If I saw a 13 billion year old explosion now...

what you get here are the cumulation of every dumbed down documentary from the last 2 decades, despite changes in theory, and a mix of basic degree level physics thrown in.


And even then you're assuming there is 1 answer.

In most of science if it's true or not doesn't really make much difference so long as it makes the right prediction.


If a method you know to be false still predicts the correct answer (to the accuracy you need) and is easier then you use that, doesn't matter if it actually happens slightly or totally differently :).

Even then there are lots of different theories and proofs, the odds of someone being able to chose the right one based on layman's terms explanations is virtually nill because the "correct" way often seems the most twisted and illogical way when described in laymens terms.

Yeah you make a good point, as long as something is useful to science its good enough but i personally would like to know the true state of things as thats more important to my mind than a theory or equation the produces the 'correct' result, what's good for science isn't necessarily good for the individual and answers the deeper questions that would fulfil the human desire to know the truth!

To throw another one out there, they say mavity curves space but space is supposedly nothing, yes it may contain stuff but space is the area within which things can exist, now sure maybe it does curve somehow, im not denying that but whos to say its space thats curving and not just a force pulling on matter and energy that gives the appearance of curving, similar to how electrons are effected when they pass by a magnetic field?
 
Never forget that science is definitely NOT about "facts". It's about "models of reality".

We create models of reality to better understand it.

The models start off simple so we can understand them (electrons rotating around a nucleus, for example) and get more and more elaborate as you progress.

The model is NOT reality, there is NO true model of reality, just lots and lots of different ones. A complete model of the universe is impossible as it would have to contain the model of the universe itself, which would contain a model of the universe, etc...(look up Bertrand Russell's infinite heads theory).
 
I don't see why not. I don't understand how time travel as a concept can be believed. If you shine a torch at a wall 1 light year away, then fire your super rocket at twice the speed of light at the wall you would beat the light to the wall. This does not necessarily mean you have travelled back in time because the light is still travelling toward the wall, so the light has already been generated. It just means that you have overtaken the light.

It's like passing a car travelling at 50mph on the motorway at 100Mph and reaching the destination twice as quickly. Just because you beat the car it doesn't mean you travelled back to before the car started its journey. It's all about perception of time. I can imagine that to the observer you travelling faster than the light you have produced and appearing at a location before the light you have generated reaches it would appear to be time travel, but its only light being slow in my opinion.

Think of it as "once the light hits the wall, there is an explosion".

So it takes a year for the light to reach the wall, then there is an explosion, and it takes a year for the light to reach you again. Now if your friend set off in a light-speed rocket at the same time you shone the torch, he'd reach the explosion a year before you could see it. That effectively means a year of travelling at light speed sends you back in time by a year relative to the original position, because you will not see your friend until a year later, by which time he could have done other stuff. However from his point of view, it is still two years.
 
Last edited:
ok but after 13billion years you wouldnt even see the explosion because it would no longer be visible light rendering this whole thread pointless.
 
My thinking is if the explosion happens on year 0. It then takes 13 billion years to reach you. You see it in year 13 billion. If you were to teleport to the exact moment the explosion happens and place it happens you would be back to year 0, and therefore in the past (year 13 billion being the present).

If you want to think of it more complex then yes, when you're teleporting everything you do is present because it's relative.
 
Time is linear. Right now, you are 13 billion years AFTER the initial explosion. If you can see into 13 billion light years in distance, you're seeing empty space/when the explosion occurs - but that's due to light coming to you 13 billion light years ago.

If against some physical laws, you manage to instantaneously teleport yourself into the exact spot where the explosion occurs right now, you will be travelling whilst time remaining linear, therefore you are in the present but different location.

However, if you did travel to WHEN the even occurs, you have then travelled into the past because in order for you to see the event, you have to go back in time to see it, not the future. The future in another 13 billion light years time will then be able to see you at that event.

You get what I am saying?
 
My thinking is if the explosion happens on year 0. It then takes 13 billion years to reach you. You see it in year 13 billion. If you were to teleport to the exact moment the explosion happens and place it happens you would be back to year 0, and therefore in the past (year 13 billion being the present).

If you want to think of it more complex then yes, when you're teleporting everything you do is present because it's relative.

But the OP just wants to teleport to the place it happens. He doesnt mention wanting to see the explosion at its origination.. otherwise he would need a TARDIS.

The nature of the teleportation should be clarified. If its regular teleportation then he would take 13 billion years to get there and die on the way. If its magic teleportation it would just be the present.

I watched a star trek film today so I'm pretty much certified.
 
Time is linear. Right now, you are 13 billion years AFTER the initial explosion. If you can see into 13 billion light years in distance, you're seeing empty space/when the explosion occurs - but that's due to light coming to you 13 billion light years ago.

If against some physical laws, you manage to instantaneously teleport yourself into the exact spot where the explosion occurs right now, you will be travelling whilst time remaining linear, therefore you are in the present but different location.

This is exactly what I was going to say, which I believe is correct.
 
I disagree, quantum entanglement.

Haven't got the time to write a full response, but essentially it's believed that meaningful information (any coded data, anything we might want to send) can't be transmitted this way. There are different interpretations as to why this entanglement is possible, given that in theory they ought to communicate to one another faster than light (and particles are entangled this way, this has been verified). The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics looks at this and in a nutshell the particles are thought of as non-localised, smeared out wavefunctions spreading across space, and that all particles in the universe may exchange "information" between one another freely this way. In other words, they aren't point sources millions of light years apart, but have very diffuse edges that sit next to one another.

Sounds utterly bizarre and totally implausible? Welcome to QM!
 
Back
Top Bottom