Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Questions for any body? Changing timelines
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="start at edge" data-source="post: 188329" data-attributes="member: 11971"><p>I understand your point, but you must agree at least on this: a different timeline (or more) makes no sense if no observer emerges at some point in any of the branches. So, it must be at least on branch that subsequently has an observer, in other words, if no observation is to be ever made, regardless of the vastness of branches (timelines), all those branches collapse to zero. Therefore, ruling out an observer, eliminates the very concept of a different timeline (or more different timelines). At this moment I can not think of a better analogy, but I look at it as this:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">if someone writes a book, even if there is nobody to read it, the book was written.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">if there are many potential readers, but there was no book ever written, those potential readers are still there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">but if there are no readers and there was nobody to ever write a book, the very concept of book reading makes no sense, as nothing is defined in this aspect.</li> </ul><p>I have no better way to explain myself, but I have at least one excuse – I am not a native English speaker, therefore my vocabulary lacks a lot of terms that would be helpful.</p><p>The observer I mentioned, I see as a consciousness being, so to say “intelligent life”.</p><p>The many worlds interpretation is indeed a correct one (but not the only correct one, as quantum mechanics teaches us). The wave function collapses when there is an observer involved. In the double slit experiment, there is a way to measure the particle (an electron, for example), whether before passing through a slit or after – a moving electron can induce a detectable electric current (in a copper wire, for example) when it passes in its vicinity, without loosing that much energy to take it out of the equation. It must not be necessarily measured by destruction (letting it smash into some screen or layer of sensitive material). Its passing by effect can be measured by keeping it intact as a particle after the measurement. I wonder if anybody ever tried to do this type of observation in some laboratory. In this aspect, it seems a little weird to me that people speak about collapsing the wave function, when in reality, especially regarding the “double slit” experiment, it is the particle that is collapsed (eliminated) – not the wave.</p><p>The following is somehow off topic, but for me it would be interesting to know other opinions as well (if there are any):</p><p>Maybe I am not the first one who made this observation, but for me it is obvious that light speed is not the upper limit, even if we refer to our universe. In fact, it is some sort of zero, a stillness. As a demonstration, even proof, I have a thought-experiment whose result and outcome are undeniable.</p><p>If anybody is interested, I will gladly share this (it requires some drawing images attached and even if it is very simple, it takes a little time for me to draw them).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="start at edge, post: 188329, member: 11971"] I understand your point, but you must agree at least on this: a different timeline (or more) makes no sense if no observer emerges at some point in any of the branches. So, it must be at least on branch that subsequently has an observer, in other words, if no observation is to be ever made, regardless of the vastness of branches (timelines), all those branches collapse to zero. Therefore, ruling out an observer, eliminates the very concept of a different timeline (or more different timelines). At this moment I can not think of a better analogy, but I look at it as this: [LIST] [*]if someone writes a book, even if there is nobody to read it, the book was written. [*]if there are many potential readers, but there was no book ever written, those potential readers are still there. [*]but if there are no readers and there was nobody to ever write a book, the very concept of book reading makes no sense, as nothing is defined in this aspect. [/LIST] I have no better way to explain myself, but I have at least one excuse – I am not a native English speaker, therefore my vocabulary lacks a lot of terms that would be helpful. The observer I mentioned, I see as a consciousness being, so to say “intelligent life”. The many worlds interpretation is indeed a correct one (but not the only correct one, as quantum mechanics teaches us). The wave function collapses when there is an observer involved. In the double slit experiment, there is a way to measure the particle (an electron, for example), whether before passing through a slit or after – a moving electron can induce a detectable electric current (in a copper wire, for example) when it passes in its vicinity, without loosing that much energy to take it out of the equation. It must not be necessarily measured by destruction (letting it smash into some screen or layer of sensitive material). Its passing by effect can be measured by keeping it intact as a particle after the measurement. I wonder if anybody ever tried to do this type of observation in some laboratory. In this aspect, it seems a little weird to me that people speak about collapsing the wave function, when in reality, especially regarding the “double slit” experiment, it is the particle that is collapsed (eliminated) – not the wave. The following is somehow off topic, but for me it would be interesting to know other opinions as well (if there are any): Maybe I am not the first one who made this observation, but for me it is obvious that light speed is not the upper limit, even if we refer to our universe. In fact, it is some sort of zero, a stillness. As a demonstration, even proof, I have a thought-experiment whose result and outcome are undeniable. If anybody is interested, I will gladly share this (it requires some drawing images attached and even if it is very simple, it takes a little time for me to draw them). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Questions for any body? Changing timelines
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top