A few Thinkers concerned with the nature of time have argued that it may be possible to "travel" into the future. Is time travel really possible?
Observed phenomena are only basis of science.
The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy.
Albert Einstein
Though
I am not qualified to speak to the subject as a scientist or mathematician, I do
have some issues to address about the language with which observed phenomena and
our perceptions and “concepts and systems of concepts” are explicated.
It seems to me that whether it makes sense to speak of time-travel or space-time
travel is a matter of how one chooses to use language -- with this caveat.
If
our perceptions and conceptions relate at all to reality, we are, in fact,
already “traveling into the future” in multiple ways including the use of
various types of “time machines” and have been since our day of birth even
before the days of “horseless carriages.”
In
fact we cannot avoid doing so.
It
took the genius of Albert Einstein to enable us to learn that fact.
Unfortunately, Einstein’s “discovery” is clearly not understood by the
masses except in terms of “La La land’s depiction of it.
Moreover, I suspect that most scientists who conceive time-travel as a
possibility “in principle” (I’m not sure what that means.), give little
thought to how the implications of their and our use and abuse of language
affect our understanding of it.
It
is important to examine some of the meanings we attribute to such terms as
'time,' ‘motion’ (i.e., travel), ‘space,’ ‘past,’
‘present,’ and ‘future’ before we consider the concept of "time
travel."
In
addition, because of the role that quantum mechanics plays in considering
time-travel to be possible “in principle,” it will be necessary to examine
some of its other terminology as well.
However, before we do that, there are certain philosophical concepts,
supportable by evidence that must be understood.
1) Some of our greatest thinkers, particularly Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein, Godfey
H. Hardy, and Bertrand Russell have stated unequivocally that the language of
mathematics does not describe reality.
Bertrand Russell: Mathematics is the subject in which we don’t know what we are talking about nor whether what we are talking about is true.
Godfrey H. Hardy: A mathematician is someone who not only does not
know what he is talking about but, also, does not care.
2) All language, including the language of science,
i.e., mathematics, refers to our perceptions and conceptions of an assumed
reality.
3) When predictions are publicly “verified” by
a continually recurrent repetition of our perceptions, we are justified in
accepting recurrence of them as evidence that the language is highly probably
“true,” until new evidence proves otherwise.
Numbers and other arithmetical symbols are
abstractions from our perceptions of quantity.
Subsequently, as civilization evolved, mathematics
replaced numerical symbols, with alphabetical symbols, such as x, y, and z
representing variable quantitative values.
Both arithmetic and mathematical symbols have
properties of their own, such as being the sum or multiple of other numbers.
Consequently, mathematics reached a point at which
it had little if any necessary relevance to a physical reality.
Therein lies a linguistic problem.
Considering that arithmetic and mathematical
symbols are shorthand methods of expressing conventional language and avoiding
personal and emotional interpretations, it is surprising that much of the
language of science, and more so the mathematics of quantum mechanics, leads us
to concepts that are far stranger than fiction.
Scientists are not defining their terms
conventionally.
It is strange also, that many of the symbols
represent concepts that cannot be verified, for example, 1+1=2.
In the assumed real world, where equality
does not exist, “ones “ don’t equal each other.
In that sense, even if mathematics is an excellent and useful
tool for dealing with our perceptions of “an external world,” it is as much metaphysical
language as is theistic language and, at the very least, is as metaphorical as
is all language.
And as the concepts of Relativity and Quantum
mechanics increased, the meanings attributed to symbols like “matter, energy,
mass,” etc., have been “refined.”
For instance, mathematics informs us that an
electron is doing many things and, according to quantum mechanics wave function,
is “at” many places, i.e., point instances, at the same time.
It has not always been so defined.
Consider a mathematical “point,” primarily
defined to have no dimensions; it is patently clear that it is nothing but a
non-physical idea.
All mathematically derived dimensions are,
therefore, predicated upon conceptions.
Consequently when it is declared, for instances,
that on the hypotenuse of a right triangle there are as many points on each leg
as there are on the hypotenuse, when the hypotenuse is infinitely long and a leg
is infinitely short, it is not only common sense that arrives at the conclusion
that something is amiss but observation and sound logic, as opposed to merely
deductive logic, as well.
It is clear that the declaration is giving the
impression that a point is something when in fact “nothing,” i.e., “no
dimensions,” is the antithesis of “something.”
Hence, it follows that since lines, planes, and
solids, fundamentally depend upon a “point,” having no dimensions, yet being
“extended” in space, (rather strange use of language) none of them exists
ontologically in a physical universe, also, except as ideas.
If this is accepted, and it should be according to
available evidence, much of what is said to be knowledge comes into serious
question and should be characterized as metaphysical in character.
The above especially relates to all abstract
symbols “denoting” an ontological status for terms such as ‘time,’
‘motion,’ ‘mathematics,’ ‘laws,’ ‘rules,’ ‘principles,’
‘ideas,’ ‘mind,’ thoughts, ‘constructs that are metaphysical,
transcendental, supernatural, or theological,’ and the like.
Though
time is now one of the commonly referred to four dimensions, as with the other
three, it too has no length, width, or depth; i.e, time is also not substantive.
The same applies to change, which is a function of
physical things.
In other words we are constructing an edifice of
ideas and conflating it with “reality” of some kind but definitely not a
physical one, unless, of course “physical” (i.e., “matter” and
“mass”), is redefined in other than the classical Newtonian sense, as some
scientists have suggested it has been in quantum mechanics; but more of this
later.
However, there is a very important caveat to
consider here also.
On the one hand the “metaphysical,” i.e.,
abstract, language of arithmetic and mathematics originated as a tool with which
to deal with our public perceptions, that are subject to our sense
faculties, of an assumed reality.
On the other hand, the metaphysical, i.e., supernatural language of theism is founded, not on perceptions but, rather, on
dogma, edicts, decrees, doctrine, fiats, private experiences, and blind faith
– language lacking the support of public perception.
As to the term, ‘time,’ we will not dwell on
such attributed meanings as “an era,” “a period in history,”
“imprisonment,” “a specific moment,” “geologic periods,” “mental
time,” and the like.
Lengthy tomes have been written on the nature of
“time.”
For me, one sentence
defines it sufficiently:
“Time is
a function of change.”
As Ernst Mach, philosopher and physicist, remarked:
“ . . . time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of
things.
Change is the permeative process that characterizes
our universe and different sources of change, i.e., motion, are different kinds
of measurement of “time.”
Let’s dispense, also, with concepts of
measurements of change, we call “time,” that I suspect you have no interest
in: the hour hand of the clock moving from 12 to 1.
one rotation of Earth: an Earth day as opposed to a Mars day, a Venus
day,
a Lunar day, etc.
one revolution of
the Earth around the sun: an Earth year as opposed to a Jupiter
year, etc.
neuronal
interactivity: "mental time," which is psychological.
Then there is also
Australian Aboriginal time, which does not seem to "stay put"
and is called, "Dreamtime."
Let us pretend that we know what we are talking
about and assume more than the three dimensions, length, width, and depth with
which we define physical things.
That is to say, a thing exists, also, in a fourth
dimension, i.e., “time.” [With apologies to Einstein, also in a certain
“place” [a fifth dimension: a community, a culture, a nation, etc, and even
in space – aspects of reality not deemed worthy of abstraction for theoretical
inclusion.]
Otherwise there would
be no distinction drawn between a “Miss. Andrea Rene Schievella” at five
years of age as opposed to Dr. Andrea Rene Schievella at the age of forty or as
a citizen of Italy or the United States, whatever.
For the moment, we shall ignore the "fifth dimension, position in space" as well as the
"sixth" dimension, wherein mind is the epistemic measure of all
things, and the many more dimensions that a few of today's scientists are
conceiving mathematically.
With this bantering around the term, “dimension” it becomes clear that its use and
meanings attributed to it are clearly in need of examination.
However, it must
be accepted that chronological “time” cannot be conceived in the absence of
change.
A universe
lacking change would be forever in a state of immeasurable duration.
Where there is
process, there is change and consequently the possibility for measurements of
change that we call, "time," i.e. “past,” “present,” and
“future.”
However, in fact,
“past” and “future” are metaphors resulting from an ever-changing
“present” universe of matter.
As Einstein
intimated, the “now” of each
person, having no ontological status, as well as the
“now” of the present is beyond the purview of science.
The following
terms, also, symbolize functions of matter and have no autonomous ontological
status: ‘motion,’ ‘change,’ ‘speed,’ ‘action,’
‘acceleration,’ and the like.
Since “time”
has no autonomous ontological status, it is change and interrelations of
elements of matter/energy that are the indisputable constants of our universe;
and it is the conditions of “force” on the process of change that determines
the measurement of “time.
If physical things
did not exist and did not move or change, there would be no measurement
of change or of a changing present and no speeding up or slowing down in the measurement
of change, consequently no measurement of “time”; after all, as a
result of Einstein's calculations, not only is motion the "source" of
change, it is the displacement of time and space.
We choose to call
the changed event, i.e., such measurement of matter in motion and change, “the
past,” the process of change, “time,” and the end of the process of
change, “the future.”
Matter, moreover,
as potential or kinetic energy (i.
e., mass, force, or gravitation, however they may be defined in the future), is
the engine of change, as in the physical movement of the hands of a clock.
If the clock,
functioning with a spiral spring, were moving at the speed of light in an empty
universe would “time” be slowing down?
Would the spiral spring acquire infinite mass and react more slowly with
no external forces, other than its encasement, acting upon it?
Surely when a
clock malfunctions and does not keep good time, we blame the clock; we don’t
say, “Time slowed down” – and refer to this as “time dilation.
Mathematically
it is conceptually possible, i.e., linguistically, to “travel” into the
“future,” since we can speak of doing it already, second by second, minute
by minute, day by day, etc.
As for time
traveling machines, all methods of movement and change are “ time travel
“devices,” as I will show subsequently.
If, however, as
your question suggests, you are thinking of traveling into the
past or the distant future, the issue of time dilation, i.e., that time slows
down as one’s velocity increases toward the speed of light, must be
considered.
”Time
dilation,” i.e., the measure of “time,” or the slowing process of
change most of which we don’t bother to measure, is rampant all over the earth
in our daily “present” lives.
Taking Earth as a
point of reference and ignoring the various gravitational forces affecting its
movement through the vast emptiness of space beyond its orbit of the sun,
consider the following:
Amanda
and Andrea are twin sisters. Amanda
lives in England circulating the sun at a speed of 18.5 miles a second.
Andrea, leaving Boston in a time machine, her airplane flying at 500
miles an hour, i.e., almost 7.5 seconds, (or more) is circulating the sun at a
speed of 25.5 miles a second as she flies to England to visit Amanda.
We’ll ignore the fact that England is chronologically six hours into
Andrea’s future already, according to Greenwich Meridian Time since it can be
verified by a phone call that reaches Amanda slightly “in the future,” as is
the case in any conversation, that it is “Saturday, in Boston and Sunday” in
England “simultaneously.”
Since Earth
revolves from West to East and according to Einstein’s time dilation theory,
Andrea is traveling faster, aging more slowly and moving into the future faster
than is Amanda who is aging much faster, relative to Andrea, while moving more
slowly into the future.
Consequently, as
time slows down, while Andrea travels to see Amanda, upon seeing her sister, and
according to time dilation, Amanda is older than Andrea.
Andrea thinks
nothing of it, even though she understands “time dilation” because the aging
process is so indiscernible during a mere six hour duration of time.
This time-dilation
aging process is occurring all over the world.
Consequently,
every moving device, whatever, can be considered to be a time or
spacetime-traveling device.
Even a slow walker
or runner will age faster (or slower) than a fast one depending on the
directions of other imposed motions throughout the universe.
I suspect,
however, that none of this concerns you and that what you have in mind is leaping
into the past or future.
From my point of
view since I believe that “past,” “present,” and “future” are only
concepts with no ontological status, traveling into the future or into the past,
other than linguistically is utter nonsense.
Common sense,
intuition, and even evidence suggest as much.
However, since
some scientists postulate “in principle” that it is conceivable despite
early fears that they would not be able to explain away possible paradoxes, let
us pursue the issue further.
Generally, what is
meant by "time travel"?
In the sense with
which it is commonly conceived, it is the "transference of a person or
thing from one point-instant of time and space to the same point of space at
another time."
However, Einstein
is reported to have said that traveling into the future is not possible because
the “future” has not yet evolved.
If this is the
case, then no one in “the past,” believing that the future had not yet
evolved, even if it had, would consider trying to travel “into the future.”
And, if the future
has evolved, that means that every “moment of the future” is the past of
every succeeding future.
Ah, the problems
of language usage!
The entertainment
world, however, with its imagined technology and some interpretations of quantum
mechanics, have us designating any one of infinite space-time dimensions, and
consequently multi-universes, even suggesting temporal inter-visitations with
them through “wormholes” that are formed when the two ends of curved space
meet – but more of this later.
This seems to
involve the issue of how we use, and abuse, language.
There is no such
“thing” as a “future” or for that matter a past or present.
Consider the issue
of “time dilation” in which twin siblings age at different rates as one is
traveling “at” the speed of light into outer space, remaining young upon
returning to Earth, and the other becomes exceedingly old having remained on
Earth.
I suggest there is
only a changing “present.”
In “time
dilation,” beyond Earth, as mass increases and the changing (or aging)
process slows down with increase in velocity, at the “same time” on earth
the aging process remains “normal” leading to the concept that the “normal
moving present, on Earth, is moving faster “into the future.”
It is the case, in
fact, that on Earth few of us, if any, move “into the future” at the same
rate.
As indicated
above, each of us has a different “changing present” relative to speed and
direction of our daily movements and movements through space.
Hence, “time
dilation” should more properly be defined not as the “slowing of time”
but, rather, the “slowing of the process of change in the ’present.’”
Most of us are
already moving through space at unimaginable speeds as the earth, within the
Milky Way moves through space toward the outer boundaries of the universe.
Also, if I happen
to walk faster than my wife, “in principle” she is growing older faster than
I am but we are in the same “present” (again apologies to Einstein).
It is not
ontological time that is slowing. It
is, rather, the changing process of physical substance in the universe that
alters the aging process in the changing present that we live in.
As I mentioned
above, when the clock experiment was performed, it was not “time” that
changed, it was the measuring device that changed its measurement of “time”
as a result of gravitational forces being exerted upon its internal mechanism.
The same applies
to all things possessing mass in the universe.
For the moment
let’s examine the popular concept of time travel.
Consider that I am
transferred from this chair, in which I have been sitting since 8:00 o'clock, at
8:15, January 4, 1996 backward in time 10 minutes to, 8:05, to the very same
spot on earth where the chair has been since 8:00.
What needs to be
understood is that while the transfer was supposed to be taking place, the earth
also was traveling through space into the future, nano-second by nano-second, at
an indescribable rate of speed, to a different "place" in space.
Consequently, the
time travel event transferred me to a point-instant of possibly empty space in
the Space-Time-Continuum at which the earth (hence, also the chair) no longer
is.
The counter
argument, however, is that at that time in the past, the earth is (has remained
and always will be there while it is also moving "forward ") at that
point-instant in the past., else we would be unable to time travel to it.
If this is the
case, we can no longer speak of time travel but must speak of
"SPACE-TIME" travel.
Assuming it not to
be the case, the "here" (in space) of Jan. 4, 1996 is probably
billions of miles distant from the "here" (in space) that I now occupy
because aside from the earth's rotating around its axis at a thousand miles an
hour, revolving around the sun at 18 miles a second and around the center of our
galaxy about 250 miles a second both our sun and our galaxy have been racing
toward (or away from) the celestial equator (given Einstein's Balloon Analogy)
at speeds at least near half the speed of light, i.e., 93,120 miles a second.
By what stretch of
evidence can it be surmised that the ontological status of time, as opposed to
time as a function of change, is such that it "moves" through space
with the earth?
Consider also that
the Pat Schievella sent back in time, if space-time-travel were a reality, would
have seen a 10-minutes-younger Pat Schievella sitting in the chair.
This event, Pat
seeing Pat, then, also can be revisited after he has returned to his point of
departure.
Pat being seen by
Pat being seen by Pat ad infinitum because every event in the universe can be
revisited.
I leave to you the
infinite scenarios that can be imagined.
But this is the
least of this nonsense.
For time travel to
be possible it would mean the principle that no two objects can occupy the same
space at the same time would not hold for the following reasons.
Everything that
has happened (past), is happening (present), and is going to happen (future)
already exists or it would not be possible to travel forward and backward to
them.
In other words
"I" am sitting in that chair eternally "at" 8:15, January 4,
1996.
Assuming only TIME
travel, as opposed to SPACE-TIME travel, each time I'd sit in that chair or
remain sitting there (at the same desk at the same spot on earth), each new or
successive time of sitting would exist there, also, eternally or else I (nor
anyone else) would be able to travel back or forward to me at those various
times.
In other words every
event in the history of time that occurred at that point in the space-time
continuum would have to exist eternally in order to be able to be
"visited" from a different time period.
Moreover, I will
continue to be in the process of being born on March 9, 1914 (I don't know the
hour, minute of nano-second) throughout eternity.
As well, the
moment of my death will exist eternally.
This being the
case, such events do not just pop into existence for our time traveling
convenience.
Consequently, not
only would two objects occupy the same space at the "same time" but,
an infinity of objects would, over an infinite amount of time.
Never in the
experience of man, according to available evidence, has it been found that such
a backward or forward movement in time can occur.
But, it can be
said that, "we can SEE the past."
Through human
technology, we can "see," in the present, the state of a distant star
as it existed billions of years ago.
And, since the
star may not even exist any longer, it is not the PHYSICAL star we see.
It is only the
light that was emitted from that star trillions of miles away, not only from us
but, also, from the point in space from which its light began to move toward us.
If we could travel
through time, backward, to the moment that we first observed "a star
exploding," and if there were always intelligent beings through-out
eternity who could time-travel, that "exploding star" would always be
able to be observed at the point-instant at which the explosion began.
That, of course,
means that the "star" will eternally “BEGIN” exploding.
Moreover, the star
already exists at a different point-instant, and at every point-instant of its
path through many trillions of miles away from, "where" it began to
explode and certainly even many more trillions of miles away from the
point-instant at which it was "BORN."
Some intelligence
that existed before the star was born, and went through its process of dying,
would be able to time-travel into the future to see it explode and then into the
past to see it being formed.
This means, of
course, that its non-existence and its existence "existed" at the
"same time"--Einstein's non-simultaneity of time to the contrary.
As Hermann
Minkowski first noted, there are no such "things" as space and time.
Each is defined in terms of the other. There is only a “Space-Time
Continuum.”
If there is no
simultaneity of time, it may not be claimed that, “At the time I sit here at
the computer, my wife is asleep on the couch."
Nevertheless
"sleeping on the couch" and "sitting at the computer" are
events requiring an extended amount of time and even if it may not be said that
any two nanoseconds are simultaneous, it may be said that somewhere within the
range of the extended period of time both events are occurring "at the same
time."
This, of course
would require that we define "event" with temporal and spatial
properties.
Moreover, nor
should the meaning of 'time' be reduced to " nano-seconds because even they
would measure different “lengths,” one from another, considering the states
of motion, change of spatial locations, and consequently gravitational forces
permeating the universe.
If I were to
remain seated in my chair from the "date of my birth" to the day of my
death or if other objects were to replace my chair in the "same space"
and if time-travel were to carry some intelligent being to this room at an
infinity of time periods, that being would find, in the same space that my chair
initially occupied, me at my various ages and many other objects at their
various ages, that may have moved into that space.
In other words,
anything that exists never ceases to exist in the space that it occupies or else
time-travelers would never find it in the Space-Time "spot" in which
it originated.
Moreover, as
I’ve indicated above, as experience shows us, if something “moves from” a
point-instant in space (but is still there eternally so that it can be
“revisited there,”) something else moves into that same point-instant and
also remains there eternally (as it also moves through space) so that it can be
revisited there.
This allows us to
extrapolate the nature of the universe as a solid entity -- a plenum, shades of
Parmenides -- in which every point-instant of space is filled with an infinite
“number” of events of unchanging matter unless, of course, one wishes to
postulate a phenomenological universe or “a” universe of an infinite
“number or dimensions stacked one upon the other.
I assume, then
that in the course of normal living, our consciousnesses somehow glide through
these infinitely permanent point-instants of "events" giving us the
illusion of change and passage of time.
In order for
future and past events (on Earth, for instance) to be reached in TIME travel, as
opposed to SPACE-TIME travel, both must move through space with the earth at the
speed at which the earth is moving through space. In other words the
past and the future must never be spatially separated.
The past must not
be "left behind" in the Space-Time-Continuum in which it originated.
In other words, an
object "here" was, a nano-second later, "there."
Taking heed of
Zeno's paradox [I don’t understand why it’s called a paradox, except
metaphorically, since it is apparently a fact.], no object is anywhere at some
“point-instant” in time, except abstractly.
It is rather,
MOVING THROUGH that point-instant.
Since this is the
case, it would be impossible to travel backward or forward to that object or
event at that point-instant.
The gist of my
argument, ‘til now, is predicated primarily on a universe defined in terms of
four dimensions. However, with the
advent of Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics, string theories (ten, so
far, though they’ve been interpreted as one, eleven dimensional, “M”
theory), and a conflation of mathematical constructs with reality, a few highly
imaginative scientists and mathematicians are seriously speculating about the
possible existence of infinitely multiple dimensions in which the universe, as
we know it, is similarly but not perfectly duplicated.
Furthermore, they
theorize that we may be able to sidetrack having to attain or accede the speed
of light for intergalactic travel (and communication?) by bending immaterial
space until the two “ends” of the bent spaces touch each other to form a
“wormhole” through which, of course, our spaceship (or time machine) will
travel.
Before continuing,
however, I feel compelled to remind astrophysicist, John Bahall, who remarked,
“Philosophy is the kicking up of a lot of dust and then complaining about what
you cannot see,” that scientists and mathematicians have long been sounding
like, “the pot that called the kettle, ‘black.’”
Speculations
derived from quantum mechanics are partly conceived, aside from other theories,
on the basis of Schrodinger’s mathematically deduced “wave mechanics” model
of the atom in which electrons are not particles but fields of energy.
Since some
scientists have deduced, contrary to Schrodinger’s theory, that quanta
function as particles as well as waves, electrons can be in multiple (infinity
of?) places at the same time. Hence,
they conclude, shades of Leibniz’s Monads, (overly simplistically: plenums,
autonomous universes) other dimensions do, in fact, not merely mathematically,
exist.
Such speculation
apparently ignores, or is unaware of, the admonitions of Einstein, Hardy, and
Russell, that mathematics does not describe the universe or anything in it.
According to
quantum mechanics, when an electron goes from a to b, being a field of energy
and a particle, it is said to be taking many (infinite?) paths at the same time.
Is the “field” solid like a ball or is it like the “surface of a
balloon” -- or both?
That an electron
may be in “multiple places” simultaneously, firstly, ignores Einstein’s
insistence that simultaneity does not exist.
Secondly, it abrogates the law that two physical objects cannot occupy
the same space at the same time.
I suppose a
counter argument would be that quanta, being energy, have no mass.
If so, how can they be said to behave as a particles?
But, assuming the description of electron behavior how is that evidence that physical
multiple objects on the macroscopic level of reality can be in multiple
dimensions simultaneously and occupy the same place but in different
dimensions -- whatever that can possibly mean?
Moreover, the
implication is that objects can move from one dimension to another explaining
away any paradox of changing the course of events in the “future” by
traveling to the past since “the ‘future’ was going to be different
anyway.”
Such perplexing
uses of mathematical language, however, make it difficult to talk about
"dimensions" that, in reality are not subject to recurring
perceptions, i.e., are not accessible to observation, and in the absence of
evidence, have no ontological length, width, depth, or time.
Dimensions are
mathematical metaphors and as our three authorities, Einstein, Russell, and
Hardy, have stated, mathematics does not describe the universe.
How can such
language be observationally verified?
Quantum mechanics
seems to be even stranger than the language and the concepts of General
Relativity. Even Einstein felt an
aversion to those of the latter.
It is a fact that
to travel into the past requires that nothing that has come into existence
ceases to exist.
Conflating the
mathematical construct that quantum particles don’t move merely in one
direction but do laterally in infinite directions with the capability of a
physical human body doing the same thing on the macroscopic level of existence,
and in an infinity of other dimensions, staggers credibility.
Let us suppose
that I time-travel to the past into dimension a, and kill my parents preventing
my being born. This creates the
paradox that raises the question, “How could I have returned to the past to
kill my parents before I was born?”
According to the
view of some scientists, if I time-traveled to the past and killed my parents
thereby preventing my ever having been born, this would be occurring only in one
of the dimensions. I would still
have been born in some other dimension and consequently would reappear in the
dimension in which I had not shot my parents, hence no paradox.
That’s a neat
trick. However, it does not
eliminate the paradox in the dimension in which I shot my parents even if it
explains the eternal existence of every event in the universe making time-travel
logically possible -- (but actually?).
After all,
anything can be proved logically. But, can it be verified?
Existing in,
popping up or transferring to dimension b, or any of the infinity of other
dimensions, in which I had not time-traveled to the past not only does not
eliminate the paradox, it compounds the existence of paradoxes.
For one thing, it
requires an explanation of how it was possible for me to appear in the other
dimensions after killing my parents in dimension a. For another, it does not explain why there are similarities and
differences in each of the dimensions.
What if someone
witnessed my sudden appearance from the future, killing my parents, seeing me
suddenly disappear, then reappearing and seeing my parents still alive?
From the
witness’ point of view, unaware of the possibility of the existence of another
dimension, what of the paradox observed?
On the one hand,
there is no verifiable prediction of concepts interacting with concepts.
On the other, we
know and can verifiably predict many ways in which matter interacts with matter.
Surely this is an
example that scientists are as guilty of abusing language, as are theists.
Scientists should
embark not only on an examination of the material of possible observation but
particularly on an examination of how they use language.
The speculations
that these scientists should derive from the behavior of electrons is the they
still don’t understand all there is to know about an electron and the behavior
of its components (quarks and strings) that constitute its field; after all,
anything behaving as a wave, is composed of “parts” also – whatever their
nature.
The key, here, is
the interpretation and conflation of “the many different things, at different
places, the electron is doing at the same time,” with the thesis of a reality
of many universes, i.e., dimensions, suggesting that what occurs on the quantum
mechanical wave function energy level would also apply on the macroscopic, i.e.,
physical level of reality.
Of course,
scientists do not say it will happen.
Rather they pose a probability that it can happen – an extremely remote
one, I suggest – as they do, I’m sure.
Let’s be clear,
we do not perceive quantum “entities” as we do our assumed physical
environment. And we do not perceive
or conceive our physical environment in terms of mathematical concepts.
Obviously the
macroscopic level of existence is founded on something.
Unfortunately the
metaphysical direction in which science seems to be headed implies that
ultimately the world evolved out of nothing, a thesis so long propounded by
theists.
Now, we have
scientists, discussing the continual expansion of the universe, saying that dark
energy is continually being created out of NOTHING, and that Einstein's
Universal Constant supports this.
K. C. Cole
expressed it in her book: The Hole In The Universe as, “How Scientists
Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything.
If ever there were
a paradox, consider the above.
If this is a
comment on the strange concepts science is pursuing with its dependence on
mathematical “evidence,” I suggest that universal scientific acceptance is
lacking and that a more moderate, if strange use of, language is in order.
If scientists
really believe that something can emerge from nothing, they are as guilty as
theologians who build the structure of theistic concepts on language that is
neither verifiable nor falsifiable -- as the latter brazenly admit when they
say, “One must accept God’s existence on faith.”
The use of the
term, 'evidence,' however, calls
for caution because we often conflate various "kinds" of evidence:
scientific, mathematical, logical, psychological, hypothetical, and so on.
To pursue what is "meant" by evidence is beyond the scope of
this discourse. Hopefully my use of the term will be clear enough to support my
arguments.
In general, I mean by the term, facts that are accessible to our sense
faculties, directly or indirectly. We shall not inquire into the
"meaning" of the term, 'facts.
Consider Einstein's analytic (non-synthetic) equation, e=mc2. No
matter what version one uses, i.e., e=mc2, e/m=c2, e/c2=m, or 1=mc2/e, they are
all true by definition; that's the nature of mathematics.
New York City
Museum of Natural History's presentation of the life of Einstein gives the
impression that he declared that energy has no mass; this despite the apparent
evidence that his equation, e=mc2 indicates that it does have mass. Would
Einstein contradict himself?
However, it is argued that the equation does not represent light quanta
and physical mass. It is merely a
definition in which "m" and "c" refer respectively to the
numerical values, i.e., incorporeal concepts of existing mass and the speed of
light in an absolute vacuum.
If this is the
case, then Einstein is not addressing physical reality.
But scientist
avoid the term, ‘absolute.’ They
use such defining language as “vacuum state” referring to a state of space
devoid of matter or (my
bold italics) energy.
In other words
space is not truly “empty.”
Such a definition
allows for a space permeated with universal gravitation
(they may eventually “discover” the “graviton,” defined to have
“zero charge and rest mass”), CMB, i.e., cosmic microwave background, and
the massless energy of light, unless the latter is impeded by “dark matter.”
The presence of
the dark matter, however, would alter the language to “false vacuum."
Moreover, if
quanta have no mass, how is it possible for dark matter to impede them and how
can the super dense gravity of a dark hole pull them down beyond its event
horizon?
Let us reiterate;
"m" and "c" in the equation are not referring to mass and
light but refer only to numbers, i.e., mathematics.
How is such an equation to be verified?
Isn’t there a
difference between a mathematical lack of mass and an actual lack of mass?
Is an explosion of
a nuclear bomb sufficient evidence to verify the mathematical language?
Is the equation
not, then, an analytic claim, i.e., true by definition as is all mathematics,
that cannot be shown to be true or false because no empirical (accessible to the
sense faculties) evidence can possibly be discovered to support it?
Since value and
speed do not exist physically, they are only mathematical "values"
that do not speak to the issue of the behavior of light in different physical
media, as for instance, according to one report, as through water or air or as
laser beams traveling through caesium atoms at three hundred times the "
the speed of light," or the hypothetical tachyons that in order to exist
must accede the speed of light.
May we not assume,
then, since light is always traveling in some kind of medium, and has an impact
effect on its environment suggests that it does have mass?
Otherwise some questions arise: Isn't "something” that has no mass, i.e.,
is non-dimensional, nothing other than an idea?
If energy, i.e.,
light has no mass, why is the speed of light altered in different media?
If the energy of m times c squared has no mass, then it is also the case that the energy of photons as PARTICLES has no
mass.
Note the
dictionary report of the meaning attributed to the term, 'photon': "a
quantum of electromagnetic energy having both particle and wave behavior: it has
no charge or mass but possesses momentum, i.e., motion [Pure -- when force
ceases to be exerted? (Shades of Samuel Alexander’s ultimate substance of the
universe)], the energy of light, X rays, gamma, etc. [sic] is carried by
photons.” (My brackets.)
If so, how
can the motion of light but not the "light" have a
causal effect as in causing greater warmth?
Is it possible, or
at least conceivable, that pure energy, i.e., light, as opposed to a
mathematical symbol, “m,” does in fact have some degree of mass, that
registers numerically as zero but requires a different kind of mathematical
value assigned to it, and that since matter is convertible to pure energy, the
latter is another form of mass-bearing existent as is a gas, air, water, fire,
which are different but measurable.
Let us not forget
that at one time Neutrinos were considered not to have mass.
After all,
aren’t spacecraft engineers conceiving space “ships” propelled by solar
winds by the pressure of streams of photons against mile-square-size sails and
defense mechanisms that emit sufficient diverting pressure to prevent
Yucatan-Peninsula-like meteor impacts that possibly caused the dinosaur
extinction?
As the hard cover
book, Space 2100: To Mars And Beyond In The Century To Come, describes
it, “As sunlight reflects off the surface of a shiny bit of metal, it
exchanges the tiniest bit of momentum with the object . . . and the momentum can
build up over time to interplanetary speeds."
Exactly what is
meant by the term, 'exchange' implying the absence of the impact of mass?
Is momentum, some
"existent" also absent mass?
Momentum is,
according to the dictionary, "in mechanics a quantity [my
emphasis] of motion of a moving object equal to the product of its mass
and velocity."
Except as a mental
abstraction, it is not possible for motion to exist other than as a continuous
change of space-time relocation of matter/energy.
Is not "an
exchange of momentum," since it is a "product of mass and
velocity," a cause and effect event, and consequently an impact of mass
upon mass?
Is Einstein
positing a kind of existent different from matter/energy?
Is he perhaps
being misinterpreted or is this an issue of the chicken and the egg?
Is it not obvious
that there would be no (kinetic) energy in the absence of potential
matter/energy?
Which came first a
black hole of super-dense matter or the energy of its explosion?
Is it any wonder
that theists point to their unverifiable uses of language, as little different
from some of the language, now smacking strongly of metaphysics, being used by
scientists and mathematicians?
Is it any wonder
that positing quantum mechanics and wormholes for the purpose of interstellar
and spacetime traveling with no more evidence than the perceptually unsupported
language of mathematics has many fellow scientists raising eyebrows?
Even if we could
conceive and create the technological means for creating wormholes, how does one
bend empty space?
Moreover, how does one locate the desired areas of
empty space, in the vastness of the universe, at which to create the wormholes
and then bend the empty space at which the wormholes are created trillions of
miles apart so that the wormholes will “meet” enabling “traveling through
them or to other dimensions?”
ONE FINAL THOUGHT
Imagine an assumed external reality, i.e., a
universe defined by the perceptions, concepts, logic, models, instruments,
languages, and mathematical constructs of intelligent creatures such as a
chimpanzee, a fly, a bird, a bumblebee, a dolphin, a cat, a dog, a lizard, a
snake, whatever; would they define “the universe” as human beings do?