Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.
Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.
Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.
It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.
With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive.
Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact.
In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind". Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.
The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon in two different positions.
The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.
That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.
Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only after performing that would they add in the delay cables. "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you accept the transactional interpretation, then this experiment would show a retrocausal influence." Cramer agrees it is speculative, but says the experiment is our best shot at seeing retrocausality in action. Because of the implications he is cautious, but still positive. "I don't see any show stopper yet," he says.
If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have
> Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd > like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or > rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed > of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make > yourself the winner.
> Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's > done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the > mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you > might change the circumstances by which your parents met, > derailing the key event that led to your birth.
> Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can > affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange > as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known > laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in > the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done > the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the > door remains wide open for a demonstration.
> It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments > that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by > attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke > black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic > implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a > state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar > tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is > a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions > about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
> Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are > generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes > running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really > strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his > theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In > this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an > illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an > unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, > the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why > you can't have causes from the future just as you have > causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the > University of Sydney in Australia.
> With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of > particles and events became even less relevant. "Real > temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says > Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, > Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of > time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to > the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter > equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles > travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his > mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they > worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards > and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality, > however, remained elusive.
> Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic > double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons > through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the > photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen > behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if > each photon travels through both slits and interferes with > itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the > slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through > one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, > Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the > photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could > suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one > trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon > went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after > the fact.
> In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found > a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an > interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after > passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path > depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind". > Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first > blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most > physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the > photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no > unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
> That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the > University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the > "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts > to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real > world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by > sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards > and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American > Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed > an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal > influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits > with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send > signals to the past.
> The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's > lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. > Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or > linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same > wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer > converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam > were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a > circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed > through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through > a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon > in two different positions.
> The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images > the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while > in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer > showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced > its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
> To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a > coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame > University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a > double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of > measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon > pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled > photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at > least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector > should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure > one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a > set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another > instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem > to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
> If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be > better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was > sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure > through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, > thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that > the other beam will arrive at its detector before you > make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are > indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the > other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed > beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, > before you have even made it.
> That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer > says they could control the movable detector so that it > alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over > time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam > that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If > this consistently shifts between an interference pattern > and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the > respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would > support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the > drawing board.
> Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment > first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in > photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only > after performing that would they add in the delay cables. > "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the > macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
> Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might > mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment > just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you > accept the transactional interpretation, then this > experiment would show a retrocausal
> Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd > like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or > rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed > of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make > yourself the winner.
> Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's > done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the > mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you > might change the circumstances by which your parents met, > derailing the key event that led to your birth.
> Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can > affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange > as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known > laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in > the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done > the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the > door remains wide open for a demonstration.
> It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments > that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by > attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke > black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic > implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a > state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar > tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is > a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions > about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
> Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are > generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes > running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really > strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his > theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In > this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an > illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an > unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, > the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why > you can't have causes from the future just as you have > causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the > University of Sydney in Australia.
> With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of > particles and events became even less relevant. "Real > temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says > Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, > Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of > time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to > the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter > equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles > travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his > mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they > worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards > and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality, > however, remained elusive.
> Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic > double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons > through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the > photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen > behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if > each photon travels through both slits and interferes with > itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the > slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through > one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, > Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the > photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could > suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one > trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon > went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after > the fact.
> In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found > a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an > interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after > passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path > depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind". > Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first > blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most > physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the > photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no > unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
> That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the > University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the > "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts > to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real > world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by > sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards > and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American > Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed > an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal > influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits > with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send > signals to the past.
> The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's > lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. > Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or > linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same > wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer > converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam > were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a > circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed > through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through > a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon > in two different positions.
> The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images > the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while > in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer > showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced > its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
> To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a > coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame > University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a > double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of > measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon > pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled > photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at > least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector > should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure > one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a > set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another > instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem > to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
> If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be > better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was > sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure > through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, > thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that > the other beam will arrive at its detector before you > make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are > indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the > other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed > beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, > before you have even made it.
> That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer > says they could control the movable detector so that it > alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over > time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam > that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If > this consistently shifts between an interference pattern > and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the > respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would > support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the > drawing board.
> Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment > first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in > photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only > after performing that would they add in the delay cables. > "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the > macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
> Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might > mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment > just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you > accept the transactional interpretation, then this > experiment would show a retrocausal
> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the understanding > that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their > suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by their > observations of others' patterns.
> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where "going > back in time" is exactly what happens.
> BOfL.
Brian: Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It wasn't what you meant, was it??
Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, K e v
kevirwin wrote: > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox..
Thats an oxymoron, if its logical then there's no paradox.
Paradox is the name given to a illogical state of mind, a name given to a conclusion based on a faulty premise is illogical, paradox do not exist in reality, they exist in the minds of fools, you're a fool.
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote: > kevirwin wrote: > > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox..
> Thats an oxymoron, if its logical then there's no paradox.
> Paradox is the name given to a illogical state of mind, a name given to > a conclusion based on a faulty premise is illogical, paradox do not > exist in reality, they exist in the minds of fools, you're a fool.
> Persuade me dont force me.
> Michael Gordge
Consider it a syntactical error, jerk-off . Remove the "logical", if you can't read it figuratively.
The point is (which you never get): "actual" time travel is logically impossible {i.e. I could never go back in time, to before you were born, and kill your parents to prevent your subsequent appearance......just the first example that came to mind...EWE bring out the best in me....}
And you wonder why you're not liked (...oops, my bad, you said before you didn't care ), K e v
> The point is (which you never get): "actual" time travel is > logically impossible
The point is HOW do you know that? The reason I ask is because you used the phrase *logical paradox* when there are no such things in logic and because of your unanswered stance on that agnostic god crap, clearly shows you arrive at most of your conclusions via accidents and not via reason.
> > The point is (which you never get): "actual" time travel is > > logically impossible
> The point is HOW do you know that? The reason I ask is because you used > the phrase *logical paradox* when there are no such things in logic and > because of your unanswered stance on that agnostic god crap, clearly > shows you arrive at most of your conclusions via accidents and not via > reason.
> Michael Gordge
Ahhh, the vestiges of an actual thought!!!! (of course you needed to add an insult at the end).
How do you arrive at your conclusions?? Are you telling me that you believe (and define it anyway it makes sense to you) "actual" time travel is possible?? That by some, as yet undiscovered means, you would "physically" be able to leave your computer terminal RIGHT NOW, in the middle of typing your insipid reply {that's just my insult back at ya'} and "travel" to 1973 and kill the Bee Gees before they became disco??? That's what most people think of when talking about time travel; at least, one facet: "changing the past"..."Future" time travel has different problems.
Do you think it's possible to change an event that has **already** occurred??
K e v
Oh, I did answer about the "that agnostic god crap"; are you mad cause I put your name in the title....I'm just helping you find it easier, cause that's what pals do!!!
kevirwin wrote: > (of course you needed to > add an insult at the end).
Insults are self inflicted, glad I could provide you with the material.
> How do you arrive at your conclusions??
For the zillionth time, via non-contradictory identification and integration of the material / matter / information of my senses eyes ears nose feel touch.
The ability to identify contradictions especially in ideas is something I specialize in.
Unless any and all ideas can be reduced right back down to an irreducable and sensory level of perception, then that idea is born in or of the mind and man trusts any and all such ideas at his peril, e.g. the god nonsense and your greater good socialist crap.
> Are you telling me that you > believe (and define it anyway it makes sense to you) "actual" time > travel is possible?
Nope, it was a very simple question Kev, which you are now throwing up all sorts of strawman nonsenses to avoid answering.
> Do you think it's possible to change an event that has **already** > occurred??
Stop the strawman Kev answer the question HOW do """YOU""" know that time travel is not possible?
It is a question you are required to answer so as others reading this can know that you are capable of reasoned thought, which BTW there has been no evidence of.
> Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or > rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make > yourself the winner.
> Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the > mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, > derailing the key event that led to your birth.
> Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange > as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in > the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the > door remains wide open for a demonstration.
> It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by > attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic > implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar > tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions > about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.
> Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" - they work as well for processes > running backwards through time as forwards. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his > theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an > illusion: the past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe. "If you have the block universe view, > the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have > causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.
> With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real > temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, > Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to > the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles > travelling backwards in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they > worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves travelling forwards and backwards in time. Any proof of reverse causality, > however, remained elusive.
> Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons > through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen > behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with > itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through > one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the > photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one > trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after > the fact.
> In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland, College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an > interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path > depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind". Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first > blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the > photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.
> That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington, Seattle, he proposed the > "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real > world (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 30). It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forwards > and backwards through time. This June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed > an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits > with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.
> The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. > Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same > wave-or-particle behaviour as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam > were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed > through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon > in two different positions.
> The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while > in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced > its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
> To use this set-up to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame > University in Indiana, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of > measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled > photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector > should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a > set-up might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously - a highly controversial claim, since it would seem > to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.
> If you can do that, says Cramer, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was > sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometres of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, > thereby delaying them by microseconds (see Diagram). This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you > make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the > other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, > before you have even made it.
> That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it > alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behaviour over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam > that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern > and a smooth single-particle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would > support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.
> Cramer says the plan is to do the instantaneous signalling experiment first, to iron out technical glitches from noise or errors in > photon tracking, which would wreck the retrocausality experiment. Only after performing that would they add in the delay cables. > "This experiment, if successful, would bring retrocausality into the macroscopic realm," says Cramer.
> Other experts are supportive of the idea but sceptical of what it might mean. "It would be important to perform such an experiment > just because of curiosity about interpretations," says Brukner. "If you accept the transactional interpretation, then this > experiment would show a retrocausal influence." Cramer agrees it is speculative, but says the experiment is our best shot at seeing > retrocausality in action. Because of the implications he is cautious, but still positive. "I don't see any show stopper yet," he > says.
> If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote: > kevirwin wrote: > > (of course you needed to > > add an insult at the end).
> Insults are self inflicted, glad I could provide you with the material.
> > How do you arrive at your conclusions??
> For the zillionth time, via non-contradictory identification and > integration of the material / matter / information of my senses eyes > ears nose feel touch.
> The ability to identify contradictions especially in ideas is something > I specialize in.
> Unless any and all ideas can be reduced right back down to an > irreducable and sensory level of perception, then that idea is born in > or of the mind and man trusts any and all such ideas at his peril, e.g. > the god nonsense and your greater good socialist crap.
> > Are you telling me that you > > believe (and define it anyway it makes sense to you) "actual" time > > travel is possible?
> Nope, it was a very simple question Kev, which you are now throwing up > all sorts of strawman nonsenses to avoid answering.
> > Do you think it's possible to change an event that has **already** > > occurred??
> Stop the strawman Kev answer the question HOW do """YOU""" know that > time travel is not possible?
> It is a question you are required to answer so as others reading this > can know that you are capable of reasoned thought, which BTW there has > been no evidence of.
> Michael Gordge
Once again faced with the nearly impossible task of discerning meaning from Mikey's ramblings, I'm going to guess you're saying you agree with me, that time travel isn't possible.
(you say to my query: "Do you think it's possible to change an event that has **already** occurred??" this: "Nope, it was a very simple question Kev, which you are now throwing up all sorts of strawman nonsenses to avoid answering."
What exactly wasn't I answering, I said actual literal time travel (for a potential purpose, say, to change the past) is a complete logical impossibility. (Don't tell me I incorrectly used "logical" and "paradox" again, I cede that grammatical error and move on). You agree with me and then ask me "Why"?? There is no power or method to un-create or void any event in this three-dimensional plane which has already occurred. No one, at any other time interval (and if you got problems with a definition of "time", I'll get one for you) could save Lincoln, he was shot, he felt the pain of the bullet, he felt his life depart. No act could **ever** take away the event and his pain, it already happened. No prior event can be undone, whether or not the affects of the event can be mitigated/erased from memory/sent to some new theoretical time trail/any other such mumbo-jumbo (that's the technical term) you wish to contrive. The closest you could ever come is obfuscating awareness of the event in question (maybe a god could do that, but even a god couldn't negate a past event).
> There is no power or method to > un-create or void any event in this three-dimensional plane which has > already occurred.
What the ffuck was that? geezizgrist kev, where is your 151 IQ when you need it eh?
Obviously I was right your conclusion was a fucked up guess.
You have no idea what time is do you kev? Define time kev.
Dont bother with what any higher authority says on the subject kev, this is for YOU, give what YOU claim is the meanig of time and explain HOW you arrived at that conclusion.
Do your parents hold out any hope that you will ever grow out of your delinquency kev?
> HOW do you *know* that you cant go back in time?
> kev's answer :
> > There is no power or method to > > un-create or void any event in this three-dimensional plane which has > > already occurred.
Once again, Mikey is incoherent.... Unless your question means, "How do I know **any** fucking thing??", reason and logic tell me actual time travel isn't possible using the "Lincoln example" of what would actually constitute time travel. He couldn't be saved.
> What the ffuck was that? geezizgrist kev, where is your 151 IQ when you > need it eh?
I never need it with any discussion with you....
> Obviously I was right your conclusion was a fucked up guess.
Inference: you have the definitive answer. Let's hear it. I **have** given an answer; whether it meets with your approval or not is irrelevant. You have said NOTHING on the subject, so let's see your insight to the enigma of time travel
> You have no idea what time is do you kev? Define time kev.
I have an excellent grasp of what time is (to me). If I define "time", do I then have to define "travel"??
> Dont bother with what any higher authority says on the subject kev, > this is for YOU, give what YOU claim is the meanig of time and explain > HOW you arrived at that conclusion.
Were you a grammar school teacher? Is this how you addressed children you thought you could bully??? Yet another request for definitions when you have no answer.
> Do your parents hold out any hope that you will ever grow out of your > delinquency kev?
My parents are dead; if they were alive, they'd probably kill me for wasting time with a sociopathic, misanthropic asshole like you.... sorry Mom & Dad; I **promised** the piece of shit I'd keep replying, no matter what....maybe it's karma for something else...
Your questions have long since lost any viable meaning, but if I can deflect your lunacy from the rest of the forum, my effort won't be in vain,
Weary with the idiot, but undaunted in resolve, K e v
Thats because you had said, time travel wasn't possible, so I simply asked you HOW you knew that, and in one of the most stupid answers I have ever seen here you replied.
"Man hasn't built a machine to do it" ahhahahahahah, clearly implying that you believe it is possible.
> so let's see your > insight to the enigma of time travel.
That's as nonsensical as asking me to explain *length travel* or *weight travel* or *volume travel*
Time is a man made concept used as a tool to measure motion, the standard of time is one revolution of the earth around the sun, just as a yard is a man made concept used to measure distance, the standard was roughly the distance of one step.
> I have an excellent grasp of what time is (to me).
And you haven't posted it because?
I know, you are waiting for mine eh? what a coward.
> > ......... You have said NOTHING on the subject,
> Thats because you had said, time travel wasn't possible, so I simply > asked you HOW you knew that, and in one of the most stupid answers I > have ever seen here you replied.
> "Man hasn't built a machine to do it" ahhahahahahah, clearly implying > that you believe it is possible.
> > so let's see your > > insight to the enigma of time travel.
> That's as nonsensical as asking me to explain *length travel* or > *weight travel* or *volume travel*
> Time is a man made concept used as a tool to measure motion, the > standard of time is one revolution of the earth around the sun, just as > a yard is a man made concept used to measure distance, the standard was > roughly the distance of one step.
> > I have an excellent grasp of what time is (to me).
> And you haven't posted it because?
> I know, you are waiting for mine eh? what a coward.
> > My parents are dead;
> I am genuinely sorry.
> Michael Gordge
Oh my God!!! You attribute this to me:
{/quote entirely and solely located in Mikey's post\}: "Man hasn't built a machine to do it" ahhahahahahah, clearly implying that you believe it is possible. {/end of one of Mikey's greatest delusions\}
It's 3:00 a.m. here in DC, so I would have an excuse for tired answers; you have no such excuse. Not only that; the quote follows a paragraph that contains this: "Thats because you had said, time travel wasn't possible, so I simply asked you HOW you knew that..." So you already knew my position. You don't even read your *own* posts (can't say as I blame you, however, it kills me to read them)
Addressing Part A of Mikey's quote: I never said, ""Man hasn't built a machine to do it", you idiot. You must have read someone else's post .
Part B "clearly implying that you believe it is possible." My position has steadfastly been time travel is **NOT** possible.
Reading **your** definition of time, I won't bother asking you for definitions any more; I still like the primary dictionary definition; works for me (I didn't invent language, and of course, you never learned to use it, nor to even understand it).
kevirwin wrote: >.... My > position has steadfastly been time travel is **NOT** possible.
Yeah but your refusal to define time rationally, e.g. to link the meaning of time to sensory reality e.g. the relationship of two moving entities e.g. the sun and the earth, pretty much cements your above position as being an accident or a coincidence of how you go about gaining your knowledge, rather than a consequence kev.
One hour and tomorrow mean nothing to a rock or a Martian kev.
None of the fancy words your 151 IQ can find kev, changes the very simple fact that time is a man made concept of a measurement of motion, in the identical manner as an inch is a measurement of distance.
> > ......... You have said NOTHING on the subject,
> Thats because you had said, time travel wasn't possible, so I simply > asked you HOW you knew that, and in one of the most stupid answers I > have ever seen here you replied.
> "Man hasn't built a machine to do it" ahhahahahahah, clearly implying > that you believe it is possible.
> > so let's see your > > insight to the enigma of time travel.
> That's as nonsensical as asking me to explain *length travel* or > *weight travel* or *volume travel*
> Time is a man made concept used as a tool to measure motion, the > standard of time is one revolution of the earth around the sun, just as > a yard is a man made concept used to measure distance, the standard was > roughly the distance of one step.
> > I have an excellent grasp of what time is (to me).
> And you haven't posted it because?
> I know, you are waiting for mine eh? what a coward.
> HOW do you *know* that you cant go back in time?
> kev's answer :
> > There is no power or method to > > un-create or void any event in this three-dimensional plane which has > > already occurred.
> What the ffuck was that? geezizgrist kev, where is your 151 IQ when you > need it eh?
> Obviously I was right your conclusion was a fucked up guess.
> You have no idea what time is do you kev? Define time kev.
> Dont bother with what any higher authority says on the subject kev, > this is for YOU, give what YOU claim is the meanig of time and explain > HOW you arrived at that conclusion.
> Do your parents hold out any hope that you will ever grow out of your > delinquency kev?
> Michael Gordge
So why don't you put your money where your mouth is Mikey? Why not tell us if you have any reason to suppose that time travel IS or IS NOT possible? Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it!
> So why don't you put your money where your mouth is Mikey? Why not tell > us if you have any reason to suppose that time travel IS or IS NOT > possible?
I already did ewe idiot, now fuck off and find it you lazy bonehead. Hint, it started off with something about that being as silly as asking me to explain what *inch travel* was.
> Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! > Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! > Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! > Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! > Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! > Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it! Come on! Let's have it!
> You are a fucking coward
What did I tell you that repitition was a sign of? yes thats right insanity chazzzzzz?
>> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the understanding >> that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their >> suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by their >> observations of others' patterns.
>> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where "going >> back in time" is exactly what happens.
>> BOfL.
> Brian: > Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental > exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
Yes , but this is not "figurative". People actually relive the experience whn taken to such states.
Lets say you are suffering from an extreme toothache (you didnt 'duck' a punch hehehe)....it is very real. Revisit that in 'regression" and the pain is just as real.
This is not just an opinion of the therapist, but with modern technology, the brain patterns can be identified as identical to the "original".
Consider that one component of mind, happens to be time, so on that basis, such events are all mental exercises, past, current and future (where past and future doesnt exist).
The classic physics regarding time travel is sound, in so much as world war one cannot be re fought, or as some would speculate, is always going on on some parallel universe.The laws for "group" are limited but fixed.
Diferent laws for the "individual".....you appear to be a good example of someone who is trying to come to grips with both, by blending them.
(Which is why we "get on" ;-)
> Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that > can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; > i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It > wasn't what you meant, was it??
> Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, > K e v
> kevirwin wrote: >> subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox..
> Thats an oxymoron, if its logical then there's no paradox.
> Paradox is the name given to a illogical state of mind, a name given to > a conclusion based on a faulty premise is illogical, paradox do not > exist in reality, they exist in the minds of fools, you're a fool.
> Persuade me dont force me.
> Michael Gordge
The difference between rape and invitation :-)....I believe sometimes those two realities can shift during an encounter.
Perhaps Dianna Ross sang of the ultimate oxymoron..."Stop In The Name Of Love"...:-)
What you are saying makes logical sense, but logic, of itself , is limited, which is why many keep chasing their tail, which often infuriates you, particularly when you find yourself chasing them chasing themselves.
The mind, of itself, it the ultimate paradox. Scientists are discovering this each day, but ironically , many dont see the significance of such findings, because they only are working at the mental level.
My definition of the mind (befor you ask) is that of the thinking mechanism.
> >> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the understanding > >> that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their > >> suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by their > >> observations of others' patterns.
> >> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where "going > >> back in time" is exactly what happens.
> >> BOfL.
> > Brian: > > Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental > > exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
> Yes , but this is not "figurative". People actually relive the experience > whn taken to such states.
> Lets say you are suffering from an extreme toothache (you didnt 'duck' a > punch hehehe)....it is very real. Revisit that in 'regression" and the pain > is just as real.
> This is not just an opinion of the therapist, but with modern technology, > the brain patterns can be identified as identical to the "original".
> Consider that one component of mind, happens to be time, so on that basis, > such events are all mental exercises, past, current and future (where past > and future doesnt exist).
> The classic physics regarding time travel is sound, in so much as world war > one cannot be re fought, or as some would speculate, is always going on on > some parallel universe.The laws for "group" are limited but fixed.
> Diferent laws for the "individual".....you appear to be a good example of > someone who is trying to come to grips with both, by blending them.
> (Which is why we "get on" ;-)
> > Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial > > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that > > can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; > > i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It > > wasn't what you meant, was it??
> > Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, > > K e v
> Hope that explaination was useful...
> BOfL
Hey Brian: I had a little trouble reading it; there weren't any expletives in it; I've been preoccupied with a certain individual lately, so if I don't see the F-word about 100 times, I get confused....
>> >> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the >> >> understanding >> >> that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their >> >> suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by their >> >> observations of others' patterns.
>> >> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where >> >> "going >> >> back in time" is exactly what happens.
>> >> BOfL.
>> > Brian: >> > Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental >> > exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
>> Yes , but this is not "figurative". People actually relive the experience >> whn taken to such states.
>> Lets say you are suffering from an extreme toothache (you didnt 'duck' a >> punch hehehe)....it is very real. Revisit that in 'regression" and the >> pain >> is just as real.
>> This is not just an opinion of the therapist, but with modern technology, >> the brain patterns can be identified as identical to the "original".
>> Consider that one component of mind, happens to be time, so on that >> basis, >> such events are all mental exercises, past, current and future (where >> past >> and future doesnt exist).
>> The classic physics regarding time travel is sound, in so much as world >> war >> one cannot be re fought, or as some would speculate, is always going on >> on >> some parallel universe.The laws for "group" are limited but fixed.
>> Diferent laws for the "individual".....you appear to be a good example of >> someone who is trying to come to grips with both, by blending them.
>> (Which is why we "get on" ;-)
>> > Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial >> > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that >> > can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; >> > i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It >> > wasn't what you meant, was it??
>> > Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, >> > K e v
>> Hope that explaination was useful...
>> BOfL
> Hey Brian: > I had a little trouble reading it; there weren't any expletives in > it; I've been preoccupied with a certain individual lately, so if I > don't see the F-word about 100 times, I get confused....
Ok...I always like to deliver ......Fletcher Fletcher Fletcher gottcha cottcha gottchaa :-)
> >> >> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the > >> >> understanding > >> >> that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their > >> >> suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by their > >> >> observations of others' patterns.
> >> >> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where > >> >> "going > >> >> back in time" is exactly what happens.
> >> >> BOfL.
> >> > Brian: > >> > Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental > >> > exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
> >> Yes , but this is not "figurative". People actually relive the experience > >> whn taken to such states.
> >> Lets say you are suffering from an extreme toothache (you didnt 'duck' a > >> punch hehehe)....it is very real. Revisit that in 'regression" and the > >> pain > >> is just as real.
> >> This is not just an opinion of the therapist, but with modern technology, > >> the brain patterns can be identified as identical to the "original".
> >> Consider that one component of mind, happens to be time, so on that > >> basis, > >> such events are all mental exercises, past, current and future (where > >> past > >> and future doesnt exist).
> >> The classic physics regarding time travel is sound, in so much as world > >> war > >> one cannot be re fought, or as some would speculate, is always going on > >> on > >> some parallel universe.The laws for "group" are limited but fixed.
> >> Diferent laws for the "individual".....you appear to be a good example of > >> someone who is trying to come to grips with both, by blending them.
> >> (Which is why we "get on" ;-)
> >> > Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet controversial > >> > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that > >> > can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; > >> > i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It > >> > wasn't what you meant, was it??
> >> > Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, > >> > K e v
> >> Hope that explaination was useful...
> >> BOfL
> > Hey Brian: > > I had a little trouble reading it; there weren't any expletives in > > it; I've been preoccupied with a certain individual lately, so if I > > don't see the F-word about 100 times, I get confused....
> Ok...I always like to deliver ......Fletcher Fletcher Fletcher gottcha > cottcha gottchaa :-)
> BOfL
> > yea, I got it.... > > Kev
You're a happy guy; ship some it to Waldorf, Maryland, would ya'
>> >> >> I dont meet and talk to anyone who is not receptive to the >> >> >> understanding >> >> >> that problems unsolved are problems revisited ,often based on their >> >> >> suspicions of their own experiences, but always acknowledged by >> >> >> their >> >> >> observations of others' patterns.
>> >> >> Retrogressive therapies are main stream medicine these days, where >> >> >> "going >> >> >> back in time" is exactly what happens.
>> >> >> BOfL.
>> >> > Brian: >> >> > Your use of "going back in time" is figurative, right?? A mental >> >> > exercise to revisit that, which has already occurred, in your mind.
>> >> Yes , but this is not "figurative". People actually relive the >> >> experience >> >> whn taken to such states.
>> >> Lets say you are suffering from an extreme toothache (you didnt 'duck' >> >> a >> >> punch hehehe)....it is very real. Revisit that in 'regression" and the >> >> pain >> >> is just as real.
>> >> This is not just an opinion of the therapist, but with modern >> >> technology, >> >> the brain patterns can be identified as identical to the "original".
>> >> Consider that one component of mind, happens to be time, so on that >> >> basis, >> >> such events are all mental exercises, past, current and future (where >> >> past >> >> and future doesnt exist).
>> >> The classic physics regarding time travel is sound, in so much as >> >> world >> >> war >> >> one cannot be re fought, or as some would speculate, is always going >> >> on >> >> on >> >> some parallel universe.The laws for "group" are limited but fixed.
>> >> Diferent laws for the "individual".....you appear to be a good example >> >> of >> >> someone who is trying to come to grips with both, by blending them.
>> >> (Which is why we "get on" ;-)
>> >> > Sir Frederick always seems to find this interesting, yet >> >> > controversial >> >> > subject matter, to post. I "literally" find a logical paradox that >> >> > can't (IMHO) be overcome to the H.G Wells version of time travel; >> >> > i.e. actual travel to a time past (or scarier, a future event). It >> >> > wasn't what you meant, was it??
>> >> > Willing to talk/discuss/learn from someone who thinks it's possible, >> >> > K e v
>> >> Hope that explaination was useful...
>> >> BOfL
>> > Hey Brian: >> > I had a little trouble reading it; there weren't any expletives in >> > it; I've been preoccupied with a certain individual lately, so if I >> > don't see the F-word about 100 times, I get confused....
>> Ok...I always like to deliver ......Fletcher Fletcher Fletcher gottcha >> cottcha gottchaa :-)
>> BOfL
>> > yea, I got it.... >> > Kev
> You're a happy guy; ship some it to Waldorf, Maryland, would ya'
> K e v
Happiness is our 'natural" state Kev (you need to visit the 51st ? ....hehehe).YOur authentic self lives here and now, has no past and no future an is a blissful entity. This is why we have to initially use our inherant state to create discomfort(unknowingly), befor we "wake up, firstly,to our creative powers, and then to the source of that creativity.
There's no use being in Eden, unless you know you are there :-)
|
