# Time Travel Discussion



## qqwref (Aug 3, 2010)

It's been a while since we've had a good discussion thread. No religion this time.

Imagine: Somehow, you have traveled back in time to meet one or both of your parents, at a time before you were conceived. After some very bad luck, you find yourself seconds away from accidentally killing one of your parents, and you cannot consciously stop it. What is the most reasonable scenario?
- Time travel is not and will never be possible, even in theory. It must be a dream. (The "what paradox?" theory.)
- You succeed. Your younger siblings, and then you, start slowly fading out of existance, and soon, according to the universe, you have never existed. (The "Hollywood film" theory.)
- You succeed. The universe destroys itself because if you did exist, you would have traveled back in time and so you wouldn't exist, but if you didn't exist, you wouldn't have traveled back in time and so you would exist. (The "divided by zero" theory.)
- You succeed. The timeline splits into a new one in which one of your parents died. If you travel back into the future, you will find no records of your existence. (The "multiple timelines" theory.)
- You succeed, but the universe somehow heals itself so that you got created in some other way, creating a single consistent timeline. (The "self-healing" theory.)
- There has always been a single consistent timeline. You find that you cannot change the past at all, so the death could not occur - the universe would somehow prevent it. (The "self-consistent" theory.)
- Something else, perhaps?

So, what do YOU think?


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 3, 2010)

I've actually been thinking of this: The Grandfather effect, I've known it as.

I'd think that if you could "travel through time," you could end up at the same time in a different universe (assuming the multiverse exists, which is may or may not) in which people are doing the exact same things as in the home universe, only with a "delay"; it's the exact same time, but their timeline says that the date is a date earlier than you travelled there in the first place.
Assuming these timelines were identical until you meddled around a bit, I'd think that your future self in that universe would me scrapped, whereas your existence from your own universe as it were would be saved.
The reason I didn't say "multi timeline" was that when you went BACK...TO THE FUTURE! (or home, whatever boats your float) was that you'd still exist there. You would never have existed there, but at home it's still the same.

The problem with this is that the chances of ending up in an alternate universe like I described assuming there are infinite universes with infinitely many timelines happening infinitely many times becomes just that--infinity to infinity.
Therefore, if it were possible, I'd assume that route.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Aug 3, 2010)

The "Hollywood film" theory: I don't like the idea of 'slowly fading away'. To me it would seem like either you would exist or you would not exist.

The "self-consistent" theory: How would you be able to travel back in time? By you traveling back in time you would be changing the timeline. Which would not be possible in this theory.

The "self-healing" theory: This would seem as though there was a higher power for this to be true. RELIGION ZOMGZ.

The "multiple timelines" theory, and the "divided by zero" theory seem most plausible for me. I personally think that if time travel were to actually be possible, the multiple timelines theory would make the most sense. I can't explain why I think this, but I do .


----------



## Kian (Aug 3, 2010)

I think it's fairly obvious the most likely scenario is that time travel is impossible. The rest are pretty specific, unsubstantiated hypotheses. Of course I can't know for sure, but as an Occam's Razor proponent, it seems to silly to think anything else is more likely.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

I have to go with the first statement you gave- that time travel is not possible. This is just a nonsensical question, even in theory. None of the other answers appeal to me as consistent or logical. 
Aside from consistency and logic, I just don't personally believe that time travel is possible. I only mention that so that I'm fully disclosing a bias.


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2010)

The second one except, not fade, but instant.
My knowledge of stuff is minimal.


----------



## RopedBBQ (Aug 3, 2010)

I think itd be like the "Lost" Theory. (Lost ftw.)

Where you could go back, but you couldnt change anything. You would have already had gone back, because itd still be YOUR present, so what you did already happened, and thats what impacted the future. And if you tried something different, it wouldnt matter, because you would've already done that task different.


----------



## Dene (Aug 3, 2010)

Unfortunately I don't think time travel is possible these days. However, if it were I would go with multiple timelines. As soon as you travel back in time you create a new timeline.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 3, 2010)

I dont think time travel is possible, or at least not in the way we see it.
Obviously, if one could travel backwards (in relation with the earth) faster than the speed of light (assuming that you could see earth no matter how far you ventured from it.) you could See the past. However you could never hope to interact with it.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Aug 3, 2010)

Yeah, the Lost theory mentioned by Rope seems right to me. That way, I think it'd prevent paradoxes.

Of course, that's assuming that it's possible. I'm not saying that it necessarily will happen... though you never know.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

I believe that if you were to travel back in time, then you have already do so and cannot change the past. The universe doesn't collapse (matter cannot be created or destroyed) and there is only one me (no multiverse) (the "I am me"
statement).

Also, time travel is possible, we're doing it right now. We just can't control it. 

And also, there are 4dimensions the fourth being time, but since all dimensions must be in one place to be counted as such, that means all time just is (no past or future just an ever evolving now, all things happen at once, we just see it one section at a time). 

Now a philosophy of mine: Our futures are set in stone, but we are the stone masons who put it there.

And more food for thought: Is it the ability to travel back in time, or the ability to see into the future (if travelling back made you young again)?


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> And also, there are 4dimensions the fourth being time, but since all dimensions must be in one place to be counted as such, that means all time just is (no past or future just an ever evolving now, all things happen at once, we just see it one section at a time).



Unless Wikipedia liezzzzz or I've misinterpreted it, then I don't think the 4th dimension is time...



wikipedia said:


> The fourth dimension in this space was sometimes interpreted as time, but this is no longer done in modern physics. In the last century spacetime was developed, which unifies space and time but with a different metric so the time dimension is treated differently from the three spatial dimensions. The resulting space is a Minkowski space which has different properties from this space.


----------



## Cool Frog (Aug 3, 2010)

I think that our universe is someone's dream and one day they will wake up and we will all cease to exist. This is 100% undeniable truth


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Aug 3, 2010)

You can't go back in time even if you _had_ a time machine. You couldn't go back farther than when the machine was invented because the time machine didn't exist in the past. That's the "existence" theory. (made up the name)

But in the multi-verse theories you would essentially not be travelling through time itself, just to a different universe that is in a different place in time.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

aznmortalx said:


> Unless Wikipedia liezzzzz or I've misinterpreted it, then I don't think the 4th dimension is time...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Look up Minkowski space, it IS the 3 physical dimensions + time (4).

Plus think about it in order: point (0 dimension), line (1 dimension), square (2), cube (3), hyper-cube (4). The hypercube is a representation of multiple positionality (Aka time).


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

1. time travel is defintely possible theoreticly, it has been shown to be possible through einsteins general theory of relativity, faster than light travel, warping space-time, infinitley long spinning black holes and so on. that last one might be traveling forwards in time, or a wormhole, i can't remember

2. according to the first law of thermodynamics, matter can not be crfeated or destroyed, so unless an antimatter equivilent of you and your siblings spontaneously came into existence in the same lace as you and both matter and antimatter versions of you annilhiate each other this is also a wrong view on the situation. also, the annilhiation would destroy everything in a several mile radius

3. this view comes down to 2 general scenarios, 1) there is a higher power that can destroy all matter and energy(sorry about bringing religion in to it) or 2) there is an unknown force or phenomenon that only occurs during a time travel paradox, this cannot be disproven experimentaly, but we can safely say that we know of no such phenomenom that has anything near this effect

4. this is the most plausible theory as it does not violate existing laws, need to have knew or outside forces acting on it and is supported by a sizable chunk of scientists. the multiverse theory is very populr among those who study this field, it is theoreticly possible and avoidds any paradoxical outcomes, and, most importantly, it is supported by the Doc.

5. this has a similar answer to number 3, it calls for a higher power, or some phenomenom to act upon the universe after a paradox, although we would have no way of noticing this, there is no way that this situation could occur naturaly within our current understanding

6. this is also one of the most plausible becuase it avoids a paradox without any outside 'help', like in many science fiction stories, the events you do whilst back in time would cause the original events to occur, but the way you put it, it seems that only the events that did happen, happen again with no differences which in turn makes time travel impossible because if you were to go back in time you cause atleast some change, if only accidental, this would lead to a change in the 'present'


also, _aznmortalx, _the fourth is spacial, but in most time travel disscusions, the fourth dimension is temporal because the other 7 dimensions don't effect the outcome, unless the disscusion is regarding string theory


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> If you were to go back in time you cause atleast some change, if only accidental, this would lead to a change in the 'present'



In this theory, going back in time wouldn't change a thing, only continue the process of reenacting (in a sense) that which had already occured. Your just viewing the same time with a different perspective.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> 1. time travel is defintely possible theoreticly, *it has been shown to be possible* through einsteins general theory of relativity, faster than light travel, warping space-time, infinitley long spinning black holes and so on. that last one might be traveling forwards in time, or a wormhole, i can't remember
> 
> 2. according to the first law of thermodynamics, matter can not be crfeated or destroyed, so unless an antimatter equivilent of you and your siblings spontaneously came into existence in the same lace as you and both matter and antimatter versions of you annilhiate each other this is also a wrong view on the situation. also, the annilhiation would destroy everything in a several mile radius
> 
> ...


Oh really?


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Aug 3, 2010)

@DT546: Ah, well what you just told me is way out of my understanding, so I'll just assume I did misinterpret the wiki. 

Also, isn't light speed the speed cap and nothing can surpass it? I remember Steven hawkings said that revolving around a black hole could be a way to travel to the future though. 



Dane man said:


> DT546 said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to go back in time you cause atleast some change, if only accidental, this would lead to a change in the 'present'
> ...


If backwards time travel were possible, then I think this is what would happen. Like I said before, it'd be an anti paradox thing too.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Aug 3, 2010)

Anyone that watches Doctor Who knows that time travel exists and that time can be rewritten. DUH 

The scenario I see: time travel does not exist (so there!), except going into the future (just stand in front of a black hole and let it work its magic!). In the 3 dimensional world there is no concept of backwards or forwards, just movement. As humans we have a front and back but that is not from the perspective of the universe. Supposedly going faster than light can "rip through the fabric of reality," this being the cliche and actually best way to explain gravity's effects on the universe (space-time as the fabric stretched out and matter as marbles on top, creating indentations that represent gravity). Or would you rip through the universe and into another (multi-verse theory)? In other universes laws could be different and time travel might exist, but in ours time is part of space and has no notion of up, down, forwards, or backwards; just motion.

But what if you stood in front of a white hole? Being the reverse of a black hole, would it have an anti-gravity effect on you? Would this propel you into the past or make you age and a substantially faster rate? No one knows. I do not believe white holes exist in this universe, but I'm sure that the multi-verse theory applies to this as well.

Do I know anything about anything I just said? No. Would you like some salt with that?


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> DT546 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. time travel is defintely possible theoreticly, *it has been shown to be possible* through einsteins general theory of relativity, faster than light travel, warping space-time, infinitley long spinning black holes and so on. that last one might be traveling forwards in time, or a wormhole, i can't remember
> ...



yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#In_physics, i admit i was wrong abou general relativity supporting it, i was wrote all that from memory, and the long spinning black hole is the tipler black hole


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > DT546 said:
> ...


From the very page you linked to-


> Although time travel has been a common plot device in fiction since the 19th century, and one-way travel into the future is arguably possible given the phenomenon of time dilation based on velocity in the theory of special relativity (exemplified by the twin paradox), as well as gravitational time dilation in the theory of general relativity,* it is currently unknown whether the laws of physics would allow backwards time travel.*


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

eastamazonantidote said:


> But what if you stood in front of a white hole? Being the reverse of a black hole, would it have an anti-gravity effect on you? Would this propel you into the past or make you age and a substantially faster rate? No one knows. I do not believe white holes exist in this universe, but I'm sure that the multi-verse theory applies to this as well.
> 
> Do I know anything about anything I just said? No. Would you like some salt with that?



Lol! Nice, but my theory is that if a black hole (sucks in light with its gravity) did infact lead somewhere then the other side would be a white hole (pushes away light with the force of the inverted gravity of the black hole). As such antigravity effects have not been observed in space, so I'd say black holes lead nowhere.


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> DT546 said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



the part that i linked to was about how physics _could_ support backwards time travel, of course all of this disscusion rests on theoretical evidence and there is a lot supporting backward time travel and also a lot against it, including philisophical arguments, such as the paradoxs mentioned in the first post of this thread


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

So then, if you're discussing how time travel _could_ be possible, why did you say it was shown to be possible?


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> From the very page you linked to-
> 
> 
> > Although time travel has been a common plot device in fiction since the 19th century, and one-way travel into the future is arguably possible given the phenomenon of time dilation based on velocity in the theory of special relativity (exemplified by the twin paradox), as well as gravitational time dilation in the theory of general relativity,* it is currently unknown whether the laws of physics would allow backwards time travel.*



backward time travel is theoretical (atleast at this time) and therefor currently unknown

I'd say the most plausible theory being the "lost" one, as in when the event first occured you would have been there having no effect in the present.

An interesting topic I was discussing with my cousin a few days ago was:
Is the centre of a black hole hot or cold?


----------



## RealDeal (Aug 3, 2010)

If the universe is infinite in size, then one could travel to the "past/future" since an infinite universe would contain an infinite number of planets that are exactly the same as Earth. Having an infinite number of Earth's in which they could infinitely repeat Earth's history makes it possible for some of these Earth's to be at different points in Earth's time, such as the classical age or 5 minutes ago. If one wants to travel to the "past/future" all they need to do is travel through space and just locate the right Earth.

Traveling at light-speed could also make it possible for time traveling to the future because of Einstein's theory of relativity.



aznmortalx said:


> isn't light speed the speed cap and nothing can surpass it?



When the universe was first creative all the matter in the universe was traveling faster than light. Most of the theories about the creation of the universe say that the universe expanded to the size of several thousand light-years across in a fraction of a second shortly after being created. If this is the case then matter would need to travel faster than light in order for the universe to reach that size in that fraction of a second.


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > DT546 said:
> ...





hawkmp4 said:


> So then, if you're discussing how time travel _could_ be possible, why did you say it was shown to be possible?



as i said i wrote that from memory, isn't it understandable that i could make _some_ mistakes when writing from memory, especialy on such a complex subject, especialy at 3am?


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> An interesting topic I was discussing with my cousin a few days ago was:
> Is the centre of a black hole hot or cold?



Pressure and tempurature have a direct relationship. More gravity, more pressure. More pressure, more tempurature. It's really really hot.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

RealDeal said:


> When the universe was first creative all the matter in the universe was traveling faster than light. Most of the theories about the creation of the universe say that the universe expanded to the size of several thousand light-years across in a fraction of a second shortly after being created. If this is the case then matter would need to travel faster than light in order for the universe to reach that size in that fraction of a second.



Citation needed...


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> vcuber13 said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting topic I was discussing with my cousin a few days ago was:
> ...



although this is true when dealing with normal physics, the same cannot be said for this, at singularities the intense mass and density make a incredible small object incredibly massive, things like this need both general relativity and quantum mechanics to describe it fully, this cannot happen without string theory which is not fully proven

although i do agree that it would be incredibly hot in there


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971111e.html


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> RealDeal said:
> 
> 
> > When the universe was first creative all the matter in the universe was traveling faster than light. Most of the theories about the creation of the universe say that the universe expanded to the size of several thousand light-years across in a fraction of a second shortly after being created. If this is the case then matter would need to travel faster than light in order for the universe to reach that size in that fraction of a second.
> ...



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=inflation+theory



hawkmp4 said:


> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971111e.html



that's the outside, he was quite clearly talking about the centre


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

> However, even though these things are very cold, they can be surrounded by extremely hot material.


Read please.
Thanks.


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> > However, even though these things are very cold, they can be surrounded by extremely hot material.
> 
> 
> Read please.
> Thanks.



that is still the _outside _ of the blackhole, only x-rays get away from the event horizon, so we cannot definitively say anything about the temperarure inside as temperature is measured mainly using infra red radiation


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > vcuber13 said:
> ...



Too if it has an infinite density then there would be an infinite amount of particles leaving no room to move therefor being absolute zero


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

More relevant information-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation


> As an example, a black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvin; in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5 × 1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 kelvin, absorbing as much radiation as it emits. Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb, and thereby lose mass.


I'm pretty sure that when all these sources say 'a black hole is' they don't mean 'the area around the black hole is,' they mean 'a black hole is.' This is supported by the fact that these sources say that the area around a black hole is extremely hot, after saying that a black hole is extremely cold.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 3, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> The "self-consistent" theory: How would you be able to travel back in time? By you traveling back in time you would be changing the timeline. Which would not be possible in this theory.



Mm, the idea there is that you were always *going* to travel back in time. It was simply always part of history, although you did not know it until you made the trip, since you were going back to before you were born.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

qqwref said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > The "self-consistent" theory: How would you be able to travel back in time? By you traveling back in time you would be changing the timeline. Which would not be possible in this theory.
> ...



So this states that time is still 'linear,' so to speak?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 3, 2010)

@ spacetime being 4 dimensional: Mathematical simplifications do occur when you consider time to be a 4th dimension alongside the normal three of space. However, time and space have fundamentally different properties (observe that you can remember what happened in the past, but not remember what will happen in the future). The relativistic transform also affects them in somewhat different ways (mathematically: your relative speed in terms of the vector <x,y,z,t>, with x,y,z being speeds in multiples of the speed of light and t being the time dilation constant, always has a length of 1). So keep in mind that space-time is very different from fourspace, even though both have four dimensions.



hawkmp4 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > PatrickJameson said:
> ...



Yeah. In that theory, although most people would move forward constantly, history would show (if you could observe all of it) that time travelers would occasionally jump to other times. The big problem is that if you cannot affect the past then you have no free will after having time-traveled backwards (and indeed from the perspective of someone in the future you have no free will at any time).



RealDeal said:


> When the universe was first creative all the matter in the universe was traveling faster than light. Most of the theories about the creation of the universe say that the universe expanded to the size of several thousand light-years across in a fraction of a second shortly after being created. If this is the case then matter would need to travel faster than light in order for the universe to reach that size in that fraction of a second.



Ah, but it didn't, because it was not the matter moving, but rather space itself expanding. The law of keeping under the speed of light is always considered relative to space itself. Hence, when we see very far objects red-shifted by so much that our calculations tell us they are moving faster than the speed of light, the conclusion is that the universe is expanding, not that the laws of physics are broken.


----------



## Ashmnafa (Aug 3, 2010)

I've been reading the Douglas Adams' The Ultimate Hitchikers Guide, and it got me thinking as well.

I think that if you mess something up in the past, it was meant to happen. It is part of the timeline, and everything that had happened never existed, and the new future is was does exist, and that was supposed to happen.

There is also a theory that for every choice you make, another universe is created with the alternate choice, and therefore, nothing would happen in the big scheme of things, maybe you didn't kill your parents in another universe, so you do still exist, but in another universe.

Kinda confusing in my opinion.


----------



## teller (Aug 3, 2010)

Not possible. Time isn't corporeal, it's conceptual. There is no temporal graph paper that you move across, only the perception of it because we have memory.

But now they seem to have shown that certain quantum effects propagate both forward and backward in time, and I don't really understand it and I am asked to either get a PhD in physics or once again eat a bunch of credentials in place of any kind of coherent explanation. Where is Feynman when the freshmen need him, eh? But you watch--when the rubber meets the road, in actual practice, scientists will not be able to transmit so much as one bit of massless data backward in time. And that tiny bit of data would be enough to create the usual paradox.

And whoever mentioned string theory needs to look for methodological similarities with the old ptolemaic epicycles. The math sorta worked, until it didn't, and they had to heap on endless complexity to make that spaghetti path fit into an elliptical hole. String theory people keep finding errors and they just tack on additional dimensions, like spackle. It's gross...


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

Quantum physics is scientists' way of saying, "Random crap happens and we dont know why."

Just so you know.


----------



## JTW2007 (Aug 3, 2010)

I discussed this a while ago with Kip Thorne. If I recall correctly, he said that he considered time travel to be achievable by a very advanced civilization capable of manipulating black holes, but it would be impossible to travel backward in time to before the time machine being used was created. I think he also said that he supports the "self-consistent" theory as outlined in the original post.


----------



## goatseforever (Aug 3, 2010)

ITT: The geniuses of Speedsolving.com gradually come to realize that they are unable to travel back in time.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Quantum physics is scientists' way of saying, "Random crap happens and we dont know why."
> 
> Just so you know.


Right. Cause it's all unsubstantiated guessing. Right? None of it is backed up by experiment...
What are your qualifications for dismissing an entire modern field of study as BS?


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 3, 2010)

Just because I thought it'd be somewhat appropriate.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum physics is scientists' way of saying, "Random crap happens and we dont know why."
> ...



Quantum physics hasnt proved any reasons for the experiments they conduct. Only that these things happen.

Plus I'm on Einsteins side: "God does not play dice!"


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2010)

@Dane man: haha wow. Einstein's "God does not play dice" is what left him behind in physics, because he was too comfortable with his ideology.

Anyway, I don't think backwards time-travel is possible.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...


The evidence is against Einstein, AFAIK.

So, then, do you discount Newton's theory of gravity as BS? He didn't explain why things behaved that way. Just that they did.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 3, 2010)

The guy that you kill is not your real dad.

If you really did travel back in time in the same timeline as the one you are/were on, I would argue there's no way that you could kill your biological father. If you do end up killing that guy, he must not be your dad. Otherwise, you would not be alive. I know this kinda presumes a deterministic attitude towards life (which I don't agree with, or at least would not like to agree with) but I would have to stick to that answer. 

2 possibilities. You either really didn't travel back in time (just to some other parallel universe or whatever, or you did travel back in time and killed someone who wasn't your dad.


----------



## Slash (Aug 3, 2010)

I've watched Ranzha's videos about string theory and now it's clear for me. my friend told me about it before but I didn't really get it.

So, as I see, to be able to travel in time, we 'only' have to fold the fourth dimension which is - according to that theory - is time. I've also heard that it could be possible with some giant energy explosion like half of the Earth's atoms' fusion - it might not the right expression, but it means the thing which is in the hydrogen bomb: two hydrogens collide, and because of the huge energy (50 million Celsius degrees) the fuse and will be a Helium atom. This happens in the Sun too.
So, if there was that big energy, the fourth dimension - the time - would fold, and so that we would be able to go to another place of that dimension.

P.S tell me if you don't get anything, I can barely speak about it in Hungarian too


----------



## jiggy (Aug 3, 2010)

Guys, guys, guys. You're all forgetting the Futurama theory:

You went back in time.
You did the nasty in the pasty.
You are your own grandfather.




Slash said:


> I've watched Ranzha's videos about string theory and now it's clear for me.


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2010)

First of all: String Theory is not a scientific theory. Unless they've developed another model with at least 1 testable hypothesis, it can't be called a scientific theory. Like someone said, it's like Ptolemy's model of the solar system. The math's interesting, but it's bs.

Second of all, that video doesn't describe string theory dimensions (or dimensions in any theory, as far as I know). Most of the dimensions in string theory are 'curled' so tight that they're very small, smaller than strings (I think?). Definitely not encompassing entire universes.


----------



## Zane_C (Aug 3, 2010)

Personally I don't think that physics allows reverse time travel. If so it did, perhaps parellel universes come into account.


----------



## Faz (Aug 3, 2010)

qqwref said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > The "self-consistent" theory: How would you be able to travel back in time? By you traveling back in time you would be changing the timeline. Which would not be possible in this theory.
> ...



Reminds me of the Time Turner from Harry Potter.


----------



## Dene (Aug 3, 2010)

So Dene was wondering, why would you go back and see your parents if you could go back in time? Can't you think of anyone that might be a bit more interesting? Personally I'd go and see Jesus on the way to Aristotle.


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...



are you in any way familiar with solid state mechanics? because that is the basis for our modern society, experimenting with quantum mechanics gave us solid state mechanics, which in turn gave us the microchip and the computer, so without the 'random crap happening' you wouldn't even have the means to critisize their research



aronpm said:


> _First of all: String Theory is not a scientific theory. Unless they've developed another model with at least 1 testable hypothesis, it can't be called a scientific theory. Like someone said, it's like Ptolemy's model of the solar system. The math's interesting, but it's bs._
> 
> Second of all, that video doesn't describe string theory dimensions (or dimensions in any theory, as far as I know). Most of the dimensions in string theory are 'curled' so tight that they're very small, smaller than strings (I think?). Definitely not encompassing entire universes.



how is string theory not a scientific theory, just because we can't test it with todays technology doesn't make it redundant, it is suported by the *vast* majority of the theorectical evidence, also, if you knew anything about string theory, you would know that their are 5 branches of string theory, along with loop quantum gravity they point towards m-theory, admitadly this is also speculative, but all the research in string theory also suports m-theory

you are right about the video though, i have the book and the authur doesn't have a lot of understanding on the dimensions in string theory, he says that his theory is just his thought on how extra dimensions could be represented


----------



## PatrickJameson (Aug 3, 2010)

qqwref said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



So for this theory to work, when you time travel back in time you would have to have no realization that you are time traveling?

Otherwise the only thing I could see would be a higher power controlling you a preventing you from messing up the timeline.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 3, 2010)

Hahah well a lot of people might wish they could go back in time and break the world record back in the 1982 World Championships. I know I would. Well look what I found! Now you can! Time Machine for Rubik's Cube Speedsolving


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

aronpm said:


> _First of all: String Theory is not a scientific theory. Unless they've developed another model with at least 1 testable hypothesis, it can't be called a scientific theory. Like someone said, it's like Ptolemy's model of the solar system. The math's interesting, but it's bs._
> 
> Second of all, that video doesn't describe string theory dimensions (or dimensions in any theory, as far as I know). Most of the dimensions in string theory are 'curled' so tight that they're very small, smaller than strings (I think?). Definitely not encompassing entire universes.



how is string theory not a scientific theory, just because we can't test it with todays technology doesn't make it redundant, it is suported by the *vast* majority of the theorectical evidence, also, if you knew anything about string theory, you would know that their are 5 branches of string theory, along with loop quantum gravity they point towards m-theory, admitadly this is also speculative, but all the research in string theory also suports m-theory

you are right about the video though, i have the book and the authur doesn't have a lot of understanding on the dimensions in string theory, he says that his theory is just his thought on how extra dimensions could be represented


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> how is string theory not a scientific theory, just because we can't test it with todays technology doesn't make it redundant, it is suported by the *vast* majority of the theorectical evidence, also, if you knew anything about string theory, you would know that their are 5 branches of string theory, along with loop quantum gravity they point towards m-theory, admitadly this is also speculative, but all the research in string theory also suports m-theory
> 
> you are right about the video though, i have the book and the authur doesn't have a lot of understanding on the dimensions in string theory, he says that his theory is just his thought on how extra dimensions could be represented



Can you please post some of this *vast* evidence? I'd like to see it.


----------



## Nestor (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > _First of all: String Theory is not a scientific theory. Unless they've developed another model with at least 1 testable hypothesis, it can't be called a scientific theory. Like someone said, it's like Ptolemy's model of the solar system. The math's interesting, but it's bs._
> ...



Although string theory cannot be directly prooven by experiment any time soon, we don't need to in order to find out if it is right. We just need to solve it and rederive cosmological values from it (if it is really a theory of everything and not just another step towards an even deeper theory). The problem with string theory is that in order to do so: 
(1) non-pertuvative methods need to be employed and we have yet to developed the neccesary mathematics to do so or (2) we need to somehow discover its unknown, underlying physical principle and work from there, instead of working backwards from acidentally discovered equations.

If you ask me, the theory shows all the signs that it is correct: it contains Einstein's, Supergravity, Maxwell's, quantum mechanics (the whole of the Standard model actually) and Kaluza-klein tehories as subsets, and all of these are derived from the theory itself and are needed for self consistency requirements alone. No other theory is even close to the promise that string theory shows of being the unifying model between the different 'branchs' of pshysics.

I just wish that it can be solved during my lifetime so I can go to the grave knowing if it is right...


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

aronpm said:


> DT546 said:
> 
> 
> > how is string theory not a scientific theory, just because we can't test it with todays technology doesn't make it redundant, it is suported by the *vast* majority of the theorectical evidence, also, if you knew anything about string theory, you would know that their are 5 branches of string theory, along with loop quantum gravity they point towards m-theory, admitadly this is also speculative, but all the research in string theory also suports m-theory
> ...



if you want to find evidence for string theory just do some google searches, all i know about string theory i got from books (brian greene, michio kaku) if you are interested, do some further research in your own time as i don't think everyone would appreciate me posting huge blocks of text describing the complex mathematics of string theory, admitadly i know almost nothing about the math of the theory, but i do know about the general principles


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 3, 2010)

DT546 said:


> DT546 said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



It has actually been proven that backwards time travel can happen. Someone has built a time machine using high energy lasers that are supposed to warp spacetime (or something, idk how), but at the moment they can only send 1 subatomic particle at a time backwards to the time when they first turned the time machine on. And once that subatomic particle has gone back in time to when they did turn it on, the same particle in the present will be instantly destroyed.

And what I think would happen:

I somewhat agree with the first one about it could happen, but then I think you would instantly disappear instead of fading away.

EDIT: Oh yeah, someone else has also invented a concept of space travel faster than light speed, something like, create a huge ball of energy (bigger than Earth), then somehow create a slowly rotating space ship thing inside that energy ball (rotating so it creates artificial gravity). They said it would be fuelled with anti-matter, because it releases a LOT of energy, apparently enough so that you could get to a very far away star with fuel less than the size and weight of 4 sugar cubes (well that's actually what they said ). The energy ball could supposedly destroy whatever is in front of it and instantly recreate the same thing behind it, so somewhat like a teleporter(?)


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> It has actually been proven that backwards time travel can happen. Someone has built a time machine using high energy lasers that are supposed to warp spacetime (or something, idk how), but at the moment they can only send 1 subatomic particle at a time backwards to the time when they first turned the time machine on. And once that subatomic particle has gone back in time to when they did turn it on, the same particle in the present will be instantly destroyed.
> 
> And what I think would happen:
> 
> I somewhat agree with the first one about it could happen, but then I think you would instantly disappear instead of fading away.



:fp


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 3, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > It has actually been proven that backwards time travel can happen. Someone has built a time machine using high energy lasers that are supposed to warp spacetime (or something, idk how), but at the moment they can only send 1 subatomic particle at a time backwards to the time when they first turned the time machine on. And once that subatomic particle has gone back in time to when they did turn it on, the same particle in the present will be instantly destroyed.
> ...



:fp:fp


----------



## Zane_C (Aug 3, 2010)

Ronald L Mallet hasn't achieved that yet.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 3, 2010)

Dene said:


> So Dene was wondering, why would you go back and see your parents if you could go back in time? Can't you think of anyone that might be a bit more interesting? Personally I'd go and see Jesus on the way to Aristotle.



No, Galileo, Newton, Copericus, and Archimedes would all be more interesting than Aristotle


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



No Gravity is real but we don't know why. The events studied in quantum physics do occur, but we don't know why, but scientists claim that it's because all matter is completely random. I don't agree.

This break off discussion is finished.


----------



## Tord (Aug 3, 2010)

*A consistent timeline*

Interesting.
I remember reading up on time travel in the early stages of my fascination of physics. If I recall my conclusion correctly, time travel is currently impossible, practically speaking.

Nevertheless, a hypothetical time-travel is still an interesting question.
If going back in time, before the conception of myself, a murder of either parent would seize my existence. Now, how could I have murdered anyone if I never existed? Flabbergasting.

Nay, I will rather support the Novikov self-consistency principle. So, given that your father/mother is alive in present time when you decide to time travel (with the intention to murder), incidents that circumvents his/her death will naturally occur. (e.g. change of mind / aforementioned victim on is at unavailable location / random time travel fail) = i.e. the probability of a time travel paradox to occur is zero.
Since the past is unchangeable, this has always been history. In a way, I might even be the reason my parents found each others. 

This theory is arguably flawed, but I find it sufficient. Primarily because it eliminates time travel paradoxes. (It is also fun to ponder upon. Like Feliks said, an illustration of this theory would be the time turner incident in the third Harry Potter book.)


----------



## Slash (Aug 3, 2010)

Dane man said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...



Some people think that there's a particle called "graviton" which transfers gravity between two elements. It's not found yet, but on my opinion it can be true.

on topic: I think that if we traveled back in time and changed something, then this would be another timeline which would continue. I mean, if I traveled back 2 days and killed e.g. my dog, another timeline without my dog would continue.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 3, 2010)

Slash said:


> Some people think that there's a particle called "graviton" which transfers gravity between two elements. It's not found yet, but on my opinion it can be true.



Lets see If I can direct this on topic.

Scientists have speculated that since the "Graviton" is a particle that warps space time, if they could control it, then they could concentrate it enough to warp two points in space time into the same place, theoretically allowing you to step from one point to the other thus time travel. (or teleportation)


----------



## Khartaras (Aug 3, 2010)

Cool Frog said:


> I think that our universe is someone's dream and one day they will wake up and we will all cease to exist. This is 100% undeniable truth



I've always thought about this. I think it's called the "Simulation theory". Like, imagine that there is a hugely advanced civilization that created a simulation for Earth that was massively advanced. Jeez, it's weird. I think we'll never know.


----------



## Slash (Aug 3, 2010)

I think Earth is a reality show made by aliens. (South Park idea)


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Aug 3, 2010)

I think that it would be impossible to change the past, meaning you couldn't go _back_ in time.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 3, 2010)

Khartaras said:


> Cool Frog said:
> 
> 
> > I think that our universe is someone's dream and one day they will wake up and we will all cease to exist. This is 100% undeniable truth
> ...


Sounds similar to the evil demon argument, which I find fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_daemon



Dane man said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...


That's fine- you're not a scientist 



vcuber13 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > So Dene was wondering, why would you go back and see your parents if you could go back in time? Can't you think of anyone that might be a bit more interesting? Personally I'd go and see Jesus on the way to Aristotle.
> ...


Agreed. I think I'd have to visit Fermat though, and see if he really did have a proof...


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2010)

The thing is it is possible to go through time. Just forward though...at regular speed.


----------



## IamWEB (Aug 3, 2010)

1.21 GIGAWATTS!


----------



## DT546 (Aug 3, 2010)

IamWEB said:


> 1.21 GIGAWATTS!


----------



## iasimp1997 (Aug 3, 2010)

RopedBBQ said:


> (Lost ftw.)



Hell yeh.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 4, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> That's fine- you're not a scientist



Okay, not all but nost scientists say that. I am a scientists.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 4, 2010)

DT546 said:


> how is string theory not a scientific theory, just because we can't test it with todays technology doesn't make it redundant, it is suported by the *vast* majority of the theorectical evidence


Well, so far it's unfalsifiable - we cannot imagine an experiment that could possibly have an outcome which would prove string theory completely wrong. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this! I'd love to hear it.) It turns out that string theory isn't just a single idea, but rather a giant set of possibilities, with many parameters that can be fine-tuned. It's not too hard to get it to "predict" the currently known properties of subatomic particles. Unfortunately there are also a few other theories that do this, and since that is really the only data we have, it's so far impossible to tell the difference between them.

Besides, personally I think string theory sounds awful silly. Six or so additional dimensions that we can't measure or observe? Incredibly large numbers of incredibly tiny string-like objects (made out of what?) which also can't be observed yet? Math too complicated for our smartest minds and our fastest computers that is routinely solved by particles so small we can't even detect them? As they say, I'll have to see it to believe it.


But back to time. To anyone who thinks time is just another dimension, or only conceptual, or whatever, I'd still like an answer to the question of why we can remember the past but not the future.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 4, 2010)

teller said:


> But now they seem to have shown that certain quantum effects propagate both forward and backward in time, and I don't really understand it and I am asked to either get a PhD in physics or once again eat a bunch of credentials in place of any kind of coherent explanation. Where is Feynman when the freshmen need him, eh? But you watch--when the rubber meets the road, in actual practice, scientists will not be able to transmit so much as one bit of massless data backward in time. And that tiny bit of data would be enough to create the usual paradox.



If found an interesting article on Retrocausality here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-21/opinion/17227872_1_quantum-mechanics-universe-particles

When I first read about it, I couldn't really bring my mind to accept the idea. If it really does exist and we could send signals into the past, it would change our lives completely! I, for one, would welcome a more reliable weather forecast


----------



## Kian (Aug 4, 2010)

qqwref said:


> But back to time. To anyone who thinks time is just another dimension, or only conceptual, or whatever, I'd still like an answer to the question of why we can remember the past but not the future.



I don't necessarily think time is purely conceptual, but I don't think the past/future ends the debate. Who can say what we remember is the past? Who is to say what we experience is the present? Who can say what we're looking forward to is the future? I think the idea that we remember what already happened and don't remember what we perceive to happen in the future is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. We define things how we perceive them, not necessarily based on what reality is. Whatever "reality" means. 

Again, I don't have the answers, but it just seems so very unclear to me. I don't think our very narrow minds (relatively) will ever have a chance at figuring much of anything out.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 4, 2010)

to those who say we will not be able to travel to the past.
If one can travel to the past, one can travel to the future.
Because the present is just the past of the future.

What would happen if say, you went a couple of days into the future, and the first time didnt take your dog. Then went back into time, and traveled back to the future with your dog.
Would your dog be there the first time? Or would your dog have vanished?


----------



## gyc6001 (Aug 4, 2010)

Kian said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > But back to time. To anyone who thinks time is just another dimension, or only conceptual, or whatever, I'd still like an answer to the question of why we can remember the past but not the future.
> ...



agree.
the past and future is merely our imagination that creates it.
and you can't really pinpoint when the present is.


----------



## Khartaras (Aug 4, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > ben1996123 said:
> ...



:fp:fp:fp
This is going somewhere. Not really.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 9, 2010)

Kian said:


> I don't think our very narrow minds (relatively) will ever have a chance at figuring much of anything out.



I don't really understand why people say stuff like this, about humans being simply unable to understand certain things, or really anything along those lines. No matter who you are there are people who are smarter or have better intuition than you, not to mention the improvements in understanding that come with time. Nobody 1000 years ago would have understood the kind of number theory that many mathematicians use on a daily basis nowadays, or even basic relativity, but that doesn't mean humanity can't ever learn it, just that we hadn't figured it out yet. I think saying we are incapable of figuring something out is extremely pessimistic and even a little insulting.

How can you say something is beyond our reach, if we have not yet tried to reach for it?


----------



## Rinfiyks (Aug 9, 2010)

What _really_ annoys me is the idea that circular events can occur from nothing.


Imagine you're a spaceship pilot from a few centuries into the future, but your ship is malfunctioning and about to be destroyed. You have to hop into an escape pot and jettison yourself to the nearest planet.

So there you are, abandoned on a deserted planet. But then you see another ship land, and your future self steps out to save you! He then takes you home, says good bye, and time travels back into the future.
A week later, you go and save yourself from the planet.


Here's the same paradox put simply.

You're just sitting at home, speedcubin', minding your own business, when *poof!*, your future self time travels back to meet you. He gives you a mysterious object, then goes back to his time.
Fifty years later, you are able to acquire a time machine. You go back in time and give the mysterious object to your past self.
Where did it come from in the first place?


The point I'm trying to make is that there's no "beginning" to these events.
I think that the multiple timelines theory is most plausible.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 9, 2010)

There's a possibility that the events didn't occur from nothing, but from causes that don't matter anymore. What I mean is this: in the spaceship/planet scenario, imagine that you are rescued after 10 or so days by some other ship, and then later travel back (to 7 days after you landed) to rescue yourself earlier. If you think there is only one timeline, that would create a 'stable time loop' where you are saved by yourself and then travel back to save yourself. So the loop didn't come into existence on its own, but was created when some future you traveled back in time to change past events.


----------



## Rinfiyks (Aug 9, 2010)

qqwref said:


> There's a possibility that the events didn't occur from nothing, but from causes that don't matter anymore. What I mean is this: in the spaceship/planet scenario, imagine that you are rescued after 10 or so days by some other ship, and then later travel back (to 7 days after you landed) to rescue yourself earlier. If you think there is only one timeline, that would create a 'stable time loop' where you are saved by yourself and then travel back to save yourself. So the loop didn't come into existence on its own, *but was created when some future you traveled back in time* to change past events.



Future you doesn't exist before the time loop to be able to create it though.


----------



## Enter (Aug 9, 2010)

- There has always been a single consistent timeline. You find that you cannot change the past at all, so the death could not occur - the universe would somehow prevent it. (The "self-consistent" theory.)


----------



## riffz (Aug 9, 2010)

I don't really think time travel is possible. There are so many logical flaws, but maybe some day we will gain a greater understanding.


----------



## Gavin (Aug 9, 2010)

Time travel is quite obviously possible. Just get a DeLorean going at 88mph. Oh and don't forget the flux capacitor.

Seriously though, time isn't a constant. The closer you are traveling to the speed of light, the slower you age/time flows. Not sure what that has to do with time travel, but its something.


----------



## Ton (Aug 9, 2010)

It looks obvious to me that you can relatively go forward in time 

I can only think of go backwards if you are not bound by time it self


----------



## cpt.Justice (Aug 9, 2010)

Time travel is possible, but people usually realize it's a bad idea.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Aug 9, 2010)

Dane man said:


> No Gravity is real but we don't know why. The events studied in quantum physics do occur, but we don't know why, but scientists claim that it's because all matter is completely random. I don't agree.
> 
> This break off discussion is finished.



+100


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 9, 2010)

riffz said:


> I don't really think time travel is possible. There are so many logical flaws, but maybe some day we will gain a greater understanding.



Well right now, we look back at people's scientific views from several hundred years ago (The sun revolves around the Earth!) and we think that they are stupid, so several hundred years from now people will look back and say, "People really didn't think time travel is possible back then? Wow they were stupid!"  

lol seriously, I don't have much knowledge to contribute to this..will be taking a conceptual physics class this year though...so everyone make sure this discussion is still alive by the end of next school year so i can contribute


----------



## Jebediah54 (Aug 11, 2010)

Going back to the whole "there are infinitely many universes with infinitely many laws of physics with infinitely many possibilities and infinitely many similar outcomes" kind of idea, I'd like to submit perhaps time travel is just transporting yourself to a universe where time is backwards to us. If you were to stay in that universe and jump back to a universe with laws exactly the same as ours (which isn't actually ours, just a universe created from you appearing from another universe...) then you would be able to have an effect on that universe (and the universes created from that point on from that universe), but would not actually have an effect on our universe other than you disappearing and reappearing (possibly instantaneously).

The only problem with this idea is that if you went to a universe where time traveled in reverse, wouldn't that have an effect on you, meaning that you wouldn't have the same intentions that had developed, and would reverse age with the universe. Which just leads to you not changing anything and would do the exact same things that you did/would do had the events been the same in that new universe.

Wow, that was a lot of rambling to come to the conclusion that time travel in this sense is really absolutely nothing other than you possibly experiencing another life outcome.


----------



## Feanaro (Aug 11, 2010)

It seems plausible that if it were possible to go back in time, say via a machine, it would be like rewinding time like a VHS, and you could only go back as far as the machine existed. Even if you could "rewind" farther, there would be no chances of paradoxes because you wouldn't have existed before you were born, so you can't "rewind" to a time were you could kill them before you were born


----------



## TrollingHard (Aug 11, 2010)

If we were to travel back in time, it would create infinite possibilities 




Or we could just say that we all live in a giant computer inside a giant computer inside a giant computer inside a giant computer...simulation hypothesis


----------



## magicman246 (Aug 12, 2010)

I would go back in time and steal David Tennant's Tardis. Then I would punch Matt Smith for not being good enough. (Doctor Who references )


----------



## Siraj A. (Aug 12, 2010)

If space-time is curved like some believed, then a wormhole connecting two parts of space-time is probably the best bet for time travel. Backward time travel is most likely NOT possible due to all of the paradoxes created, unless one can go back in time and leave every little particle the way it was, and not alter a single thing (which is probably impossible). 

Maybe backward time travel is possible, and the alteration created will just set you into a parallel universe? Who knows.

According to Michio Kaku, time travel is a Class II Impossibility:" “technologies that sit at the very edge of our understanding of the physical world," possibly taking thousands or millions of years to become available. "

Einstein's equations show that it may be possible, but the amount of energy is way too vast to be achieved by anything acquirable now or in the near future. (ie, speeds that exceed Light)

But if we humans do find technology that allows us to travel faster than the speed of light, I think we should use that to ensure our own survival as a species, (traveling to other galaxies, as stars inevitably die out.) and not traveling through time.



qqwref said:


> Besides, personally I think string theory sounds awful silly. Six or so additional dimensions that we can't measure or observe?



Well we can't even comprehend any higher spatial dimension. That's like a 2 dimensional Flatlander trying to move in and out. They are only limited to what their universe is, which is just 2 dimensions. So same for us, just with 3. Isn't there, though, mathematical evidence for higher dimensions? Some complex equations that I have no idea what they even proof, lol.


----------



## gon (Aug 12, 2010)

magicman246 said:


> I would go back in time and steal David Tennant's Tardis. Then I would punch Matt Smith for not being good enough. (Doctor Who references )



Don't punch Matt Smith, he's a brilliant doctor!


----------

