From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 12:00:12 MST
[Blunderov 0] wrote:
>> [Blunderov nods and naively wonders]
>>
>> How could time-travel ever be possible?
No name given [vampier@mac.com 1] replied:
>Clearly you have not watched enough science fiction shows.
[Blunderov 2]
Actually, science fiction is a genre to which I'm quite partial.
Nevertheless I usually have to exercise a fair amount of [I] suspension of
disbelief [/I] when indulging, especially when it comes to plots involving
time-travel. In my experience science fiction is usually fairly sketchy on
the specific mechanisms of such technologies, contenting itself with appeals
to somewhat nebulous, and as far as I am aware, imaginary notions, such as
"wormholes", "spatio-temporal vortexes and similar.
No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]wrote:
> Kalkor states that coping is best achieved via acceptance of those two
> points:
>> 1)The past cannot be changed
>> 2)Doing only things that benefit me, immediately and in the long term,
>> is the surest way to cope with
>> having done badly or been done wrong.
> I claim that (1) is a belief that could quite possibly be overturned
> with the advent of time-travel, and so therefore is not acceptable to a
> person with the virtue of "vision".
[Blunderov 0] remarked:
>> Assuming that "time-travel" would
>> include being able to visually perceive a past event (that occurred
>> more or less in one's own location) then:
>> Photons reflecting off an event would recede from that event at the
>> speed of light, necessitating faster-than light-speed travel to be able
to
>> reach a point where at least some of these photons could be re-perceived,
or
>> reflected back to the observer. Some means of distinguishing between
>> relevant and irrelevant photons would be necessary.
No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]clarified:
>By "time-travel" I mean the ability to transmit information backwards in
>time - as the tachyon particles allegedly might.
[Blunderov 2]
I am probably the person on this forum least qualified to hazard an opinion
on any matter of quantum physics but I will ask this; how would this
admittedly amazing (possible) characteristic of tachyons change the past in
anything other than a quantum sense? If even that? And hey, where did my
photons go? Weren't they there too? Or will they come along with the
tachyons for the ride? ("Captain, there's tachyons on the starboard side! Or
at least there were a moment ago!" See what I mean - these scripts could use
more scientific detail).
[Blunderov 0] wrote:
>> Time is a function of events. In order to "go back in time" all events
>> after that particular time would have to be cancelled and then recreated
>> exactly.
No name given [vampier@mac.com 1] wrote:
>We can have many paradigms of what could/might be.
[Blunderov 0] ctd.
>> But this would be impossible because the act of "going back in time"
>> would have made a difference to the sequence of events that follows.
No name given [vampier@mac.com 1]wrote:
>There might be alternate time-lines.
>Or, it could be (such as in the "Back To The Future" movies) that all
>time-travel has already occurred and won't affect what changed.
[Blunderov 2]
The idea that all time-travel has already occurred implies that [em] all
[/em] the events of the universe have also already occurred. This would mean
that Blunderov has already died in spite of the fact that he
[Blunderov -"that's me! I'm him" (in the immortal words of Prof Geezil from
"Popeye)] is convinced that he is, at least for the moment, quite vigorous.
Nothing I know of permits me to speculate that, pity though it may be,
Blunderov's death is a reversible event. (I'm reminded of the Beatles song
"She Said" [quote] She said "I know what it's like to be dead"/ I said "who
put all those things in your head?/ And you're making me feel like/ I've
never been born. [/quote](from memory))
Perhaps I'm over-optimistic, but I'm hoping this objection (The regrettable,
but unavoidable demise of Blunderov) applies just as much to [quote]<snip>
>We can have many paradigms of what could/might be.<snap> and <snip>There
might be alternate time-lines.<snap> as I hope it does to the "Back to the
future scenario.
Fond Regards
Blunderov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT