Three Laws of Chronodynamics

Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>
Read my explanation of the many worlds theory here:
http://www.timetravelforum.net/showthread....25748#post25748

and then tell me about these so-called \"silly aspects\". I know of none that do not also crop up in any other explanation of the quanta.[/b]
Click to expand...

I read it. I feel the need to correct one point though. The paper with two slits experiment requires a photographic plate on the other side of the slits in order for there to be interference patterns. Just shining light through the slits onto a wall or any other surface like you described will not result in interference patterns.

That experiment shows only that when individual photons or electrons are considered individualy they exhibit both particle and wave qualities. From that to "Many Worlds Theory" is all speculation and, if you will pardon the pun, a quantum jump of imagination.

As for a silly aspect of "Many Worlds Theory", how's this. Take the afore mentioned experiment. "Many Worlds Theory" postulates that the photon in its wave form represents a probability wave function ploting out all possible paths the photon could take between the emitter and the photographic plate. One of those paths presumably consists of a path that includes a detour to the Andromeda Galaxy. If this is the case, that is if photons really do take every possible path and only choose a path upon our observing it take that path, why has anyone yet to observe any path other than a straight one? I have yet to observe a photon leave an emitter, travel to the Andromeda Galaxy, and return. All anyone has ever observed is photons traveling in a straight line through space-time. The particle-wave duality does not require this silly theory to explain it. Can't we just accept that subatomic particles have qualities unlike anything our macroscopic sensorium has encountered?

BTW, I was not tring to be sarcastic suggesting the Andromeda detour just now, that came straight from The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in the chapter explaining quantum mechanics and the very experiment you described.

And you call yourself a skeptic?
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

Jim,

I perfectly understand your explanation and its implications, and far mostly I agree with you - no reason to lift any parades here, I'm definitely on your side!

My sole worry about your theories is this:

Why do you formulate your theories as seen from a time travelers eyes? This gives it a flavour of science fiction rather than of science.

Now hold on, Please! Hear me out on this one. I've read your post about how you got into all this. Your dad, that friend of yours with his short story and so on. My story is pretty similar to yours. I too have literar ambitions - I guess this is why we basically agree on this - in contradiction to the far more popular muliple-universe/timeline theory.

I just think that this beautiful trinity should be formulated a bit more... objectively. Without the "time traveler" and "observer" bit. You claim time to be singular, definite and unchangeable and yet you formulate your theories as if the whole thing was defined by the eyes watching it. Not quite solipsism, but definitely in that direction...

My point is... you won't find any protagonists in the laws formulated by Newton, Einstein or Heisenberg. And I think you should'nt put them in your laws either - even though we all purely imagine them beeing used by such protagonists (making us a bunch o' romantic dreamers, but what the heck...)

Catching my drift?

H.H.
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>
I read it. I feel the need to correct one point though. The paper with two slits experiment requires a photographic plate on the other side of the slits in order for there to be interference patterns. Just shining light through the slits onto a wall or any other surface like you described will not result in interference patterns. [/b]
Click to expand...

That is not precisely true. If you use the one-at-a-time electron gun, you have to have the photographic plate to detect the electrons. If you have a single light source, it will work with visible light on any screen. It helps to use coherent light though because the interference is more apparent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>
That experiment shows only that when individual photons or electrons are considered individualy they exhibit both particle and wave qualities. From that to \"Many Worlds Theory\" is all speculation and, if you will pardon the pun, a quantum jump of imagination.[/b]
Click to expand...

I would certainly not argue with that. In what way does the speculation by experimental physicists about many worlds differ from the speculation by a bunch of board posters about the laws of chronodynamics?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Chronodynamic Jim\")</div>
As for a silly aspect of \"Many Worlds Theory\", how's this. Take the afore mentioned experiment. \"Many Worlds Theory\" postulates that the photon in its wave form represents a probability wave function ploting out all possible paths the photon could take between the emitter and the photographic plate. One of those paths presumably consists of a path that includes a detour to the Andromeda Galaxy. If this is the case, that is if photons really do take every possible path and only choose a path upon our observing it take that path, why has anyone yet to observe any path other than a straight one? I have yet to observe a photon leave an emitter, travel to the Andromeda Galaxy, and return. All anyone has ever observed is photons traveling in a straight line through space-time. The particle-wave duality does not require this silly theory to explain it. Can't we just accept that subatomic particles have qualities unlike anything our macroscopic sensorium has encountered?

BTW, I was not tring to be sarcastic suggesting the Andromeda detour just now, that came straight from The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene in the chapter explaining quantum mechanics and the very experiment you described.

And you call yourself a skeptic? [/b]
Click to expand...

To Mr. Greene, I would give a very simple answer, one that people trying to shoot down the many worlds theory usually ignore. No "many worlds" theorist supposes anything but a straight-line path for photons in the two slit experiment. No one has said that any path is a possible path. The path to Andromeda and back is not one of the possible paths that Feynman was referring to. For one thing, the photon would not return for years because of the distance involved. For another thing, all the photons (or waves) used in the experiment will impinge on and either be absorbed or reflected by the sheet with two slits or the screen behind it. The "all possible paths" meant through slot "a", slot "b" or somewhere on the slotted paper. Additionally, even if we are given a remote probability of a photon taking the andromeda route, then by definition the probability of observing it do so is remote. Another example is electron tunneling. We know that due to the uncertainty principle, a particle can disappear from one spot and reappear somewhere else. If we had a glass full of particles (say water molecules) the possibility exists that all the molecules in the glass could disappear and then reappear on the other side of the glass, resulting in the glass emptying itself out. Since this is possible, why has it not been observed?

Anyway, this is not to infer that I believe the Many Worlds theory. The fact that the Many Worlds explains a lot of what is going on in quantum physics leads me to lean toward the multiple timeline theory of time travel into the past. After all, I'm not aware of any physics that even remotely experimentally supports any other view. Not that that invalidates other views. I mean, ain't nobody time travellin around here anyway.

Harte
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

I hear you. Within the fictional setting of the framework of the Laws, they are as you suggest they should be. They are mathematical, cold and objective. The english approximations however are not. These are used in the story as a kind of compass to guide a time traveler and to deliniate what can and what can not be done.

That being said however, it never occured to me to word the Laws in the manner which you describe. You make a valid point. Meditate on this, I will.
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div>
I would certainly not argue with that. In what way does the speculation by experimental physicists about many worlds differ from the speculation by a bunch of board posters about the laws of chronodynamics?[/b]
Click to expand...

no difference that I can detect, other than I never claimed the the Laws were anything more than a guideline for TT fiction, and not a real suggestion of how the world works.
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

Oh, by the way Jim...

Take a good look at this:

Three Laws of Chronodynamics
Cause MUST preceed Effect, but may seem to do so to the Staionary Observer[/b]

I'm talking about this line:

"Cause MUST preceed Effect, but may seem to do so to the Staionary Observer"

Shouldn't it have said:

"Cause MUST preceed Effect, but may not seem to do so to the Stationary Observer" ?

I'm not saying this to be a pain in your ass or anything, just trying to live up to my favorite quotation (see below).

H.H.
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>
Because this is why we are. Otherwise you need to come up with another way of causing existence rather than hey I do not care. This is not to be a spoilsport or indulge in metaphysics, would do neither.[/b]
Click to expand...

Let me ask another way. What, if anything, in the three laws of CD requires the existence of a diety?

As for the larger queston of how the universe came into existence, it seems to me that there are only two possibilities.

Either, there was always something.

Or, there was nothing, then there was something.

Niether idea is particularly satisfying. Invoking the idea of God doesn't help much either. Even if God did create the universe, it begs the question, where did God come from?
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

It is certainly nice to have all these logical theories regarding time travel. But it is very much like writing a set of instructions for a machine that does not exist. Much like coming up with a treatise regarding a Quantum Drive Vehicle that has not been built.
 
Re: Three Laws of Chronodynamics

Starlord,

Yes, you are right. This by the way goes for multiple timeline theory and all other mental constructions on display in here as well.

But since we can't go and explore timetravel for real, theorising is all we can do. And Jim's theories actually does fix all the toe-curling stupid TT ideas that have been used in so many sci-fi stories.

Discussing un-proved theories, by the way, will always be a major part of life. Has the "theory" of democracy ever been prooved? Has the theory of privatization or liberalization? We will probably discuss these matters over and over for millennia, weighing pro et contra again and again until it becomes irrellevant or until a breakthrough is made - spawning off new theories.

Several of Einsteins theories weren't prooved until recently, when we had developed the techniques to do so. Maby in this very forum a 14 year old kiddo some day finds the inspiration that will make him come up with a theory regarding time travel. Basically this is how all new ideas come to life.... through discussion.

H.H.
 

Top