The Butterfly Effect

[Annah]

I like multiple dimensions. Well, sort of. But the idea is, if you go back in time, you create a new universe in which you went back in time. You can never get back to the original universe and that universe goes on with out you.

Not really, let's keep the idea of just one Universe. You go back in time, it's the same place, and then, you suddenly go back into the "present", of course, with the changes triggered by the actions you have done. It would be the same dimension, though which has new horizons for the future.

We don't need to talk about a multiverse and/or multiple dimensions for this. Of course, adding them would mean a brand new theory, which doesn't attract me too much.

As far as traveling back in time in general, the only way to do this at the moment (theoretically), would be to travel faster than the speed of light which may be possible, but only if you want to go into a blackhole. And if you're going into a blackhole, well, I don't think it will really matter. So in short, I think traveling back in time is currently impossible and that it most likely always will be.

No. Going faster than the speed of light yes, can bend the time, but it still flows. That's what different tests suggested until now at least. Everything more, are just theories.

Though, about the black hole, I must say I totally disagree with you. A black hole is just a star that sadly died, and which has the interesting attribute to absorb even its own light. It's very heavy, so, it has a mass, a body. Rest, it's just SciFi related to them.

[Bereror]

The chaos theory is valid only for chaotic systems like weather. All the chaotic systems tend to have well defined statistics that don't change. Weather is chaotic, but climate is not.

A butterfly in Tokio can cause a tornado in Texas and if it was possible, you could go back in time and avoid the tornado, but it doesn't change the fact that there are tornados in Texas. You can change a single tornado happening in the future, but it takes much more than a butterfly to change the climate.

[Baldur]

Before we go into asking how to enter Multiverses..... let's answer some questions.

Do we have any evidence of multiple universes?

I currently haven't found any, if you know some, please comment.

If we want to call this science, we need tangilble proof, not fairy tales.

That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.

A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.

Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.

So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.

Beware of the Typos.

[Wired_Crawler]

You will find scientific approach to the problem (influencing future by past and present events) by searching the net for "light cone". First link returned by google points to this Wikipedia page. Also follow the links given there (this one is cool ).

Basically - every event happening in any place of the universe affects the rest of the universe (somehow), it only depends on how much time passes since the event occurrs.

I say nothing is "meant" to happen, and we have the freedrom to choose, action which leads to a certain event. Though, others can say that was exactly what was supposed to happen, 'cause "that's how it was written". It's a vicious circile... Even so, I want to believe in our freedom. And we have it, since we do can shape our every moment.

You are not entirely right. If I took a knife and cut Your hand, You would not have a choice -  you must bleed. Similarily - I just moved my finger a second ago. Maybe it will only cause one foton hit one electron in one of atoms building your body, but it is already determined, that it will affect Your life somehow. You can't stop things, which will be caused by that. You could start counteractions, but those conunteractions would be also caused by my finger .
Theoretically it is possible to calculate (predict) what will be caused by every event, but practically it is impossible, I think people will never build any... machine or something capable of doing this. On the other hand - maybe some people possess such abilities (clairvoyants) ?

[zanzibar]

Before we go into asking how to enter Multiverses..... let's answer some questions.

Do we have any evidence of multiple universes?

I currently haven't found any, if you know some, please comment.

If we want to call this science, we need tangilble proof, not fairy tales.

The definition of universe denies the possibility of being able to prove the existence of other universes.  It is science, not fairy tales, but it's quasimetaphysical.

That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.

A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.

Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.

So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.

Beware of the Typos.

1.  All hypotheses and theorems are theories.
2.  Theories are never proven correct.  They are only proven wrong. 

[Xordan]

What i do know, is einstiens belief of the speed of light, being the maximum speed in the universe, is currently being re evaluated and i've heard theoretical mathematicians are finding ways to go faster than light.

The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached. I believe his theory says nothing about going faster, just that you can't go at that speed, although relativity breaks down once you pass it and weirdness happens. Also, it's proven* that if you travel faster than light relative to another object that time will reverse and I think your mass becomes imaginary. At light speed time stops and your mass is infinite. So only things with no mass like a photon can travel at light speed. I can give the math for this if anyone wants. To travel back  in time, just travel faster than light relative to an object (note that only _you_ will travel back in time. The rest of the universe will age as normal).

* Nothing in physics can be proved, only disproved. Only maths can be proved. So it really just hasn't been disproved yet.

As for multiple universes... think of them as multiple instances inside the same existence. You can't think about something 'outside' the universe when you get to this level, because the dimensions are totally different, maths might not work and any physics you know probably doesn't apply much. It only exists in math. We don't even know that our current 'laws' of physics are true for our whole universe, only for the small amount we can see.

[zanzibar]

There is no such thing as outside the universe.  It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.


Xordan's explanation involving the speed of light wasn't exactly complete.  One might ask why it is that light particles never speed up past the speed of light, or why is it that they never slow down.  Every particle of light, no matter it's direction, no matter who is observing it, appears to be travelling constantly at speed "c" relative to the observer.  Even if I'm moving at half the speed of light relative to you, we could measure the velocity of a particular particle of light and we would both measure it's velocity to be "c" relative to ourselves.


So no, there's something more going on.  It gets complicated though.

[Baldur]

That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.

A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.

Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.

So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.

Beware of the Typos.

1.  All hypotheses and theorems are theories.
2.  Theories are never proven correct.  They are only proven wrong. 

1. Yes, that's true, but you don't have to split it up in black and white.
2. I can't see where I said theories are, or can be proven correct. Mathematicians can defend their theory by presenting valid data that could be made proof. Otherwise it is to one's opinion and logical sense to decide whether it's right.

[Xordan]

There is no such thing as outside the universe.  It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.

Proof please? There's well supported theories which say otherwise.

[zanzibar]

There is no such thing as outside the universe.  It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.

Proof please? There's well supported theories which say otherwise.

The proof is axiomic.

[Wired_Crawler]

The proof is axiomic.

So only things with no mass like a photon can travel at light speed.

There is no evidence, that photon has no mass. We only can estimate upper limit of it's mass, which currently is (I may have out of date information) around 10^-51g.

I can give the math for this if anyone wants.

Your math is worthless if photon has non-zero mass . BTW: If You are talking about Lorentz transformation - small change in formula can make a big difference, althoug it is unnoticable until you reach (and exceed) light speed.

The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached.

It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...).

[zanzibar]

It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...).

No, because as you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to accelerate.  It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

[Wired_Crawler]

It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

Again - no real proof for this, only formulas... Newton, some time ago, was also sure of some things, he had his formulas... .

[zanzibar]

It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

Again - no real proof for this, only formulas... Newton, some time ago, was also sure of some things, he had his formulas... .

There is real proof for this.  Educate yourself.

Newton also had real proof for his formulas.  Part of what was revolutionary about Newton's way of thinking was that he placed great emphasis on proof and testing things using the scientific method.  Again, I think you need to educate yourself.

[Mindari]

light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite