Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!mnetor!seismo!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes From: mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.sci,net.philosophy,net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: A Sane Man Proposes A Time Travel Experiment Message-ID: <7489@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 26-Jul-86 17:42:03 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.7489 Posted: Sat Jul 26 17:42:03 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jul-86 03:54:07 EDT References: <289@axiom.UUCP> <5723@lanl.ARPA> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 67 Xref: lsuc net.physics:2631 net.sci:1103 net.philosophy:1392 net.sf-lovers:8082 > > [...suggests a time travel experiment...] > > > > Comments? > > > > >< ...{ decvax!linus | seismo!harvard }!axiom!gts > > There are a lot of good arguments against the possibility of time travel, > and since you did ask for comments I'll risk the flames for posting a > "not-real-physics" article here. I think this falls into more of a "could be might be maybe physics" more than "not-real-physics," but who cares. This is one of those topics that is to make the speculative salivaries to overflow :-). > Time travel violates the conservation of mass and energy laws. Consider > transporting a 1Kg cube of gold 1 hour back in time. Then in the universe > of 1 hour ago, there is this extra 1Kg from nowhere, totally unaccounted > for. Similarly in the here and now, we lost 1Kg of mass, poof, just like > that. Mass wasn't conserved in our universe. That, as you should well > realize, is a big no-no. You have made an assumption here that is somewhat "temperocentric," and not necessarily true. You have assumed that the Universe is bound by the same linear time sense that we experience, at least with regard to the mass/energy conservation law. What if it is the case that, while mass and energy must be conserved, they do not have to be conserved with regard to time. That is, I can take a Kg of gold and project it 100 years in the future with no problem because, from the Universal point of view, I haven't gotten rid of it, merely transported it (though through time, not space). Thus it does not matter (in terms of conservation) if I take my gold and "send" it forward or backward in time, because it still exists, just "sometime" else. It would be possible, if this were true, to "rob" the future or past by taking all their gold and holding it here at this point in time. The consequences of this are rather mind-bending, especially in extreme cases (has anyone read the Stainless Steel Rat story where he has to go galavanting through time? there are some awfully interesting circular paths there regarding materials being around because they were sent from the future, so when the characters "get to" the future, they have them on hand to send back to the past...so where did they come from?). And of course just because we've beaten conservation doesn't mean we've gotten rid of the demon of causality. > There are lots of other arguments against it, causality and so forth. > > Doug Miller As for causality, there is always the possibility of multiple futures/pasts, or some even weirder possibilities with multiple universes, etc. Still, the original experiment would almost seem to be a CETI project for time travel ("if it [ever] exists, this is the only way we'll know") with the advantage that we only need to set it up for a few minutes or a day at most. If the spatial and temporal coordinates are recorded and distributed well enough (time capsules, newspapers, libraries, etc, etc), then anyone with time travel capabilities would be able to "send" something/someone back to the window of time during which we were watching. As a collateral question (and possibly too speculative for these august groups :-), if you were the one capable of sending something back, what (or who) would it be? And, if you were around when the watching was done, what do you think the effect on "current" society would be? (This reminds me of the end of the movie "The Time Machine," where we find the hero having gone back to the future (:-) in his machine, taking only three books with him...and we are left wondering which three out of his library he chose to take with him...) -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes A path is simply a rut that's going your way.