Really Deep Pointless Question

16 Nov 2004

If time travel were possible and a man stood infront of a time travel portal, which opened 6 foot behind him and one second in the past. And the man then loaded a pistol and put only his hand and the pistol through the portal, so the gun was pointing towards the back of his head.....
If he pulled the trigger, would he shoot himself in the head? rolleyes

16 Nov 2004

Quote by PoloLady
If time travel were possible and a man stood infront of a time travel portal, which opened 6 foot behind him and one second in the past. And the man then loaded a pistol and put only his hand and the pistol through the portal, so the gun was pointing towards the back of his head.....
If he pulled the trigger, would he shoot himself in the head?

He'd need a very long arm. lol

16 Nov 2004

Quote by PoloLady
If time travel were possible and a man stood infront of a time travel portal, which opened 6 foot behind him and one second in the past. And the man then loaded a pistol and put only his hand and the pistol through the portal, so the gun was pointing towards the back of his head.....
If he pulled the trigger, would he shoot himself in the head?

Erm, OK, if he pulls the trigger then the bullet enters his head one second before he pulls the trigger, right? So one second later he's dead and therefore can't pull the trigger?
I will need the assistance of my good friend Mr Jack Daniel to ponder this paradox. biggrin

16 Nov 2004

Quote by PoloLady
If time travel were possible and a man stood infront of a time travel portal, which opened 6 foot behind him and one second in the past. And the man then loaded a pistol and put only his hand and the pistol through the portal, so the gun was pointing towards the back of his head.....
If he pulled the trigger, would he shoot himself in the head?

no
cos it was only a pretend gun thankfully , shit i was real worried then
staggy

16 Nov 2004

No, because it's a physical impossibility for his hand and gun to exist simultaneously in two time zones.
We accept no liability for any shootings, accidental, or deliberate, that may occur as a result of this advice. Causing fundamental rifts in the space time continuum may result in injury or death.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by JonJon
No, because it's a physical impossibility for his hand and gun to exist simultaneously in two time zones.
We accept no liability for any shootings, accidental, or deliberate, that may occur as a result of this advice. Causing fundamental rifts in the space time continuum may result in injury or death.

Love the disclaimer :laughabove:

16 Nov 2004

Quote by JonJon
No, because it's a physical impossibility for his hand and gun to exist simultaneously in two time zones.
We accept no liability for any shootings, accidental, or deliberate, that may occur as a result of this advice. Causing fundamental rifts in the space time continuum may result in injury or death.

But technically speaking, if his hand is all that goes through, it will cease to exist in the present. Besides which, you don't even need to stick your hand through. All you need to do is aim the gun into the portal and the bullet will still go back in time.

16 Nov 2004

Time travel can only be possible if the universe we exist in was just one of an infinite number of parallel universes.
So, the fella pulls the trigger but he himself doesn't die but a fella in a different parallel universe does.
Simple really.

16 Nov 2004

Nemind about that , if you had a car that travelled at light speed would the headlights work ??

16 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
Time travel can only be possible if the universe we exist in was just one of an infinite number of parallel universes.
So, the fella pulls the trigger but he himself doesn't die but a fella in a different parallel universe does.
Simple really.

OK, so let's look at this from the point of view of the guy who dies. He's standing there thinking about pulling the trigger when all of a sudden, a bullet from another reality hits him in the back of the head. At what point did the two realities diverge? When the trigger was pulled, by which time one of them was already dead, or when the bullet struck, by which time the decision to fire it had not yet been made?
I ask merely for information. ;)

16 Nov 2004

No.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
I ask merely for information. ;)

The answer is really quite simple. Due to the fact that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each and every possible event that could happened has happened.
So in the dimension where the fella got shot, he was predestined to die. He had no say in the matter. There was no divergence other than that which occurred when space-time came into existence.
smile

16 Nov 2004

is he right or left handed?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
I ask merely for information. ;)

The answer is really quite simple. Due to the fact that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each and every possible event that could happened has happened.
So in the dimension where the fella got shot, he was predestined to die. He had no say in the matter. There was no divergence other than that which occurred when space-time came into existence.
smile

This implies that the various realities are complete and disconnected from the outset, which in turn implies that the time machine necessarily creates a bridge between them. A mechanism for this bridging is not implicit in the theory, so I require an explanation of its operation. :)

16 Nov 2004

Quote by PoloLady
opened 6 foot behind him .... put only his hand and the pistol through the portal

His arm isn't long enough to reach the portal unless he's Mr Tickle.
Oh nooooo!!! Don't kill Mr Tickle. lol

16 Nov 2004

you mean there could well be another swinging heaven where all the single guys get hounded to death by hundreds of women, shit!

16 Nov 2004

It's implicit in-so-far as travelling backwards in time within the same universe is, in fact, impossible; it would violate causality as the example given would demonstrate.
So there are two options:
1. When travelling backward in time, the universe contrives to stop causailty from being broken.
2. Time travel is also a method of travelling to a different dimension.
Option 1 seems somewhat unsatisfactory in that it seems to bestow some intelligence on the universe itself. Deduction leaves option 2.
smile

16 Nov 2004

Quote by wild rose and the stag
you mean there could well be another swinging heaven where all the single guys get hounded to death by hundreds of women, shit!

That's the universe I want to be in!
smile

Then again, that would probably also be the universe in which I talk more sense than bollox, and that IS denied by all laws of physics and is therefore impossible.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
It's implicit in-so-far as travelling backwards in time within the same universe is, in fact, impossible; it would violate causality as the example given would demonstrate.

Quantum dynamics routinely violates causality without resort to time travel. I refer you to the 'two-slit experiment'.

So there are two options:
1. When travelling backward in time, the universe contrives to stop causailty from being broken.

Unsupported statement. Contrives how? A preferred direction of time is not implicit in the known laws of physics. Causality is a macroscopic interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, but that law is not immutable, it is simply a statement of probability. There is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent a broken cup jumping up off the floor and reassembling itself on the table - it's just very very unlikely.

2. Time travel is also a method of travelling to a different dimension.

Unsupported statement. The existence of other dimensions is not a natural conclusion from the assumption of time travel. A mechanism for transdimensional motion is not implied by the existence of either time travel or other dimensions and must therefore be explained.

Option 1 seems somewhat unsatisfactory in that it seems to bestow some intelligence on the universe itself.

The conservation laws are supported by every experiment ever devised to test them. Do they imply that the universe intelligently contrives to balance its books?

Deduction leaves option 2.

How is option 2 deduced? It looks like an assumption to me.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by wild rose and the stag
you mean there could well be another swinging heaven where all the single guys get hounded to death by hundreds of women, shit!

I'm sorry, I don't understand confused

How would that be different from the universe in which we now reside ??

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
Quantum dynamics routinely violates causality without resort to time travel. I refer you to the 'two-slit experiment'.

I'm not sure that the twin slit experiment demonstrates the violation of causality. It demonstrates the way observing an experiment can alter it's outcome in a quite unexpected way. The act of trying to observe just which hole a photon/particle passed through resolves the probability and alters the outcome. Whereas if you don't observe it appears to go through both. That's not an issue of causality per-se.
In fact, some argue that this experiment validates a many worlds theory of existence in-so-far as it's not the probability of the path of the particle that is interfereing with itself causing the pattern measured, but it in fact demonstrates an interference between possibile world outcomes/different dimensions.

There is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent a broken cup jumping up off the floor and reassembling itself on the table - it's just very very unlikely.

Quite true.

How is option 2 deduced? It looks like an assumption to me.

It is

17 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
Quantum dynamics routinely violates causality without resort to time travel. I refer you to the 'two-slit experiment'.

I'm not sure that the twin slit experiment demonstrates the violation of causality. It demonstrates the way observing an experiment can alter it's outcome in a quite unexpected way. The act of trying to observe just which hole a photon/particle passed through resolves the probability and alters the outcome. Whereas if you don't observe it appears to go through both. That's not an issue of causality per-se.
In fact, some argue that this experiment validates a many worlds theory of existence in-so-far as it's not the probability of the path of the particle that is interfereing with itself causing the pattern measured, but it in fact demonstrates an interference between possibile world outcomes/different dimensions.
There is also the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, a brief explanation of which is given by John Gribbin in his book SchrÃ¶edinger's Kittens. In essence, what it says is, if the act of obvservation collapses the wave function as you have outlined (The Copenhagen Interpretation), then a tachyonic exchange must take place because the observation can only be made after the event. This firmly places cause after effect, but doesn't invoke exotic dimensions.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
There is also the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, a brief explanation of which is given by John Gribbin in his book SchrÃ¶edinger's Kittens. In essence, what it says is, if the act of obvservation collapses the wave function as you have outlined (The Copenhagen Interpretation), then a tachyonic exchange must take place because the observation can only be made after the event. This firmly places cause after effect, but doesn't invoke exotic dimensions.

Whilst our understanding of the laws of physics don't deny the possible existence of tachyons, there's absolutely no current physical evidence that they actually exist.
You could equally argue the same for a many worlds theory of course, but having said that, I'd be more inclined toward a many worlds exxplanation than one that involes ftl particles.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
There is also the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, a brief explanation of which is given by John Gribbin in his book SchrÃ¶edinger's Kittens. In essence, what it says is, if the act of obvservation collapses the wave function as you have outlined (The Copenhagen Interpretation), then a tachyonic exchange must take place because the observation can only be made after the event. This firmly places cause after effect, but doesn't invoke exotic dimensions.

Whilst our understanding of the laws of physics don't deny the possible existence of tachyons, there's absolutely no current physical evidence that they actually exist.
You could equally argue the same for a many worlds theory of course, but having said that, I'd be more inclined toward a many worlds exxplanation than one that involes ftl particles.
The only problem I have with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it requires the number of universes to be infinite, and I have a really hard time with the concept of a physical infinity. Tachyons, on the other hand, are predicted, or at least allowed, by existing theory, FTL is implied in General Relativity, and I'm a lot more comfortable with that.

17 Nov 2004

Fancy a beer ?

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Silk and Big G
Fancy a beer ?

are you just gonna hand over an empty glass and say that you're in the earlier time zone, therefore beer has already been drunk? :undecided: blink

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
The only problem I have with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it requires the number of universes to be infinite, and I have a really hard time with the concept of a physical infinity. Tachyons, on the other hand, are predicted, or at least allowed, by existing theory, FTL is implied in General Relativity, and I'm a lot more comfortable with that.

Allowed, certainly, but not predicted. I'd argue that ftl violates causality and is therefore unlikely to have any basis in reality but, having said that, quantum entanglement seems to violate causality anyway and quantum entanglement is a well established real, physical property.

17 Nov 2004

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
rolleyes

17 Nov 2004

Quote by juliett49
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

Whoever would have expected a discussion on quantum mechanics on a swinging forum.
smile

I should probably stop now before I look more sad than I actually am!
:lol:

17 Nov 2004

What on earth did I start with this one redface

Maybe I should have asked if the man put his willy throught the portal rolleyes