Paradox Waves - Time Travel to the Past Does Not Affect the Present

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
And when combined they product results that don't make sense, meaning of the theories is incomplete in some way.

Perhaps it does not make sense for you. Indeed, it works the brain a bit. But the truth is not always an easy-to-find answer in a spoon. Remember the reaction of everyone when it was claimed that many phenomena were caused by tiny life-forms so small that they are invisible to the naked eyes - bacterias?

So you're saying that both the past and future are reachable by exploiting relativity and FTL interaction, but you're also saying the time line can be changed

I know it sounds strange. But it works - check my diagrams. If anything, my theory unifies Einstein's SRT with quantum-world discoveries! Check this article out:

Weird! Quantum Entanglement Can Reach into the Past

Essentially, the scientists showed that future actionsmay influence past events, at least when it comes to the messy, mind-bending world of quantum physics.

The quantum model actually confirms my discovery.

a reply to: moebius

Maybe the actual paradox lies in the attempt to apply the theory of relativity to superluminal processes.

Absolutely. The OP has gone beyond the design limits of relativity theory.

Mind you, some more-or-less mainstream physicists have done so too, working the Lorentz equations with values greater than c just to see what will result. Some of them have even seen time travel fall out of their mathematics. But it is generally understood that these are just theoretical excercises with no genuinely physical implications.

a reply to: swanne

Are you saying that just because outcomes regularly alternate in your 'thought experiment', some kind of wave is being produced?

Can you show points at which both outcomes have varying degrees of actuality? Can you show, I mean, that at certain points along your 'paradox wave' Earth is (for example) 30% destroyed and 70% saved? That would be genuinely wavelike behaviour.

You say 'amplitude is unknown', but what is it you are measuring the amplitude of?

It would be best, I think, if you shared your mathematics with us. Then the answers to these questions would be obvious.

(You do have a mathematical treatment of this, right?)

Also, I should be interested to know in what sense a dimensional axis can be regarded as a physical medium.

Thank you for your answers so far.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: moebius

Maybe the actual paradox lies in the attempt to apply the theory of relativity to superluminal processes.

Absolutely. The OP has gone beyond the design limits of relativity theory.

Precisely, relativity breaks whenever you introduce FTL processes into the equation, which is why Einstein said that quantum entanglement will never be observed. Einstein actually used quantum entanglement in his thought experiments to show why QM must be wrong. He said entanglement cannot possibly happen because it would violate his theories of relativity. But it does happen and now we have measured it in labs, so Einstein was clearly wrong in that regard.

What the OP seems to be ignoring is all the paradoxes and contradictions which arise when you try to combine FTL interaction like entanglement with relativity. He is assuming both theories are absolutely correct, when clearly one of them is flawed, and it's probably relativity. The mere fact that the end conclusion implies that events in the future can affect events in the past indicates to me that the theory has started with a faulty premise and arrived at equally faulty conclusions.

good thread, though ftl is possible, though highly dangerous and navigation is of essence
a reply to: swanne

originally posted by: swanne
I know it sounds strange. But it works - check my diagrams. If anything, my theory unifies Einstein's SRT with quantum-world discoveries!

No I don't think so. You may have possibly designed a logical mechanism for combining FTL interaction with relativity, but I don't see how you've managed to explain something like the collapse of the wavefunction. You've introduced your own form of the many-world theory which has nothing to do with the normal concept of parallel universes, but they don't help explain quantum randomness at all. And when you really start thinking about the deeper implications of your theory it starts to fall apart, I think there are many paradoxes which you have failed to explain.

You can't just say the entire time line is already determined, but simultaneously claim that events in the time line can be changed. It's like when I watch a movie, I know the plot has already been determined before I watch it, so there's no reason the plot should change each time I watch it. Even if my future self sends a message back to me, it means that I was always destined to send a message back to myself, it doesn't imply I have done something to change the time line, according to Einstein the time line was decided before I was even born.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, if you have a better name for such an object other than "wave", please do bicker about it here.

I try to stay patient. I do have a job, you know.

And yes, space-time is a medium. Ever heard about chronons?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Then why don't you stick to your precious "conventional", "non-heretic" version of multiverses and their elusive, purely mathematical, nonphysical mechanism of creation? You don't read my explanations in my OP and elsewhere, you just want to prove how the QM is "right" (even though the QM provides no clarification regarding multiversial physical creation, migration, non-interaction and location) and how Einstein was "wrong". Even though I just showed you evidences that even QM entanglement supports the existence of multiverses located in Time.

I keep on writing about the causality string and how it preserves itself. But you seem to never read it, only revert to a black-and-white view of time.

I have given you the answers. I cannot force you to consider them. I cannot force anyone to consider new things.
To explore the limits of Time.

I just want to add that before this discovery, I myself was subscribing to the "conventional" multiverse theory. But the QM was quite fuzzy and abstract about the multiverses' exact nature. Now I found deep clues. Yes, just like the QM predicted, there are indeed multiverses. Just like quantum entanglement in time has proven, we can interact with the past. And these multiverses can actually be found using Einstein's SRT - for the first time, there is a link between the QM and SRT. The combination gives a strange, new model which shows the nature and location of the multiverses: in Time. Time is not as linear as I expected. Instead, it is much stranger, more wonderful than I ever imagined.

I care not if mainstream apologists disagree with my discovery - I cannot force them to be right.

a reply to: swanne

Well, if you have a better name for such an object other than "wave", please do bicker about it here.

In what sense is a 'paradox wave' an object? Can it be detected? What does it interact with?

I try to stay patient. I do have a job, you know.

Any chance of us getting to see that maths?

And yes, space-time is a medium. Ever heard about chronons?

A dimensional axis is not spacetime.

I am beginning to worry about your credentials. Please reassure me. I want to believe in time travel.

originally posted by: [post=18640609]swanne
Time is not as linear as I expected. Instead, it is much stranger, more wonderful than I ever imagined.

I care not if mainstream apologists disagree with my discovery - I cannot force them to be right.

Quite right but on ats, most are empty headed you know. They will never accept anything innovative

originally posted by: Astyanax

In what sense is a 'paradox wave' an object?

Really? I used the word "object" here as an universal term for anything "not vacuum", opposed to "nothingness". And "subject" is for living organisms. I thought you would get the hint but I see now that you can't. I guess I am to blame.

Can it be detected?

These paradox waves are boundaries between two different histories. To detect them you need to travel back in time - you would thus create your own history, and observe discrepancies with the history you come from. Otherwise, to detect them from the Present, you would have to build a device which can send a signal to the past but this, in itself, would be altering the target's history - basically, a variant of Heisenberg's Uncertainty will here apply.

What does it interact with?

What does History interacts with?

Any chance of us getting to see that maths?

Why do you need the maths for?? I made a series of eight diagrams to show you how it works. I am sure you can work it out. This is not one of your mathematics exam - it is a proposition regarding the nature of causality and the possible location of multiverses between the paradox waves (or wathever you want to call it in your mind).

A dimensional axis is not spacetime.

Chronons, my dear, are quanta of a dimensional axis, yet they propagate through spacetime.

I am beginning to worry about your credentials. Please reassure me.

Seaching for ad hominem angle of attack, now, are we?

want to believe in time travel.

And you think I care about what you "want to believe"?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Quite right but on ats, most are empty headed you know. They will never accept anything innovative

I realize that now.

Sometimes I feel I should probably keep my discoveries to myself.

Reply to: swanne

What does History interact with?

Since history is nothing physical, merely the name given to a field of inquiry defined by humans, I'm not sure I see how this question sheds any light on the mystery of what 'paradox waves' are. History doesn't interact with anything; historical events occur, and affect future events, due to causality. Yet though we sometimes use the term in a metaphorical way, there is no physical 'force of history'.

Why do you need the maths for??

Why, to see whether the theory is consistent in all its elements, of course. I'm no mathematical genius, but missing or superfluous terms tell their own story. Also, to look at the various implications.

Chronons, my dear, are quanta of a dimensional axis, yet they propagate through spacetime.

No, chronons are quanta of time. Time is what is measured, not the axis along which the measurement is taken.

Seaching for ad hominem angle of attack, now, are we?

No, just seeking reassurance.

And you think I care about what you "want to believe"?

Of course you do, or you wouldn't have started this thread. But never mind that; I'm simply asking you, as politely as I know how, to defend your theory scientifically. Rather than snap back at me with accusations of malice aforethought, why don't you try to answer the questions in a scientific way?

A wave, by definition, has certain properties. You can do sums with these properties, adding and subtracting waves from one another. I'm asking what those properties are with respect to 'paradox waves'. The properties are to some extent dependent on one another (amplitude, for example, relates to phase). I'm asking to see how all that works.

originally posted by: Astyanax
History doesn't interact with anything; historical events occur, and affect future events, due to causality. Yet though we sometimes use the term in a metaphorical way, there is no physical 'force of history'.

There you go. You have just answered your own question.

Although, if I may add, if paradox waves travel in time, and spacetime bends with the presence of gravitational fields, then paradox waves will be sensible to gravitational fields.

Why, to see whether the theory is consistent in all its elements, of course. I'm no mathematical genius, but missing or superfluous terms tell their own story. Also, to look at the various implications.

Well, I'm no mathematical genius either. I think in graphical images and I express myself in plain English. And I am glad I do - otherwise no one but a few maths experts could read my posts.

Chronons, my dear, are quanta of a dimensional axis, yet they propagate through spacetime.

No, chronons are quanta of time.

Er... You do know that Time is a dimensional axis, right?

No, just seeking reassurance.

(pout) But it is so fun to let people guess personal informations about me. Okay, what about this for my credentials: I am the village's idiot. Oh, wait a minute. This implies that even an idiot can see that time paradoxes solve themselves and that alternative timelines hide between historical boundaries! Hm...

Of course you do, or you wouldn't have started this thread.

Ah, you got me! Hehe

But never mind that; I'm simply asking you, as politely as I know how, to defend your theory scientifically. Rather than snap back at me with accusations of malice aforethought, why don't you try to answer the questions in a scientific way?

A wave, by definition, has certain properties. You can do sums with these properties, adding and subtracting waves from one another. I'm asking what those properties are with respect to 'paradox waves'. The properties are to some extent dependent on one another (amplitude, for example, relates to phase). I'm asking to see how all that works.

Imagine a pulse wave. Pulse waves look like square waves but are not necessarily perfect squares. Unlike a normal wave of matter or energy, paradox waves travel directly perpendicularly relative to all three space axis. Now, history applies to all of the universe, right? So when this wave propagates along time, its amplitude is, literally, everything in space. The whole space volume of the universe. You cannot have "70% of a history mixed with 30% of another history", hence the pulse shape of the paradox wave. It's an on-off thing. Now when a causality paradox occurs, it changes the value of everything of space. This means that all of space just changed value. All of the amplitude. The paradox wave is born.
When more than one histortical collapse is created, for instance when a causality loop forms, everything in space (history) changes periodically - the amplitude changes or inverts in a repetitive fashion (in my OP, the change happens each 3 seconds), creating new crests in the paradox wave, with the newer crests being created further back in the past (closer to the source) relative to the older crests. Now the wave has frequency. Finally, since two paradox waves are a redundancy (two events changing the same target in time will simply create one paradox, while two events targeting two different targets in time will simply create two amplitude changes in the wave), two paradox waves cannot be in phase or out of phase with one another.

a reply to: swanne

You do know that Time is a dimensional axis, right?

No, I don't, because it isn't.

But thank you for your replies. No further questions. Good luck with the thread.

originally posted by: Astyanax
No, I don't, because it isn't.

Oh, really?

We have already seen that there is nothing terribly mysterious about adding one dimension to space to form a spacetime. Nonetheless it is hard to resist a lingering uneasiness about the idea of a four dimensional spacetime. The problem is not the time part of a four dimensional spacetime; it is the four. One can readily imagine the three axes of a three dimensional space: up-down, across and back to front. But where are we to put the fourth axis to make a four dimensional space?

source: www.pitt.edu...

Comparatively, 4-dimensional space has an extra coordinate axis, orthogonal to the other three, which is usually labeled w.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Astyanax
Also, I should be interested to know in what sense a dimensional axis can be regarded as a physical medium.

source: You

The issue I have with this is that time travel to the past is almost certainly impossible before the existence of a time machine.

The only known way to travel to the past relies on creating an artificial worm hole, where one side has been kept open on earth and the other end transported at the close to the speed of light for a very very very long time and then back again.

The resulting time dilation would cause time to pass much slower for the worm hole entrance traveling than the stationary earth end.

You would literally be able to walk into the past by traveling through the worm hole and be able to return.... but the past time would still be running so if you stepped through it would bring you a time distance of say one day into the past.... there would literally be two of you at that point in time.

Unfortunately there isn't enough known universe to use this method to travel farther than a few months into the past.

Now for the fun with Paradoxes...

Say you go back in time and kill yourself.... how could you go through the worm hole in the first place right??!!??

Well the answer to this problem is really quite simple and it relies on the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics.... Given that there are an infinite number of iterations of the universe, if you were to go back in time you find it was impossible to kill yourself... something would always happen to prevent you from doing it.

This brings into balance the timeline and the coherence of the universe.

It does also make much sense when we look at subjects such as synchronicity and destiny.

Can you follow?

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The issue I have with this is that time travel to the past is almost certainly impossible before the existence of a time machine.

Not at all. Anything that goes faster than light would go back to the past. This includes natural phenomenon such as tachyons. Apply the Butterfly effect and it can be demonstrated that such natural events would in themselves cause paradoxes and, thus, generate alternative timelines all throughout the Time axis.

The only known way to travel to the past relies on creating an artificial worm hole, where one side has been kept open on earth and the other end transported at the close to the speed of light for a very very very long time and then back again.

The resulting time dilation would cause time to pass much slower for the worm hole entrance traveling than the stationary earth end.

You would literally be able to walk into the past by traveling through the worm hole and be able to return.... but the past time would still be running so if you stepped through it would bring you a time distance of say one day into the past.... there would literally be two of you at that point in time.

Unfortunately there isn't enough known universe to use this method to travel farther than a few months into the past.

Now for the fun with Paradoxes...

Say you go back in time and kill yourself.... how could you go through the worm hole in the first place right??!!??

History would be preserved. It matters not if the cause is in the future or in the past relative to the effect, as long as the effect is caused by the cause. If I go back in time to kill myself, I would create a paradox. But this paradox travels at a finite speed. Since the present flees from the past at the same speed than the paradox, the paradox can never reach back up to the present. Causality is preserved, since alternate realities are created and prevented from interaction because of their finite speed in Time.

Well the answer to this problem is really quite simple and it relies on the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics....

except that the QM version of multiverses gives no mechanism for the creation of multiverses. It says not how a new universe is created (big bang? Spontaneous apparition? ), it says not how come this universe is invisible to us (maybe the multiverses are outside our spacetime universe? ), and if they are outside our spacetime universe, it says not how they migrated there (they crossed 92 billion light-years in a Planck time? ), nor where they are located. In my theory, not only is causality preserved (because it applies a variant of the multiverse theory), it also gives the exact nature of the multiverses.

if you were to go back in time you find it was impossible to kill yourself... something would always happen to prevent you from doing it.

What would? What would prevent someone to carry out this act? A yet-to-discover, new kind of force field?

Good post nonetheless, a star for the thought-provoking reply, mate.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The issue I have with this is that time travel to the past is almost certainly impossible before the existence of a time machine.

Not at all. Anything that goes faster than light would go back to the past. This includes natural phenomenon such as tachyons.

Firstly thank you and star back, you have proven yourself to be a thinker!

How to answer this?

I guess we should start with Tachyons... they are a theoretical particle that has no rest or relativistic mass.... Sounds a lot like a piece of math that is cleverly conceived but imho will be proven incorrect and superseded at some point.

History would be preserved. It matters not if the cause is in the future or in the past relative to the effect, as long as the effect is caused by the cause. If I go back in time to kill myself, I would create a paradox. But this paradox travels at a finite speed. Since the present flees from the past at the same speed than the paradox, the paradox can never reach back up to the present. Causality is preserved, since alternate realities are created and prevented from interaction because of their finite speed in Time.

What you're suggesting is that the time the changes would need to propagate are forever out of reach by the receding future. But as we have discovered through QM and entanglement that no time is needed to propagate state changes.

except that the QM version of multiverses gives no mechanism for the creation of multiverses. It says not how a new universe is created (big bang? Spontaneous apparition? ), it says not how come this universe is invisible to us (maybe the multiverses are outside our spacetime universe? ), and if they are outside our spacetime universe, it says not how they migrated there (they crossed 92 billion light-years in a Planck time? ), nor where they are located. In my theory, not only is causality preserved (because it applies a variant of the multiverse theory), it also gives the exact nature of the multiverses.

Actually QM has answers for most of those questions.

The biggest one being how are the other universes created.... They were created in their own big bangs in a multiverse, each universe a slice of the whole, although not entirely segregated from each other they all exist outside and separate from each other. Each universe exhibiting slightly different (one planck difference) to wildly different (speed of light or cosmological constant different).

The issue most people have with time is trying to get your head around the fact that cause and effect are not as linear as one might think and that something that happens in nature seemingly completely at random could be the result of something completely unrelated in our future... due to the fact that past/present and future are all connected.



Korg.