Crazy is such an ugly word but how else can we describe these concepts? They each try to explain some aspect of our universe in a manner that just seems bizarre. Granted, most things in the universe are odd already, and we haven’t even begun to fully understand a fraction of it, but there’s something particularly disturbing about these theories. They express ideas that are too mindboggling and inconceivable, even for fellow scientists. While none of them have been verified or completely dismissed, we should still speculate because in a universe as crazy as ours, we just never know what might be true.
The ekpyrotic scenario provides an alternative to the widely accepted Big Bang theory. It suggests that, unlike the Big Bang that began from singularity, our universe is one of a pair of universes that collided. The effect of the collision resets the universe. From there, it expands for billions of light years (the way we imagine the Big Bang occurring) until it contracts back to the Big Crunch. The speed and energy of that reduction creates another massive collision and the universe is reborn. The cycle continues for infinity.
Did you catch the crazy part? This theory states there’s another universe out there. That’s not too strange considering we accept the possibility of parallel universes. But if the ekpyrotic scenario is correct, our twin universe is right next to us in another dimension, separated by a distance less than the diameter of an atom. That’s close, even for siblings.
White holes, unlike their black hole neighbors, have not been studied because they only exist in an extremely hypothetical situation. In fact, there’s not even a clear understanding what a white hole could be. Is it the other end of a black hole? Is it a wormhole? Is it something else entirely?
Generally, white holes are thought to spit out matter, much like black holes eat matter. For this to happen, the matter that passes through a black hole would have to be protected during the voyage, avoiding the process of merging into singularity. No white holes have ever been detected, up to this point, and no black holes have been seen without an event horizon (the guarding force around a black hole that prevents us from seeing them) that may show us just how matter passes through. To do that, white holes would have to break a few laws of physics and reinstitute some ideas that have been discarded; that’s asking a lot. Until then, white holes are best left for hypothetical ideas or naughty jokes.
According to Professor Lawrence Krauss, every time we look at dark energy, we’re killing the universe. Now dark energy, as you may recall, makes up 70% of the universe. It answers for all the invisible peculiarities we see in deep space. It’s also one of the most perplexing concepts that’s becoming more accepted nowadays. Why wouldn’t we try to explore it?
He suggests that the Big Bang was initiated when strange high energy with repellent gravity decayed into zero-energy; it went from a false vacuum to an ordinary vacuum causing the universe to happen. Now in quantum mechanics, there is what’s called the quantum Zeno effect. It states that if an unstable object is observed regularly, it will never decay. Krauss argues then, that under the same principle, if dark energy is continuously observed, we are keeping it unstable and reducing the universe’s lifespan by forcing it back to that state when it was a false vacuum. With our interest so high in the invisible dark energy that makes up the universe, it seems unlikely that astronomers will stop studying it. If Krauss is right, we’re doomed.
Does anyone remember that little movie that came out a few years ago? The protagonist could stop bullets and see time slow down as he fought his enemies. It was called the Matrix. Did you catch it?
If you haven’t, (been living under a rock much?) go check it out, because it might provide the ultimate answer to the universe: we live in a computer program. It surely seems like science fiction to say that one day computers will become so powerful that they will be able to simulate consciousness, but as technology advances, that crazy thought could become reality. In a simulated world, we could be trapped in the mundane until death or live out fantasies and never even realize we’re hooked up to a machine. Hell, for all we know, we’re in a matrix universe right now. Time to start a rebel team and escape, don’t you think?
On the subject of the unreal, there’s another theory that suggests we’re not in an elaborate computer program but that much of what we think is the universe is nothing more than a hologram made by the universe itself.
The idea is when we look at the night sky, we’re seeing a wall with an image on it (that includes all the galaxies and stars). This holographic principle might explain why the universe appears grainy on the most basic of energy scales. Remember that a holographic image is created when an object is bathed by the light of a laser and a second laser jumps off the first’s reflective surface (which is then recorded). A third light illuminates the image to reveal the holograph. If changes to gravity waves is caused by patterns of light, than it would simulate what is, essentially, the process of creating a holographic image. If this was proven, then it would change most of what we think we know about the universe.
We could be the child of a black hole. The idea is, when matter gets pulled into a black hole, it becomes so dense before reaching singularity, that the black hole might spit it back out and form a universe from that very same matter.
In other words, a universe with many black holes would have created many baby universes. We still can’t detect exactly where black holes are located in our universe (though we can estimate their location by recording the movement of stars and planets around them) but that might just be because we’re a baby universe, a product of another universe’s black hole with insufficient means. This idea supports the possibility of the multiverse where there could be an infinite amount of universes.
On the subject of an omniverse, the many-worlds interpretation takes a different approach explaining multiple universes. While I can tell you that this concept of quantum mechanics argues the objective reality of space but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse (or rather the condensing of physical possibilities into one single occurrence) but I go cross-eyed just thinking about that. Basically, the interpretation says for every decision we make, a new universe is born.
When you woke up this morning, did you brush your teeth? Another you may be living in a different universe where you didn’t, while you live in the universe where you did (I’m giving the present you the benefit of the doubt). After that, did you floss? Again, a separate universe exists depending on the outcome of your choice. Each decision then is played out in full until you come across another decision and another universe branches out from there. If this is the case, then there are an infinite amount of universes, each accounting for every person’s every decision.
The argument uses the second law of thermodynamics by stating that if the universe was infinite, it should also be infinitely old. Or to make that sound less daunting, a star one hundred light years away could only be there if the universe was at least one hundred years old (if the speed was constant, more on that later). So if the universe is infinitely old, heat death suggests everywhere should be the same temperature and there should be no stars in the sky because they all would have died out (or they should all be at the same cooled temperature).
The explanation: If the universe was infinitely old, then stars should be cool because they warmed their surroundings, making the temperature across the universe uniform. However, there are stars and the universe doesn’t have an equal temperature throughout (as detected by cosmic background radiation). This idea also only works if the speed at which the universe is expanding has remained constant because such ideas as cosmic inflation claim expansion is not always the same. When you have variables such as dark flow and dark energy also pushing and tugging on matter, heat death’s vision of a starless sky appears dim (slight pun intended).
The theory of everything will be the ultimate discovery. It would combine quantum mechanics and general relatively to solve all the riddles around us into a neat little package. It would be able to name all the physical constants in the universe, whether or not those constants vary over time, locate other fundamental elements in the unobservable universe (such as dark matter and dark energy), and so on.
But why mention it here? Well, to have a theory that would explain all the mysteries of a seemingly changing universe seems insane. Think of a screw trying to fit into hundreds of holes in a wall but every hole is a different size and shape and possibly in a different dimension or universe. That’s a big achievement but scientists hope to find a unified answer. The closest possibility we have right now is the M-theory, an extension of string theory.
What do Marty McFly, Dr. Who and Bill and Ted have in common? They’re time travelers. They were able to do the impossible and make the voyage through our perception of time. It should go without saying time travel comes with a whole universe of problems, making the possibility extremely unrealistic. Consider the following:
You go back in time and kill your father. Theoretically, you can’t kill him because then you wouldn’t be born to kill him. You do so anyway and it turns out, he isn’t your real father and you actually killed your step-father. You’re real father goes untouched and thus the past and present line up perfectly. Well, not yet. When you left the present to go into the past, there’s an issue about your body. Do you become a duplicate so you exist in your own present time and in the past or are you displaced from time itself and inserted in another? That also doesn’t make sense because if you follow the rules of what we perceive as time, you’d return to the past as a baby, if even that. What if you go back in time and kiss your high school crush, making him/her fall in love with you? That should alter the future where you lived by yourself that led you to go to the past in the first place. That kiss and its alteration of history keeps you from going to the past at all. If in that different chain of events you still go to the past to make it in time for that kiss, you’ll be trapped in a cycle. And consider that all these questions are only applicable if time is cyclical. If time is linear, your past, present and future aren’t constantly happening somewhere, making time travel impossible (there would be nothing to travel back to). If time was cyclical, this suggests that everything is preordained and you have no free will. What you think of as free will would already be recorded and whatever action you believe is different than the original action is actually the decision you were going to make anyway.
Don’t worry, I got lost along the way too. To simplify all this, we look to Stephen Hawking who provides us with one question that indicates whether time travel will ever be possible: Why aren’t we inundated with time travelers from the future? They should be here right now, knowing full well that we’re interested in such topics as time travel to explain just how they accomplish it from a future tens of thousands of years in the future. This isn’t the case because maybe this science fiction dream is just that: a dream.
I Wish I Could Go Back In Time
If only you could have won the state championship? They sell time machine devices on the internet.
Great list. I've definitely considered #6 many times, didn't know such a theory existed. Raises many questions about the universe and life and all that fun stuff.
awesome list, very interesting and educative.
awesome!
Pretty good. Didn’t Stephen Hawking say time travel was possible, only forward though?
It is possible to speed time up slow time down and reverse time (treat time as a dimension like length etc) in theory, we cannot do it in practice as of yet.
The question Hawkins asks about assuming we could travel back in time why are there no time travelers here – assume it takes us 10,000 years to figure out how to do it – would you want to travel back 10,000 years to a time when man kind was bent on killing each other for no reason and being very good at attacking things we don't understand. I sure as hell wouldn't
English, please?
In theory, Einstein's special relativity allows time travel into the future but not into the past. However, actual theories have been posed as to how **general** relativity could allow some sort of loophole that we could use to travel backwards in time. A lot of people who think they know a lot love to dismiss time travel to the past as if it were nothing more than pseudo-science from pop culture, but you will find a good number of reputable astrophysicists (Princeton's J. Richard Gott, Caltech's Kipp Thorne, just to name two of them) that have proposed ways to use some of the universe's theoretical properties under general relativity to travel into the past.
But even if time travel into the past were theoretically possible, trust me, the technology that we would need to make it happen is waaaaaayyyy beyond us. And I don't mean us, you and me, I mean beyond humanity as a whole. Even forward time travel will be incredibly difficult to achieve and it will require lots and lots of resources, but backward time travel is just a completely different level.
I loved the list, by the way.
only in the sense that modern computer technology was WAY beyond a resident of the ancient Egyptian empire.
The human brain is and has always been far more complex and capable then we think it is, and there's nothing to suggest that humans haven't always been as intelligent as we are now.
Hypothetically speaking, we could sequence the DNA from a 5000 year old skeleton, clone that person into existence, and if raised from "birth" into adulthood it would understand and utilize all of our technology at the same pace as a natural, modern-age human with comparable intelligence would. The idea that a caveman brought to the present would be completely perplexed by modern technology would only hold true as long as it took for us to learn a common language and explain that technology's functions and mode of operation to this hypothetical situation. Hell, when given a phone after being shown that we use the phone to talk into, that ancient person would quickly figure out through observation alone that to use this foreign tool he/she would need to talk into it…
Sure it's inconceivable for us to manipulate time now, but that's only because there are steps that need to be taken between now and then that we haven't yet imagined. Whoever may come up with time travel in x amount of years will have the same brain and body with comparable intelligence of a present-day genius, only they would have also had the contributions of other geniuses proceeding them.
Bohr and Einstein wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without Euclid or Archimedes, and Hawking or Kaku wouldn't be where they are without Einstein.
While these men are all of exceptional intelligence, there's nothing to say that Einstein is any more intelligent than Archimedes, but there was a span of time for refinement and expansions upon the ideas/proofs laid out by Archimedes.
Same could be said of DaVinci and Tesla…
If DaVinci were born in the modern ages, there's no telling what great inventions would be created considering the intervening 500 years since his death.
*preceding, not "proceeding", i'm my own grammar nazi.
lol !! but you also raised some very valid points. good stuff !
Good points. The thing is, unlike time travel into the future, which "only" requires us to find out a way to travel at speeds approaching the speed of light (which by any current or proposed technologies is practically impossible), time travel into the past would require us to find astronomical objects that have not been discovered yet, and not only that but also manipulate them in ways that either are impeded by the laws of physics or demand more resources that are available in the universe. I could be wrong, though. I mean, I don't know *every* theory that has been proposed as to how we could travel backwards in time, but the ones I've read about make it pretty impractical.
You're right, though, in that we've come a long way in only a few thousand years. Give us a million more and we'll do wonders that we couldn't even conceive with our mindsets stuck in the present times, but then again there are things that are pretty much beyond us, because of the physical constraints of the universe. Wouldn't it be exceedingly interesting to somehow find out how humanity or any other civilizations will deal with the inevitable, ultimate fate of the universe, and how far we/they will go with technology?
Wat if there was no time travel until doomsday.. New human species had the technology needed to do time travel but they dont even know if we existed, why would they visit us??
Stephen Hawking wrote a book called The Theory of Everything, check it out
Terrible list – the majority of the items are complex physics, with the usual crap like time travel added in. There is nothing in the slightest bit crazy about white holes or a grand unified theory. calling "The Matrix" a theory is a joke – it would be like calling Star Trek a documentry.
The title should be 8 Scientific Theories I Dont Understand and 2 That I thought would get a laugh.
Ok I'm sorry, but from my understanding of this list whiteholes are completely hypothetical, but you say they are fine, not crazy and it is completely understandable to believe in something that no one has ever seen.
However, the theory of time travel, well to you it is completely inexcusable to put it on the list.
And then the Matrix theory that some actually do believe in- well thats just too crazy to be put on a list of crazy theories.
Really?
The "Matrix Theory" is not a scientific theory, if you can cite me the paper wherein the theory is described then please do.
The theory that allows time travel and wormholes called general relativity can be read here : http://www.publicliterature.org/books/relativity/…
I called time travel crap not because it cant be done, but simply because people who don't understand physics like to cart it out as some sort of show pony.
Also just for reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(science) the moment you disprove a theory it goes away the great thing about relativity and quantum physics is they stand up to experimentation time and time again and predict things that we have yet to observe. 40 years ago no-one had seen a black hole, we have now and relativity predicted it 70 years before we saw one. Scientific theories are not subjective they describe the truth and any real theory will provide empirical data to back itself up.
I will admit that The Matrix theory is really more philosophical where ever I come across it, and I'm not in the habit of reading scientific papers so it's not likely I'll come across any that mention the matrix any time soon.
I really just wanted to point out that you had come across as very hypocritical in your post, but as you understand this subject much better than I do I'm sure you have your reasons. I'll be waiting with baited breath for your list on the topic.
Actually no one has yet "seen" a black hole. Astronomers have only seen visible matter behave in a manner that they would expect it to if there were a black hole nearby. The problem with relativity and quantum physics is that relativity does not hold up at the quantum level and quantum physics do not hold on the macro level. This is why scientists are searching for the "Theory of Everything."
i have seen a black hoe
Geraint, go to the website closertotruth.com … you will find MANY PhD professors talking about ALL 10 of those items on the list … and considering them a possibility. There is nothing logically impossible with any of those theories, therefore they could be true. Sometimes you have to approach things PHILOSOPHICALLY rather than SCIENTIFICALLY. It's people like you that hinder progress by refusing to allow new ideas to come forth.
To suggest that existence as we see it is similar to that of "The Matrix" is ludicrous, it has no decent grounding in logic or reason, it is similar to the idea of God, or the idea of solipsism. It's pop philosophy, it sounds catchy, but has no substance. Of course these ideas are possible, but it is ludicrous to give them any mention in a list discussing scientific theories. This is purely my opinion on the matter, and I've no education in the matter, but it seems rather silly.
And this omniverse thing, agaiin, I've no education in the matter, but to say that it's dependant on the choices made by any concious being is ridiculous. The universe is unable to think, it doesn't care about you, your decisions are irrelevant. What I take this theory to actually be trying to convey is that everytime a particle changes it's position, that due to the fact there is a probability of it existing at every other point in the universe, it does exist in all these points, and this could be described as other possible universes. But that is all by the by, the main point is that it has nothing to do with your decisions, that's silly.
If anyone better read/thought on the matter wants to offer insight into that omniverse thing it would be massively appreciated! It's fascinating stuff!
Did you just call the idea of God, pop culture? lmfao
Just because it's complex physics doesn't mean it's crazy, and just because it's crazy doesn't mean it's wrong. Personally, as a physicist, I'm very surprised that string theory hasn't made this list, as it's definitely one of those theories where we're only half joking when we ask if whoever came up with it was on drugs. But, no matter how you cut it, non-newtonian physics usually get mind-bending enough that "our universe is a computer simulation" is almost plausible by comparison.
Also, think of black holes – mass in zero space, something that's infinitely dense. Or think of the wave-particle duality of light, especially with the double-slit experiment – if you were to observe individual photons, they'd go through one slit at a time, but if you observe the waves, they go through both slits. The faster you travel, the slower time goes, and the more mass you have. Light changes in the presence of gravity. REALLY think about those things. Wouldn't they sound crazy if you hadn't always thought of them as accepted, proven scientific fact?
You can't read this list and not start questioning everything you think about our universe. I have the hardest time with time travel as I refuse to believe I do not have free will. If time is linear than my actions are preordained. If time is cyclical I could go back and change things, but in either case I will not have a perfect state of free will so my mind rejects the concept.
If time is linear than my actions are preordained.
Why would you think that? Your actions and time have nothing to do with one another. There is no correlation between the two. Time before any given moment is gone. It no longer exists. The events that occurred may have been recorded, either physically or in our memories, but those moments in actual time are gone. Time ahead of a given moment has not yet occurred. Therefore it doesn’t exist either, but it will exist/occur, and it will occur regardless of what you do at said given moment. It will continue to occur and transpire even if you don’t exist at all, just as it did before you existed.
Great job,I love lists like this, mind expanders.
One multiverse theory Ive always had is simple. No two people on our earth perceive the world in exactly the same way. Everybody has their own perception of things, ideas and how everything works. It is by these ideas that we make decisions and perform actions and thus create our own worlds in our heads/minds. Therefore you can say that we are living in a multiverse of approximately 7 billion universes.
PS:This is much clearer in my head. Sorry.
What about the Pope, Dalai Lama, and all that religious stuff? I’m athiest, but what if those guys had a test of faith?
@ Kimani – I get you, and I agree – no two people ever see the same things in the same way. E.g, even if we all saw the same movie, or the same movie several times, each time the observer(s) would have a brand new and slightly different experience.
In Fractal Worlds Theory, we each inhabit our own version of the world – the world according to us; which has developed though our interactions and experiences. That's not to say no two people can ever agree on anything, it basically means we are each in the centre of a world we created. And sometimes, yes, the world does revolve around us and our wishes, and sometimes, yes, we can become self centred – but only if we are looking from the inside-out (rather than noticing everybody else trapped in their own versions of the world – e.g. from the outside-in).
Some people are heavily blinkered in their own world bubble, and certainly the more we prioritize ourselves over anybody else, the more blinkered (or blind) we can appear to the onlooker. I have a friend like that. He's so blind to the thoughts and feelings of others he's in his own universe! But perhaps one day we'll all realise our true idenity and give up the 'every man for himself' stuff. Well, it's an ideal I like to share.
>give up the 'every man for himself' stuff. Well, it's an ideal I like to share.
We are not borgs.
@ bacanaso. Correct – and thank God we're not. But we are a global community – or I like to think so.
my bad for taking you out of context, thats cool I get what you are saying
That’s very philisophical Kimani, but it has nothing to do with the multiverse theory. The perception of consciouss beings has nothing to do with the actual physical universe.
Love this list as much as I love the ambiguity of what the universe really is, which brings me to the point: Why is it full of scientific theories on the universe? Well then the title of the list should be changed, LOL. But anyway, I still love this lit.
I wish time travel would be possible.
I wish you learned your grammatical tenses.
why is my mouth moving and why am i typing the words in my head? why do i hate avocados? why do i think the way that i do and why is there no chocolate in front of me? why are there rich people are how come there are more poor people? why do people do the things that they do and why am reading listverse??? why am i commenting here . .. why why why why why why .. ….
@godiva: Why? To answer all your eight questions together, 'Because it IS SO' (otherwise it wouldn't be so – which would negate the question). Rather Zen, but hey.
Coz you are adopted!
It might help to consider "why" to be more an 'operator' on questions than a true question itself.
In my experience it is used to follow a line of inference towards degrees of greater complexity or simplicity.
For example, if some omniscient entity explained that the universe was this way for such a reason you could still ask "why?", which would still seem to have meaning for you but be ultimately useless as a way to further the explanation.
A NSFW example of this principle as described by comedian Louis CK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA
These theories are crazy indeed…
And yet so fascinating…
Nice List, although I would appreciate if you added more theories from other fields of science like biology and chemistry, cause this list is mainly physics…
So, a little variety would be appreciated..
Good job though, the list is well-written…
this list was so boring I barely made i t through the third entry. Sorry.
Why don't you get off this website and stop posting "boring" on every list that's published. Get a life.
What? is it a little too smart for your incompetent mind? Get a life troller
your mom was so boring I barely made it through the third entry. Sorry.
i wish 'your mom' had a wordpress account. (s)he says some incrediuosly stupid *****, and constantly gets an assload of negative rates.
b ythe mathematic formula that intensedebate uses to figure out the 'reputation meter', im thinking 'your mom' might very well have graduated into quadruple digits on negativity.
at some point the internets should implode.
this is simiiliar to when i stayed in my house, on the beach, during katrina — i just wanna see what happens.
you just dont run across many good implosions or spontanious combustions these days
*sigh*
If the purpose of this coimment is to make me feel superior to you it has succeeded beautifully, thanks,
Also, time is relative and once a moment has happened, it's gone. It's sad that we can't travel back in time though cause that would be soooo fun.
time also moves differently at separate points in the universe and is also unique to each and every individual sentient entity. clocks may chug along at a more or less constant pace, but clocks are just a human invention to measure something that exists only in the general sense of the term "exists".
Time isn't actually a physical thing, just the most well understood way of defining growth and decay.
Time isnt a physical thing? What do you mean?
” well understood way of defining growth and decay.” well you only give a definition for the arrow of time but time is also part of maxwells equations and derived from that the propagation equation. And in propagation you dont have growth or decay but you do have a variable of time. I think time is a physical thing and i imagine physicist to think the same since they utilise the concept of spacetime.
@ Ricky: You got it.
"white holes are thought to spit out matter, much like black holes eat matter"
Actually, although blackholes take in matter, they also expel matter and radiation.
And, once they've reached reached a limit in matter "consumption", it is then expelled.
Yes, its crazy theories, but it seems to me to simply be a Black Hole from another angle and period in time.
Otherwise, enjoyed the list.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environmen…
the time travelling thing was so confusing
P.S nice name your mom
P.P.S LSGH FTW
Honestly, this is the first extremely interesting list that I couldn't read all the way through in one sitting. It's humbling that people understand this stuff to the extent they can write about it so that the unwashed masses who are unschooled in quantum physics singularities type stuff, of which I am one, can understand it (mostly). Extremely well written list in that respect, and it's interesting to me – it just makes my brain hurt this early in the morning (and I don't even have a hangaround, either). I WILL get through it, and be more likely to comprehend the subject the next time it comes up. Thanks, valentinedragon!
I love lists like this. Like stuff that'll make you question and scrutinize life itself, they're just so fascinating.
I've read articles concerning the possibility of time travel being possible ONLY if the multiple worlds theory is true. Basically it states that whatever paradoxes may arise can be explained by considering the fact that if there are an infinite number of universes based on each and every decision you can or will make, then you could hypothetically time travel to a parallel universe, kill your grandfather, but still have been born in an alternate universe to cross over to a different universe. However, there would be no guarantee that you could travel forward into time to return to your original present, and even if you could travel forward in time to your original present, you would be in another alternate, parallel universe. Using your example, you left from the universe where you brushed your teeth this morning, but you may return to the universe where you didn't brush your teeth this morning.
Also, geneticists have started to posit the idea that we only have the illusion of free will, as it is appearing more and more likely that our genes don't just determine what traits we have, but also what our opinions, perceptions, preferences are like along with how we will make our decisions.
I have my own theory regarding many of these ideas based on research I have done myself, but until I fully put it together and get it written out, I won't discuss it at any greater length.
Excellent post Ricky. The Many Worlds Interpretation is the most robust interpretation of QM and it does indeed resolve all the paradoxes of time travel. I wish more people understood it because it's a fantastic theory.
I also believe our 'free will' is not merely a result of genetics but also a product of arguably deterministic quantum processes in our brains. We have no more free will than a pile of rocks.
I'd like to hear your theories if you would consider discussing them informally?
” I wish more people understood it because it’s a fantastic theory”. I dont see it that robust. In any case its just an interpretation not a theory in its own right.
I think more important is for more people to understand things that can actually be tested. Not some thing not all physicist agree upon. I mean how fast are these universes created. Do the create these universes on a marge scale or just locally cuz i read its local stuff. I dont see how it resolves time travel since time travel is a speculation and this multiverses are only speculations.
Geesh when did the physics of measurable realities flew out the window?
I wikied MWI and it says it creates only local universes (its a local theory). So travelling in time (as a human) to a local universe doesnt make much sense. And i dont think the theory gives ways to contact those separated universes.
To save me trying to explain here, have a look at this http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
MWI resolves time travel paradoxes because you can never travel back or forward to the same universe. If you go back in time and kill your father, you merely kill your father in a different worldline, ensuring you never exist in that universe. The universe you came from however, is still very real.
@ Ricky – Your points reminded me of the classic TV show Quantum Leap. In the show, the main character CAN travel back and forward in time, but cannot get back to his own – which implies that if someone were to enter parallel worlds in order to time travel, they may become 'lost in time' with no way to get back to the original time line. And that being said, the initial branch and subsequent world altercations may distort or corrupt the 'real' world (or the parallel worlds) to make it unrecognisable.
No global warming???
Btw,i don’t think many-worlds interpretation is a scientific theory.
Many-worlds should really be described as a theory or, more precisely, a metatheory, since it makes statements that are applicable about a range of theories. Many-worlds is the unavoidable implication of any quantum theory which obeys some type of linear wave equation.
The actual title is wrong. It should be theories in science not scientific theories. The difference? A scientific theory is a theory that makes predictions, predictions that can be tested. So what are the falsifiable predictions in ekpyrotic universe (which is part if m theory if im not terribly mistaken) or what are the predictions is matrix theory?
I actually call bs on the matrix thingy Hell like Hawking said the universe could actually be 1 year old and it may come will all the memories that might seem its 15 billion years old. But adding more ideas that cant be tested isnt scientific. So the universe isnt 1 year old and it isnt a matrix movie. The same i think goes for the holograme thingy.
I dont get it. Why arent real scientific theories interesting. Like quantum theory with its entanglement and others.
Your first three sentences provide a brilliant clarification.
Time Travel – the issue of the body is paramount. Time might be cyclical, but matter is not infinite. Time, space, matter and energy are all inseparably connected. Every part of matter and energy that makes up your present physical body existed in the past. ELSEWHERE…as in, all over the place, much of it in the sun even (eat a plant, you're eating part sunlight).
Nearly every cell in your body is (teeth, etc., excepted) is replaced on average every seven years. The matter that made up your body as a child is ELSEWHERE. Gone. Tons of skin cells in land fills, and other long since rejuvenated body cells, flushed down numerous toilets.
But let's say you're back into the past anyway. That is, you, meaning your body, or the atoms that make up your body, go back into the past (what else is there? No new energy or matter could be created in the process). Part of what makes up your body is now in the sun. Part of your atoms are/were also in trees, plants, fish, cows, rocks, and maybe even other peoples' bodies!
Assuming all this energy and matter simply jumps out of their past positions to keep your "current" body incorporated, there is the further complication of WHERE all that matter is. Spatially, our galaxy is accelerating at a tremendous speed. Our Earth and solar system has made a lot of revolutions since whenever you're headed back to in the past. Does that (THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE) magically reverse itself so that you can be in the past, like Superman flying around the Earth so fast it somehow reverses time itself?
Stephen Hawking, I have your answer. All the time travelers who might have tried, died. Instantly. But that doesn't mean it's not possible. Just messy.
I like your reasoning. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but transmutes from state to state. I totally agree. I love the idea that some particle of the suns energy went through space and into a plant, and then was eaten by an animal, and then got absorbed by us – and will eventually be cleansed away down into the sea and the whole cycle startes again. It's one of my favourite philosophies from quite a while back. Of course this is perfectly rational in the 4th dimention, but at the quanum level, that very same particle never moved a millimeter in relative time and space – not even in the slightest – but carried on flickering in and out of existance – everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
Beautifully written response that gives the average reader a clear and vivid picture of matter's lifecycle. tt demonstrates how the '60s slogan 'You are what you eat' is a recipe (or in scientfic terms, a formula)not a metaphor. Thanks for adding this, hope you create a list of your own if you haven't already.
for number 1…. MAYBE it's the same scenario as the high school crush. MAYBE time travellers have already come back to visit the past and teach us about the future of time travel, but then once they taught us, we would have already known so there was no need for the future people to come back and tell us…. infinite loop much??? gaarrr, maybe it's better that we don't know how to travel through time. i bet that would just confuse us even more.
Nice. They're all about astronomy/astrophysics. Not science in general.
Thanks I thoroughly enjoyed the list, even though I don’t agree with some of your lines of thought. I think perhaps “Most bizarre” instead of “Craziest” would have been more appropriate.
As to # 10, I suggest reading the short story “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin Abbott Abbott. The story is about a three dimensional being making contact with someone living in a two dimensional world. You may gain a perspective into the possibilities of other dimensions. The story helped me to wrap my head around extra diminsions.
As to #9. One possible theory would take to long to go into detail. It envolves anti-universes, anti-time, black holes and the big bang. The image representing yin and yang would be a close approximation of the interaction of the two opposing universes.
As far as #2 is concerned, there are immutable laws that govern the macro and micro. Only our ignorance and lack of cognative developement keep us from unraveling the mysteries of the omniverse.
As to #1. We all travel through time every nanosecond of every day. We are like a leaf floating down the river of time, and we have, as of yet, about as much control of our movement in time as the leaf. I won’t be as dismissive as the author of this article, but if we “go back in time” it could create a parallel reality that would necessarily branch off from our current timeline to negate the “Grandfather Paradox”. Perhaps there are no time travellers visiting our time because mankind with its intelligence and lack of wisdom have doomed us to extinction. Not a very nice idea but the truth isn’t always pretty.
With the excepion of #2, I consider these as possibilities not probabilities. Again thanks for making me think.
I like your leaf metaphor, i want to be one of the multi-colored crimson and orange leafs dropped from a blazing Michigan maple in mid-October as the first cool winds chill spectators at a Friday night high school homecoming football game.
here was me thinking the big bang theory might possibly make the list.
I love space and everything to do with it. Liked the list. Made me laugh when I got to the Matrix one. Some people will be believe in anything!
Can someone please tell me at what speed scientists believe the universe is expanding? Because I have a theory that goes like this. If the universe is expanding slower than the speed of light or not at all, then technically eventually the universe would appear to be completely bright white, or like one huge star surrounding us. This is because the light we see from stars has to eventually hit the edge of the universe right? Then it should reflect and come back to us, shouldn't it? And technically, if every star was created at the same time then one day the universe will suddenly turn bright white once all the light hits us.
Not every star was created at the same time, regardless of speed of the universe…
@ someone: I think I understand your reasoning but this only makes sense if you imagine there is some force on the 'edge' of the universe which reflects light back. There is no such force as far as I know. There is no such 'edge' as far as I can tell. I seem to remember (but I could be inaccurate) that science says that galaxies drift exponentially – e.g. they move 'back' at the same relative speed/rate as the light moves 'forward'.
There is no constant rate of expansion. The galaxies that are farther away from us are moving away from us faster than the galaxies that are closer to us. Its called redshift.
It's already been said, but I'll throw in my 2 ¢ worth.
Not all of the Universe is expanding at an even rate. Some parts are expanding far more quickly than than other parts (relatively, the numbers are so huge that "quickly" and "slowly" lose any meaning we have ever applied them to anything in the day to day world).
Since there is no even rate of expansion, there cannot be a rate given at which the Universe is expanding.
great list @Valentinedragon
i like this kinds of lists, it tickles your imagination, challenges your beliefs and logic
i hope more lists like this will come in the future
Pretty much puts a damper on my prioposal for "Top Soft Rock Hits of the '70s".
Nice list! I really do think that the Ekpyrotic Theory is real (based on reading more about it and watching Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman).
actually, this theory is, in part, is quite mainstream but it involves ONE universe expanding from a Big Bang and then recollapsing on itself and starting all over. I'm sure i read this in a Steven Hawking book, possibly 'A Brief History In Time'.
Based on our own universe's measurable data, our universe is slowing down in its expansion but the time that it is estimated that it will start to collapse on itself is SOOOOO far away yet, something like 300 billion years (don't quote me on that..)
You forgot macro evolution
You are *****ing joking, aren't you?
If you like this list you should watch the series of documentaries called "Universe" that was on the National Geographic channel. Very interesting stuff.
Surely when it comes to time travel you would only be able to go back to the point of time when time travel was invented in the first place. If you went beyond that how would you get back home, unless your time machine travelled with you as well. Also with time travel would you be able to go forward in time to see your future. If not then you wouldnt be able to go back in time as you would get stuck!
My brain hurts!
discovery channel not national geographic.
I’m like the only 8th grader in my town that studies quantum physics astrophysics, astrobiology and geo architechure.
I figure if I start at a young age I’ll have more time to learn future discoveries.
and sorry about my spelling I’m just a 8th grader.
… what? ._.
Fun list! I've heard #5 referred to as "kitchen sink universes", on the theory that graduate students in a higher universe used black holes in the lab sink to create our universe.
#1 sounds like a plausible explanation of where my socks keep disappearing to.
A lot of the comments are talking about the theories and I'm no scientist so I'll leave them to it. I have just this to say: 'Dr. Who'. Who? You mean 'the Doctor', right?
Physicists use a language to communicate – it’s called mathematics. This is how they develop ideas and communicate them to other physicists and mathematicians. It gets very complex, and I am not claiming to be a mathematician or understand it – but the beauty of it is that it can be explained to laypeople conceptually in a fashion that they might be able to grasp. Some of the ideas in this list have solid foundations in physics – meaning they are not the result of one person’s idea or work, but are founded upon solid theoretical work of many people current and past – these are not as crazy as the list title implies.
Some things on this list are just pure grade A *****e with no foundation at all – just supposition.
I like the nature of this list because it makes people think and starts discussions.
These are hypothesis, not theories.
A hypothesis is only a prediction of a result. So these are theories.
Reggae is right. Hypotheses become theories if testing proves them correct.
Not necessarily. A theory can—and will, as is often the case—be proven wrong. A theory is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that is consistent with the scientific method, but it is not an axiom. Take the superstring theory as an example. It is NOT simply a hypothesis (i.e., an "educated guess"), because there is some degree of evidence behind it, but it has NOT been proven correct either. Let's just be a little bold here and say that a hypothesis is more equivalent to a guess (an educated one) and a theory is more like a prediction (with a lot of background behind it). Time travel is not a mere hypothesis—neither is heat death. Let's not generalize and say that all of these things are theories, but clearly they're not all hypotheses either.
Black Hole Babies? That sounds like a cartoon title.
If i was a time traveller i would have a blue flying police box which is much bigger on the inside…….Oh wait a sec…
With a sonic scewrdriver?
Haha got one at all times anyway in my pocket
Sounds like a bunch of a holes making ***** up.
anybody know where i can buy a good, second-hand Delorean ??
Well many a scrap yards in ireland…..
"Don't cross the streams!"
What about plasma cosmology? The idea that the Universe is primiarily gonverned by the electromagnetic force and not gravity.
Maybe time travel is possible in theory, but humanity will die out before it comes anywhere near to producing the technology. Thats why we aren't flooded with time travelers from the future.
For anyone who hasn't heard of or just doesn't like the Many Worlds Interpretation, please read this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_many…
Many Worlds is the best theory we have so far to describe the fabric of reality.
#1, #4, and #10 I am a firm believer of. There is alot scientist(astrophysicist) support of them. I also believe in this thing were anything and anything can happen theory I didn’t create it , nor do I know it’s name. It is where in the Universe, if it hasn’t happened yet it can still happen. It basically says The Universe is a huge pack of cards, some combinations are rare some are more common. It’s extremely basic Quantum Physics.
The Matrix is completely ripped off of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. What lazy bum says "uhhh yeah the Matrix is real" without knowing anything about the history of it.
Time traveling may be possible. And maybe the answer to why we don't have any visitors from the future is because time machine has been never invented because everyone died in 2012…..lol
You only mentioned travelling to the past, but travelling to the future is possible.
Einstein teached us that it is possible with his relativity theory.
everytime i go to sleep, i awake between 5 and 7 hours in the future
therefore, my bed is a time machine.
'Teached us? English was a second language for Einstein, too.
I built a time machine, but it only goes one direction, at regular speed.
The only thing i would disagree with using as a time traveler per se- it's pretty obvious he's going between parallel universes- i mean he proves that much by finally dumping Rose's whiny ass in a parallel universe with both her parents. any alterations he's caused only end up ultimately affecting this parallel line so if there ever was a "true line" linear time line where he came from, it ultimately wouldn't matter because he can't affect that one. =)
#1: Better kill the milkman to be sure.
Most theories on time travel accept that travelling back in time is impossible, however traveling forward is a realistic possiblity.
I seriously don't see why we should be able to travel forward in time, but not backwards…
Number 10 may not be too crazy – it is tied to a mathematical version of number 4 (which is, like it or not, mainly a thought experiment) and M-theory (Membrane!) mentioned in number 2. It’s all mathematical models of multiple dimensions that MIGHT explain certain forces resulting in energy and matter.
hi guys great list!! but i have another question the time travel pic is it a morph or is it an actual clock.. if it is a real clock where can i find it??
Seems like Photoshop to me. But it'd be cool if there was a clock like that.
yea..everyone died in 2012 after which dinosaurs evolvd agn and ruled the earth. the best thing about this was that dinosaurs have pea sized brains and couldn’t make up crazy theories
Enjoyed the read, I think a person could have some fun with time travel.
No, no, no, we're not a computer program or a hologram, we're a giant experiment being run by mice. Didn't anyone read (not see, read) "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? When the experiment is finished they will bulldoze us to make room for a supergalactic highway. And the answer is 42.
HAHA
your bluntnesss about this made me laugh out loud
Sorry, but I was busy reading the poem, "Ode to a small lump of grey putty I found in my armpit one mid-summer morning"
Some of these don't seem to be Scientific Theories. For example, the Matrix One, is not a Scientific Theory.
I wish I was a kid again so I can think to myself, what if nothing is real, what if everything is nothing?
Great list. Thanks.
One of the most overlooked problems with time travel is not just are we able to move freely through it but also, can we control where we wind up in the universe when we get there? The earth is moving around the sun which is moving with the milky way galaxy which is hurling through space at thousands of miles an hour. So, where we are physically in the universe at this time is nowhere near where we were, say, 50 years ago. If you tried to go back to your home town in 1960 you would probably wind up in the blackness of space or crash into some meteorite. But, alas, that brings up the whole space, time continuum debate.
Your comment isnt valid cuz it would imply that there is an universal/absolute coordinate system and this is denied by relativity theory. Everything is local.
In a sense we travel back in time constantly.
Every time we look up at the night sky, we are seeing back millions of years in time. Yet, as far back as we can see, we cannot see ahead one millionth of a second.
Time travel would be infinitely cool, and with M-theory it even has a chance of working. The problems associated with it, however, are so numerous, and so enormous, that I seriously doubt that any reputable scientist will be willing to work on it.
I can imagine the psychological impact of time travel might be something truly horrifying. And that is just one tiny item on minus side of why time travel isn't the good idea Sci-fi book writers have made you believe it is.
@segues: "I can imagine the psychological impact of time travel might be something truly horrifying"
this is a thought i had years and years ago. it came to me, epiphany style, when i was watching back to the future — (and no — not when it came out and i was like 7) — but at a later date, on video.
something about the premeses of that movie struck me as an intesting idea — not necessarily plausable, but entertaining nonetheless.
*until*
i started thinking of exactly what it would be like to travel back and forth —
of course, i was just daydreaming abou twhat differences would shock me or confuse me the most. eventually, i came to the realization that the cons heavily outweigh the pros — so much so, that by the time the movie was winding down, i looked at my *whoever* friend, girlfriend, whoever was there — and simply stated — if we were capable to time travel,, i dont believe i'd want a piece of that action.
as you know i have masters in experimental psychology — as i was going through the *****ysis in my head, my brain cells were innundated by the notion that i would regret doing this almost instantly, and go through the rest of the experience think t myself 'what in the hell have i gotten myself into' — which is not exactly the mindset you'd hope if faced with this situation.
aahah good ol' space time continuum
so confusing!
Trust me. If traveling through time some day becomes a possibility, calculating where the ship or whatever should land would be the least of problems. Think of it as the computers and the Internet. Go back in time and tell Galileo about them, he would probably say, "well but how are you going to power them? how are you going to keep the energy flow to the computer constant? that sounds impossible to me!" And he would have been right in pointing out that problem, but in reality, the Internet and computing are so much more complex than electricity that by the time we started using computers electricity was not really a problem. Time travel requires so many more calculations and stuff than locating the right coordinates for landing that there are many more problems to worry about, not that one.
OK, now my brain hurts… I'll have to read this again, I don't think I grasped half of it… but thanks for the list.