What thoughts have you on time travel? Do you believe it is possible?

Backwards time travel is not feasible. Considering the concept meaningful is actually a trick of the brain, like seeing a face In patterns that isn't actually there. The proposition can't even be asserted and be meaningful. Particle physics helps back this up, see unitarity.

File: 1473394648261.jpg (41KB, 480x622px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x622px

>>18109895
Please sir state more detail or gtfo.

the quantum eraser experiment kind of demonstrates that backwards time travel is at least somewhat possible, but you should ask a physicist.

>>18109906
I provided ample detail. If you think I didn't, then you are probably too stupid to understand the topic anyway. That's fine, though. Go back to summoning your tulpa succubus Alex Jones klaatu verada nicto etc and so on

>>18110951
>I wasn't just spouting meaningless technobabble, you're just too stupid to understand it!

>>18111036
Literally not a single thing I wrote is techno babble. I talked about logical incoherence and gave an analogy. Then I brought up unitarity, and in an attempt to avoid techno babble, encouraged looking it up instead of giving a crude explanation of the math. Why am I surprised that your reading comprehension is this low. I'm on /x/, after all.

You can relive past events through lucid dreams. If you do something different than how you did in the past, the reactions of the others will be based on their actual persona

>>18109816
All I'm certain of, is that if it ever came to "going back in time" or making the least-detrimental changes to one's own timelike curve, provided anything is such a way and what not...

I'd be a top-notch time-traveler. I've the mind to deal with the causal fuckery without much hassle- if I haven't already helped myself understand what not to get stuck on.

>>18111667
Except that might not be the case, because while the brain seems like it's a great deal powerful... the reactions of the others will be based upon your understanding and interpretation of their exact same identity, and thus their personas will not possess the exact sameness; none of it is as accurate, or will be as accurate, or even coherent, as one would like to feel to suggest otherwise.

I especially know this, because I'm a chronic lucid dreamer. Regularity? What a fickle thing.

File: 1453985429374.jpg (31KB, 507x459px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 507x459px

>>18111687
>to one's own timelike curve
please don't use terms you don't understand

>>18111701
Okay, I'll continue to use terms I understand.

Like Novikov's Self-Consistency principle, usually accompanied by a common thought experiment/s any plebeian can wrap their heads around.

>>18111712
Novikov dictates that causality as a concept is pretty much well-ingrained, right? So it doesn't really matter if you were stuck in a causal fuckup as you stated in your previous post. Your world line is predetermined.

That would mean free-will as a concept is false, no?

>>18111720
Not exactly. Mind telling me what your concept of free will is?

Because I could spit out a deterministic (note: not a fatalistic) version of free will, and it would be valid, and yet allow things like causality and what would essentially be a bootstrap/a pre-determined set of states (i.e. a causal loop involving me as the bootstrap itself).

However, because you mentioned "world lines"... I'd like to point out that under the whole metaphysical nature of whatever constitutes the model we say we'd use for any sort of time travel scenario (where nothing is new and everything is essentially caused and cannot become uncaused), it's perfectly valid, if not immediately sound, to suggest that the perspective of the observer is a great factor in determining whether or not something is "predetermined".

If sets of states must become wholly new worlds/dimensions/whathaveyou because of the SC principle, then insofar as the time traveler is concerned (i.e. inside their respective brain/s in each new model), the only fixed things are the probabilities that come out on top when the time traveler "arrives" (perceives the world as if they arrived somewhere "new", even if the universe was just destined to assemble matter on the spot in a random spatial coordinate at some moment with nothing ever going in or out of this universe, where it is also a wholly closed system).

File: 1471403521469.jpg (51KB, 636x458px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 636x458px

Let's start with a few assumptions, and work from there. I won't be proving these assumptions, these are for the reader to find evidence for on their own.

1) There is a way to travel infinitely fast.

2) The universe is infinitely large, expanding beyond the oldest light. Call it the multiverse henceforth. A universe is the size of the oldest light that originated in that universe.

Now, due to the HUP, there's a non-zero chance for any given particle configuration to exist. With an infinite multiverse this probability jumps up to a 100% chance, including universes which are absolutely identical. In fact, there's no evidence to suggest that we're not at this moment flipping back and forth infinitely fast between absolutely identical universes with any given frequency. One would have to slowboat through this infinite universe to another identical universe, and think "Oh, I just arrived where I started from!" to prove that such infinite fast travel is taking place, yet no experiment can ever prove that it isn't taking place. Thus, we can think of quantum probability events as one's consciousness shifting infinitely fast between almost absolutely identical universes, where the only difference is the outcome of that event.

A time machine then, would be able to sift through these many possible configurations of universes in search for a specific one. It wouldn't REALLY be going back in time, not REALLY. It would just be traveling to a parallel universe, where maybe all of the events happened the same, but perhaps a certain quantum event went this way, instead of that way. Thus a time machine is any system which allows one to choose the results of a quantum event, or to redo them as many times as they like until they arrive at the outcome they desired. I leave it to the reader to decide if this is "possible" or not.

Nonetheless, this presents a lens through which even a reductionist materialist who wants to only go forward in time can experience time travel.

>>18111811
I'm thinking this is usually my go-to model, give or take some flavor text and a few minor mechanics of choice.

>>18111824
Alright. So all that's left is to monkey up some ways of making something that appears to move instantaneously.

What do you think about the following statement:
- The only way to travel faster than light, is to remove there any reference frame for there to be a faster than in respect to.

>>18111831
I think that statement would certainly allow for the making of something to appear to move instantaneously...

And that it highlights the need to also remove there being any reference frame for several other things... to create a rather interesting series of results and conclusions that I definitely want to try to consider.

But, I also think that it highlights the very problem of confirmation bias (if that's what I'm calling it), in both ways; how do we know there is a speed limit on things? Frame of reference. The assumption lies both in internalizing the notion of not being able to escape the perspective that lies within the human scope/having meat peripherals and being meat, and also in that the arbitration of things is far easier than starting with a completely blank nothingness, with nothing to equivocate towards or measure against.

But you can also start at nowhere, and begin again.

So, if there is no reference frame, no scope that lies under another scope, such as to arbitrarily categorize everything... would there then be a speed limit?

I can't, with a good conscience, conclude so. I've yet to.

So I think that this statement is ultimately a fair one, but if we are to accept even part of it, and do more with it, we would need to work with a moderately different mindset than that which defaults to seeking empirical evidence to validate any truth statement that one can generate/make claims towards (and that is then convenient or makes the universe and/or realm of existence/s a way that becomes "simple")- and validates that assembly of methods with, well, the very same assembly of methods.

>>18111857
I agree. To consider the possibility that removing essentially all forms of radiation from an object would cause it to vanish is to plunge head deep into subjectivism. Vanish from whose perspective?

And yet, that is precisely what I am suggesting. Suppose there is a craft, that creates a situation where it simply does not have any paths to exchange information with Earth. Does it then not experience anti-gravity? For if it did experience gravity, gravity being a mutual exchange of force therefor information, the craft would in some way be visible by way of gravitational waves, however slightly they're measured.

So here's what I'm proposing; masking a craft from gravitational waves, causes it to become non-existent from whichever reference frame it is masked from.

>>18111897
I've no critical experience/nuance with the finer nature of what is said to be gravity (besides being at the mercy of Earth, as well as other phenomena), and various realms of field theory, to a better science than I currently can...

But I feel like- no, think (if not know that) this is reasonable. Especially given the information about information.

Whether I could explain away the existence of said craft is another story... It seems like it's doing something fantastically incredible, something so profound, something with deep reaching implications- something that can effectively side-step a particular system to commit some actions, then un-permissable within the system it previously interacted with. But, maybe that's either besides the point- or part the point entirely.

>>18111923
It would certainly throw a wrench into the system, if people had vanishing technology at their disposal.

I'm willing to bet 9 times out of 10, the first thing a human would do if they got their hands on something like that is something purely selfish, and that they only don't because they know they wouldn't be able to get away with.

This tempers my desire to participate in any program for achieving such. But moving on.

If it's true that a craft need only to remove any reference frame for there to be a "faster than" to, in order to move FTL, then what happens when a craft uses features of quantum mechanics to become temporarily effectively invisible to all other objects in the universe, except when it happens to be in a specified set of coordinates?

From the perspective of the universe, the craft would vanish, take god only knows what trajectory, and then reappear some unknown amount of time at the specified coordinates. One could never even really be sure it was the "same" craft, with all of its particles just coincidentally exactly as they were when it left. There is a break in continuity. Reductionist linear reasoning cannot make a determination on "sameness" under these circumstances.

But at the end of the day, you got a craft that was at point A, then at point B, and never made an appearance at any of the points in between in order to get there. That's one way to instantly travel.

Whether or not there exists a set of quantum wave frequencies which causes a craft to become effectively invisible from reality is another question entirely, but it would have to involve creating an anti-matter silhouette, even for only an instant in order to perfectly annihilate all frequencies being generated by the craft for that instant.

And then to just *tweak* the craft a little while it's vanished, so that when it comes back in, it """thinks""" it's somewhere else.

"But is it really?"

I mean. Sure.

>>18111426
Just imagine that I linked you to the song "USS Make Shit Up" by Voltaire, because I can't be bothered to google it again. Your attempts at sounding like you know what the fuck you're talking about have fallen flat, and I'm honestly surprised you haven't gone into "The present is just us remembering the future" territory yet.

File: 1449615240098.jpg (73KB, 405x412px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 405x412px

>>18112153
Too late. See:

>>18111897
>masking a craft from gravitational waves, causes it to become non-existent from whichever reference frame it is masked from.

And I say, Bounce a graviton particle beam, off the main deflector dish~!

>>18109816
I don't know if travel within our specific timeline is possible, but I find the Titor story interesting. Go figure, the Confederate States win the war and time travel and interstellar travel are possible in that timeline/dimension.

File: IMG_20160226_181802.jpg (615KB, 1944x1944px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1944x1944px

Well John Titor explains time travel very well. Manipulating a spinning black hole.

Cern invented the Internet so I'm sure they will eventually invent time travel in our time line too.

>>18111974
I'm left to wonder what other avenues of applications such an understanding/feat would enable.

Wouldn't such understanding promote quantum telecommunications? Or, would the development of quantum telecommunications, whether it's the simple translation of information or the encryption of such, promote a series of impassioned breakthroughs that could result in, well...

Something fantastically practical?

>>18112737
Better than that.

Take limestone. Measure it's frequency difference from your choice of saccharides. Phase it out, shift its frequency, (or the frequency of its containment shielding) phase it back in. Turn bricks to bread.

This next stage of technology completely invalidates everything before it. The question of "Are we living in a simulation?" becomes utterly pointless, because hereafter any material a person desires, they can just use phase shifting to acquire. Reality *becomes* your simulation at that point, in the sense that the only thing limiting a society with access to this type of technology is their own imagination.

The problem isn't that it's technically challenging. It's that the results are so tremendously better than what we're working with now, that even comprehending it just completely invalidates our planet's value systems. Think of the hard working bloke who spends his entire life experiencing physical and emotional pain, to save up enough money to buy like some gold or something that makes him feel good.

Only to find out that kids these days are 4d printing their own gold out of raw energy, which they harvested from transmuting dirt. It would absolutely wreck him, if he was the jealous type anyways. All that hard work for nothin'? And how many times have you seen physicists personally offended at the concept of free energy by stating "There's no such thing as a free lunch!" Now there's an emotionally based argument, if ever I heard one.

Promotheus wants to give us this fire, but it keeps burning our fingers when we reach out too suddenly in our delight to grasp it.

>>18109895
>I cant imagine it, therefor it is not possible

>>18111701
>please don't use terms I don't understand
ftfy

>>18111811
pop-sci fag get out

File: 1472707650833.jpg (1MB, 867x6091px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 867x6091px

>>18109816

Despite his dated predictions not coming true, John Titor really accurately described what life would be like at this time, and this was a pre 9/11 society.

>>18112979
>accurately
>accurately

Hmm.