...

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Jan 31st, 2006 at 3:08 pm

Servo wrote:
maybe this will turn out to be the M-theory everyone's been searching for.


Your making my head hurt. M-theory is a refinement of string theory, which is an attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. Burkhard Heim's theories are an unrelated attempt to do the same.

This is my favorite:
It seems as though this guy developed this theory, with absolutely no knowledge of the rest of the world of physics.

Maybe that is because he did most of his work in the 1950's, while string theory was developed through the late 60's and 70's.
The article stated that most physicists couldn't understand it. I don't believe that for a second

Really? You dont believe that people could be confused by some of the most complex mathematics ever attempted? It takes years for especially gifted mathematicians to achieve a resionable understanding of physical theories such as string theory, and that is within university systems which already contain experts on the theory. There are verry few experts on Heims theory currently, and from what I have read, the biggest obstical between it and acceptance is the lack of a "how to" book.

The major thing Heim's theory has going for it is that it predicts the mass of subatomic particles. Something that the standard model is unable to do. It is also testable with current technology, unlike string theory.

In short, RTFA


Actually, M-theory is a missing piece of the puzzle in string theory. Not really a refinement of the same. Just something they decided had to be there, since the theory wouldn't fully work without it.

Yes, it is very notable that Heim's research(Heim researched in the 50's, but his protege who wrote the paper, did not) has predicted the mass of subatomic particles. Very nice indeed. But was the guy a physicist or a mathematician? Mathematicians have been able to predict a large number of occurances in physics, far ahead of physicists. But most physicists aren't great mathematicians, and in the history of physics, there have been a few occasions where a theory goes on for years until some mathematician finally checks into it and finds a flaw. I'm saying, this isn't an end-all theory of any sort.
Btw, string theory isn't testable, but they had already tested the masses of most subatomic particles. How else would they know that Heim was accurate without doing extensive tests?
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Feb 1st, 2006 at 8:43 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:i thought this:

He drew on Einstein's idea that the gravitational force emerges from the dimensions of space and time, but suggested that all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism, might emerge from a new, different set of dimensions.
...
In Heim's six-dimensional world, the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are coupled together.


was a stab at unifying relativity and QM. The only thing missing are weak and strong atomic forces, no? I'm not that into Relativity/QM so I'm not sure ...


Well if you don't know what you're talking about maybe you should STFU!

just kidding
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
JayPhat
Elite Member
Posts: 2701
Joined: Feb 24th, 2005 at 7:35 pm

Postby JayPhat » Feb 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Burzum wrote:Interesting. It seams like they're throwing everything out there. [b]Anti-gravity[b], faster than light travel etc etc.


Using those 2 words in any paper is the quickest way to get it thrown in the trash.
Image

User avatar
Blaze
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: May 24th, 2003 at 12:41 pm

Postby Blaze » Feb 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Benedict wrote:
Servo wrote:
maybe this will turn out to be the M-theory everyone's been searching for.


Your making my head hurt. M-theory is a refinement of string theory, which is an attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. Burkhard Heim's theories are an unrelated attempt to do the same.

This is my favorite:
It seems as though this guy developed this theory, with absolutely no knowledge of the rest of the world of physics.

Maybe that is because he did most of his work in the 1950's, while string theory was developed through the late 60's and 70's.
The article stated that most physicists couldn't understand it. I don't believe that for a second

Really? You dont believe that people could be confused by some of the most complex mathematics ever attempted? It takes years for especially gifted mathematicians to achieve a resionable understanding of physical theories such as string theory, and that is within university systems which already contain experts on the theory. There are verry few experts on Heims theory currently, and from what I have read, the biggest obstical between it and acceptance is the lack of a "how to" book.

The major thing Heim's theory has going for it is that it predicts the mass of subatomic particles. Something that the standard model is unable to do. It is also testable with current technology, unlike string theory.

In short, RTFA


Actually, M-theory is a missing piece of the puzzle in string theory. Not really a refinement of the same. Just something they decided had to be there, since the theory wouldn't fully work without it.

Yes, it is very notable that Heim's research(Heim researched in the 50's, but his protege who wrote the paper, did not) has predicted the mass of subatomic particles. Very nice indeed. But was the guy a physicist or a mathematician? Mathematicians have been able to predict a large number of occurances in physics, far ahead of physicists. But most physicists aren't great mathematicians, and in the history of physics, there have been a few occasions where a theory goes on for years until some mathematician finally checks into it and finds a flaw. I'm saying, this isn't an end-all theory of any sort.
Btw, string theory isn't testable, but they had already tested the masses of most subatomic particles. How else would they know that Heim was accurate without doing extensive tests?

I was under the impression that most Physicists were very good at math... especially the ones that make all the big breakthroughs.

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Feb 1st, 2006 at 6:39 pm

Derfel wrote:Okay this thread is boring.

I'm going to go back in time and kick Keyser's father (if I can figure out who he is, probably a good dozen men that it COULD be... ) square in the nuts five or six times to make sure this thread never happens.


The problem is that if you do do that then you'll meet Keysers mother without knowing it, and well really are you going to kick yourself in the nuts 5 or 6 times?
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Feb 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm

Blaze wrote:I was under the impression that most Physicists were very good at math... especially the ones that make all the big breakthroughs.


No. Not all of them. I mean, sure, they know more than (what I'm assuming) most of us do, but their are certain physicists that are great experimentalists and others that are great thinkers (people like Einstein who had his "thought experiments"). Einstein would think a theory and, years later, someone else would confirm its validity through experimentation. Newton, on the other hand, was hands on mathematics - though many of his theories/laws were disproven when applied to QM. In Einstein's Theory of Relativity gravity doesn't even exist (well, not as a Newtonian-type force. Einstein considered gravity the geometry of space-time).

Every mind works differently and there are many different types of brilliance.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Feb 1st, 2006 at 7:41 pm

also, i forgot to mention that a lot of the math needed to test the mroe complex theories hasn't been invented/discoverd yet.

kinda puts things into perspective if you think about that.

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Feb 1st, 2006 at 8:12 pm

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:also, i forgot to mention that a lot of the math needed to test the mroe complex theories hasn't been invented/discoverd yet.

kinda puts things into perspective if you think about that.


Think one of the books I read bout relativity mentioned that Einstien couldn't finish one of his theories until somebody else came out with a new form of calculus.

So I guess theories have been outpaceing math for a while now. Probably from the beginning.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Feb 1st, 2006 at 10:08 pm

I think it was since Newton. Then again, for modern science I think Newton WAS the beginning :)

User avatar
Blaze
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: May 24th, 2003 at 12:41 pm

Postby Blaze » Feb 1st, 2006 at 11:23 pm

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:
Blaze wrote:I was under the impression that most Physicists were very good at math... especially the ones that make all the big breakthroughs.


No. Not all of them. I mean, sure, they know more than (what I'm assuming) most of us do, but their are certain physicists that are great experimentalists and others that are great thinkers (people like Einstein who had his "thought experiments"). Einstein would think a theory and, years later, someone else would confirm its validity through experimentation. Newton, on the other hand, was hands on mathematics - though many of his theories/laws were disproven when applied to QM. In Einstein's Theory of Relativity gravity doesn't even exist (well, not as a Newtonian-type force. Einstein considered gravity the geometry of space-time).

Every mind works differently and there are many different types of brilliance.

Yeah I guess. I'm still gonna have to say that whether they are experimentalists or theorists for the most part, they have very good math skills. Now, I say this refering mainly to the physicists that have made the big discoveries or breakthroughs, but having takens a decent amount of university level physics courses I can say that it's pretty much all math.

User avatar
Blaze
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: May 24th, 2003 at 12:41 pm

Postby Blaze » Feb 1st, 2006 at 11:26 pm

ps. I get that there is always gonna be some people that are better at math then others in the physics world, but i'm trying to say that to make all these crazy theories and to even test them takes a lot of math skills.

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Feb 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 am

Jeng wrote:
rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:also, i forgot to mention that a lot of the math needed to test the mroe complex theories hasn't been invented/discoverd yet.

kinda puts things into perspective if you think about that.


Think one of the books I read bout relativity mentioned that Einstien couldn't finish one of his theories until somebody else came out with a new form of calculus.

So I guess theories have been outpaceing math for a while now. Probably from the beginning.


This isn't quite true. In fact, some theories are thought up by physicists, and when they need to experiment with them, they find that mathematicians actually have done all the work beforehand. Namely, the discovery of all the little subatomic particles was led primarily by work that had already been known to mathematicians for decades.
Though, the part about Einstein is completely true.
It's a back and forth relationship. Sometimes physicists come up with it first, and other times mathematicians do. Even though the mathematicians have no reason to do so, other than to explore mathematics.

Btw, I'm going to school for this shit. In about five years, I hope to be studying for a degree in quantum physics, in Japan.
I've been deleted!!


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests