PureBasic Forums - English

netmaestro wrote:

Time is our interpetation of an interval... [] ...interval of "time"

Recursivity detected!

Ahhhh...now you see the problem with actual time travel and why its not really possible. You can never be at the instance of the event.

thefool wrote:

SFSxOI wrote:

thefool wrote:Listen to Kaeru. Time has something to do with light, at least the relative time.

...

I thought it was because nothing travels faster, so if you move faster than anything else, it wouldnt reach you the same way

Yes! you got it! In context with what you said, this is why actual time travel would not be possible, because you can never be at the instance of the event.

Now...next up on PBS Nova, why frogs don't smile. Stay tuned!

PB wrote:So what? All that proves is that two atomic clocks became out of sync due to
influences of motion. Time itself didn't stop or slow down in the meantime.

ermn... do you know what a "atomic" clock is?
it mesures time by the unchangable interval an atom "rotates".
this cannot be changed, because it is directly subsequent to the wavelength of an electron.
the wavelength of an electron has to be fixed, just because it's another mesurement of it's mass,
and an electron is a single quark, so it's mass cannot(!!!) be changed by anything.
so, if that interval changes, spacetime itself is influenced.

PS:
I'm sorry, but I do know what I'm talking about.
we studied "a brief history of time" in the last semester before my matura. (abitur)

SFSxOI wrote:
Yes! you got it! In context with what you said, this is why actual time travel would not be possible, because you can never be at the instance of the event.

Now...next up on PBS Nova, why frogs don't smile. Stay tuned!

Hehe
So im probably not too stupid afterall

Frogs smiling? This must be a topic for Netmaestro

Kaeru Gaman wrote:

PB wrote:So what? All that proves is that two atomic clocks became out of sync due to
influences of motion. Time itself didn't stop or slow down in the meantime.

ermn... do you know what a "atomic" clock is?
it mesures time by the unchangable interval an atom "rotates".
this cannot be changed, because it is directly subsequent to the wavelength of an electron.
the wavelength of an electron has to be fixed, just because it's another mesurement of it's mass,
and an electron is a single quark, so it's mass cannot(!!!) be changed by anything.
so, if that interval changes, spacetime itself is influenced.

PS:
I'm sorry, but I do know what I'm talking about.
we studied "a brief history of time" in the last semester before my matura. (abitur)

from my college days, with a minor in Physics, Basic Physics 101;

"if that interval changes..."
No, it just means the element is decaying. The interval always changes, its just not always measurable. This is what elements do; they decay.

"an electron is a single quark..."

The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge that participates in electromagnetic interactions.

A Quark is a fundamental partical. Quarks are one of the two basic parts of matter (the other is the lepton). Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity.

Quarks != Electrons

"...so it's mass cannot(!!!) be changed by anything..."

Yes, it can to a certain extent. This is part of why we have something called 'Critical Mass' and nuclear weapons today. Electrons in an atom are bound to that atom; electrons moving freely in vacuum, space or other media are free electrons that can be focused into an electron beam which is why we have the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) that is/was used in televisions, monitors, etc.... The picture on your CRT TV or monitor is the end effect of the electron beam stiking the lining on the inside of the CRT. When these free electrons strike the lining we see pictures and the electron mas changes because it dissapates giving up its energy to the lining on the CRT, so its mass changes.

spacetime is why we have String Theory.

PB was correct when he said: "Time itself didn't stop or slow down in the meantime."

> This is what elements do; they decay.
elements may, if you mean the source of radiation. particles don't

"an electron is a single quark..."

The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge that participates in electromagnetic interactions.

A Quark is a fundamental partical. Quarks are one of the two basic parts of matter (the other is the lepton). Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity.

subatomar particles are consisting of quarks.
a proton consists of three quarks, a neutron consists of three quarks,
an electron consists of one, a neutrino consists of one, etc.

electron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin-½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions

picture: the quark structure of a proton: 2 up, 1 down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

picture: the quark structure of a neutron: 2 Down, 1 Up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Kaeru Gaman wrote:> This is what elements do; they decay.
elements may, if you mean the source of radiation. particles don't

"an electron is a single quark..."

The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge that participates in electromagnetic interactions.

A Quark is a fundamental partical. Quarks are one of the two basic parts of matter (the other is the lepton). Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, Gravity.

subatomar particles are consisting of quarks.
a proton consists of three quarks, a neutron consists of three quarks,
an electron consists of one, a neutrino consists of one, etc.

electron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

The electron is a fundamental subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge. It is a spin-½ lepton that participates in electromagnetic interactions

picture: the quark structure of a proton: 2 up, 1 down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

picture: the quark structure of a neutron: 2 Down, 1 Up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"...subatomar particles are consisting of quarks..."

No, subatomic particles and quarks are two different things, where as they may both be sub-atomic in terms of size, they are different things. They are different because quarks interact with the four forces at once where as subatomic particles (in terms of an atom) only interact with the electromagnetic force. If they were the same thing then all atoms would be interacting with the four forces at once meaning we would not exist as we do today, we would be pure energy (speculated - science really doesn't know). We have an entirely different set of theories for quarks then we do for electrons. Quarks also can be free, but if they are not they are confined and if confined we could not detect them, where as with electrons if they are confined (bound to an atom) we can still detect them.

Particles decay also, its the decay of these particles that gives us such thing as the X-Ray machines used in medicine. The reason is because unless particles decay they would be nothing given off from them. In other words its the decay of these particles that allows us to have things like the X-Ray machines. Thats what the end effect of radiation is, the decay of particles; Radiation is an example of this decay, as is the sun light we receive from the sun. Its the decay of these particles that gives them their energy to do these things. A quark has mass also.

Now we are into the subject of matter, an entirely different subject. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, it will always exist in one form or another, including pure energy. But this is a subject best left to another day.

While science doesn't exactly know if quarks can be part of an atom for a fact, if they were, they would be a seperate entity all their own so quarks != electrons. Quarks also decay with mass decreasing from right to left.

>> "...subatomar particles are consisting of quarks..."
> No, subatomic particles and quarks are two different things.
did you have a look at the articles?

> where as subatomic particles only interact with the electromagnetic force.
wrong. subatomar particles also interact via the four forces.
[edit]
I don't know the correct translation of "weak core-force" and "strong core-force",
but this is what keeps the protons in a core together against their electromagnetic force.
and this is also the reason why a core with less neutrons is instabile = radioactive.
[/edit]

> Particles decay also, ... Its the decay of these particles that gives them their energy to do these things.
that is the decay of core-particles, not of electrons.


but we were discussing measuring timedilatation with an atomic-clock.

there is no other reason for two identical atomic clocks to run at different speed when you put one in a fast highflying plane and keep the other one on the ground than that you actually mesured time-dilatation.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:>> "...subatomar particles are consisting of quarks..."
> No, subatomic particles and quarks are two different things.
did you have a look at the articles?

> where as subatomic particles only interact with the electromagnetic force.
wrong. subatomar particles also interact via the four forces.

> Particles decay also, ... Its the decay of these particles that gives them their energy to do these things.
that is the decay of core-particles, not of electrons.


but we were discussing measuring timedilatation with an atomic-clock.

there is no other reason for two identical atomic clocks to run at different speed when you put one in a fast highflying plane and keep the other one on the ground than that you actually mesured time-dilatation.

Everyone always points to this experiment as proof of time-travel possibility. It may be what was termed 'time-dialation' but the end effect had nothing to do with time-space (dealing with time travel) theory at all really. It just showed that the EMF can affect the decay of elements, which makes since because since flying in an aircraft would mean being above the earth surface, the EMF would be either stronger or weaker depending on where in relation to the earths surface you were at the time. The experiment was nothing but an attempt to confirm a portion of the Theory of Relativity in relation to the EFM and was flawed. Time-Dialation was just a term they applied to their results, it doesn't mean anything, its something they named it.

You do know this experiment has since then been discounted in all circles of physics don't you? It was so full of flaws its a wonder they even attempted it in the first place.

no, I admit I haven't.

I just took time-dilatation as proven, since I didn't hear anything against it.

it's a main part of the whole theory of relativity, and I thought I would heard about if it was proven wrong meanwhile...

in "The Universe in a Nutshell" Hawking didn't speak against it,
he stated other reasons why time-travelling is impossible.

and I din't find any reason in this book to doubt my theory of possibility orthogonal to time....

Kaeru Gaman wrote:no, I admit I haven't.

I just took time-dilatation as proven, since I didn't hear anything against it.

it's a main part of the whole theory of relativity, and I thought I would heard about if it was proven wrong meanwhile...

in "The Universe in a Nutshell" Hawking didn't speak against it,
he stated other reasons why time-travelling is impossible.

and I din't find any reason in this book to doubt my theory of possibility orthogonal to time....

There are a ton of other reasons why time travel isn't possible. Science doesn't know them all. Those in physics circles don't generally speak against others experiments, they just tend to let the flawed ones fade away into obscurity like this one will after a while as time goes on....no pun intended

Even failed or flawed experiments produce something of value, who knows for a fact if what is produced will become very important one day. The experiment was flawed in its entirity, not in some individual components. You can have a failed or flawed experiment and still get certain valid results. In terms of proving the possibility of time-travel it was flawed, it did, however, substantiate certain other portions of physics which is why the experiment as a whole has been discounted but certain parts of it were kept and are part of things we do today.

> Even failed or flawed experiments produce something of value

undenyable...
(is this spelled correctly? it's much easier to speak it than to write it...)

after all....

is there any prove against the basic concept of relativity, that tau is asymptotic to c?

asymptotic behaviour of curves (like x³) has some nature...

to see that for v->c is tau->0 means:
for v=c, tau is undefined
for v>c, we should have the same asymptotic behaviour, just the other way round.

Long winded thread, but my current belief is that time travel is completely impossible.

Any theory that says otherwise is as flawed as a theory can be, if you ask me.

Think about it. Travel backwards and kill yourself, so you won't be able to travel
backwards and kill yourself,

or travel forwards in time to check out a patent so that you can patent it now, and
then the original patent isn't going to be accepted because you patented it etc..

Time travel is not going to happen, and any theory that predicts it's possible needs
some serious rework in my opinion.

> ermn... do you know what a "atomic" clock is?
> it mesures time by the unchangable interval an atom "rotates".
> this cannot be changed

But that contradicts the "famous experiment" that Kale mentioned, where two
atomic clocks went out of sync with each other. If they cannot be changed,
then how can Kale's example be true?

PB wrote:> ermn... do you know what a "atomic" clock is?
> it mesures time by the unchangable interval an atom "rotates".
> this cannot be changed

But that contradicts the "famous experiment" that Kale mentioned, where two
atomic clocks went out of sync with each other. If they cannot be changed,
then how can Kale's example be true?

*sigh*

would anybody please read all posts before posting?