13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that might work

digme

iReport — One 13 year old boy , named Gentill Abdulla, has said that he has a
time machine plan that is going to work.
I have personally met him and he is an extremely bright boy. Gentill says that
his ingenious plans can allow time travel to be possible. He told me " I have done a lot
of research on the areas of black holes, time travel, wormholes, magnetism,
light, and most importantly gravity. I have devised an experiment that if done correctly
could allow time travel .
Here is the theory. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-367891

Podge_irl

13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that works

No he doesn't.

Rohypnol

If you had magnets in front of each other and had one beam of blue light that had been traveling for thousands of years...

Good thing he's only 13, he'd want to send that beam of blue light off quickly so that he can do the experiment in a few thousand years time. He's probably willing the people in the future who receive the beam to use the technology to develop the time machine and come back in time to give him the beam now.

drunkmonkey

so he's going to create a hole in time, how does he propose to control the size of it, i've a fear he could destroy us all..

Professor_Fink

Podge_irl wrote: »

No he doesn't.

Damn, you beat me to it!

Professor_Fink

Money quote:

There will still be a singularity but it will be magnetic. Now you make a device, that I have also made, that will split the singularity into a ring. This device that will make a hole in the singularity.

To be honest, I wish nobody had noticed this. It's clearly wrong, but I don't want to give the guy a hard time, since he's only 13 and I'm sure most good physicists have passed through a crackpot stage when they were young. I know I did. You tend to be enthusiastic enough not to notice the gaps in your understanding and miss a lot of subtleties.

So while this is clearly incorrect, I would hesitate to criticize the guy, other than perhaps on his claim to have actually built the device he describes above. He might well turn out to be a good physicist in another 10 or 15 years.

rccaulfield

hmmm he's doubted by his peers- tick box1 for genius!

Mucco

Has he taken out a full-page ad in the Economist?

thecornflake

he stole my idea ! , he must have used the time machine to go back in time to when i had the idea and stole it then.

Professor_Fink

rccaulfield wrote: »

hmmm he's doubted by his peers- tick box1 for genius!

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word peer. I don't have 13 year old peers.

digme

Funny none of you try to explain his idea and why it's nonsense

Professor_Fink

digme wrote: »

Funny none of you try to explain his idea and why it's nonsense

He claims to be able to do multiple thing that appear to be impossible without explanation. There really is no arguing with blanket assertions other than simply saying, show me the device.

It's largely unintelligible nonsense, but as I have said, I'm against being to hard on a 13 year old.

By the way, are you the one claiming to have met the boy?

gentillabdulla

Like I have said before I have changed this due to energy reasons.

rccaulfield

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word peer. I don't have 13 year old peers.

Ni i don't. It was a joke get off your high horse like!

gentillabdulla

Does anyone have any questions for me?

Professor_Fink

rccaulfield wrote: »

Ni i don't. It was a joke get off your high horse like!

I wasn't being particularly serious either, so relax.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Does anyone have any questions for me?

Well, all I've seem is the iReport thing linked above, where the quotes are very ambiguous. If you have written up something more detailed I can take a look.

It's worth pointing out however that there are very tight constraints on what can be achieved within the constraints placed on us by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Multiply-connected spacetimes do allow for time travel, but even in these there are severe limits on signalling. From all observations of the universe so far we believe it to be simply-connected, with no closed timelike curves. This rules out timetravel, with or without Kerr black holes. There is no method for going from a simply connected spacetime to a multiply-connected spacetime within known physics (although possibly quantum gravity will allow for this). Either way, no physics has ever been confirmed which would allow for time travel. It can't be derived from GR and electromagnetism.

gentillabdulla

Einsteins theory of relativity do allow for tunnels though. Which is what I'm trying to make a wormhole.If you like I will try to explain something about stars. Which I believe disproves quantum theory.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Einsteins theory of relativity do allow for tunnels though. Which is what I'm trying to make a wormhole.

That's exactly what I was referring to about closed timelike curves and multiply connected space times. Relativity requires closed timelike curves to allow for time travel. However, these are an intrinsic property of the manifold, and not something that can be created (at least not within our current formulation of physics), and it doesn't look like our universe has any closed timelike curves.

Marvinthefish

MagicMarker

Dey took ouur jobs!

gentillabdulla

Which is why you have to make one.You see what I am doing is changing a former singularity into a wormhole.it's like putty in your hands.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Which is why you have to make one.

Having a black hole doesn't imply you have closed timelike curves, which is what you actually need.

gentillabdulla

Having a wormhole does.So do you say it is impossible a wormhole can be a former black hole?

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Having a wormhole does.So do you say it is impossible a wormhole can be a former black hole?

Having a worm hole does not actually imply you have closed timelike curves, since the wormhole could be spacewise oriented (giving closed spacelike curves). Basically I'm saying there is no way within our current formulation of physics to go from a blackhole to a wormhole without postulating new physics.

Shoota

Is this in anyway connected to the latest Star Trek Movie?

Kevster

That is one of the worst written articles I have ever seen in my life. The sentences go on forever in it... ...Christ, tell this kid that he needs to improve his grammar.

syklops

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Having a worm hole does not actually imply you have closed timelike curves, since the wormhole could be spacewise oriented (giving closed spacelike curves). Basically I'm saying there is no way within our current formulation of physics to go from a blackhole to a wormhole without postulating new physics.

Prof Fink, chill out. I am pretty sure that gentillabdulla is not the real Gentill Abdulla from the article. more like someone trying to wind you up.

Podge_irl

syklops wrote: »

Prof Fink, chill out. I am pretty sure that gentillabdulla is not the real Gentill Abdulla from the article. more like someone trying to wind you up.

He's exceptionally chilled out. These are just statements of fact.

gentillabdulla

Yes I am the real Gentill Abdulla.Also yes you would need new physics for this. Which i can prove by saying that I think that quantum theory is wrong.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Yes I am the real Gentill Abdulla.Also yes you would need new physics for this. Which i can prove by saying that I think that quantum theory is wrong.

Unfortunately there isn't really any wiggle room here. If these are all macroscopic objects you are way outside the quantum gravity regime, where we may see some new effects, and into field theory on a curved background, which is a fairly well understood problem. Why on Earth would you think quantum theory is wrong when it is the most spectacularly successful theory we have ever devised? It's been verified to a far higher degree than general relativity.

gentillabdulla

Yes but there are certain problems such as the uncertainty principle.

gentillabdulla

Now I will try and explain why I think quantum theory is wrong.Does anybody have any objections?

abouttobebanned

Not a mention anywhere of a flux capacitor. This chap is clearly certifiable.

gentillabdulla

Alright ,I will begin with light. Let's say light has an infinite amount of energy distributed in photons. Now as I'm sure everyone know what a star is. Imagine this what does a star LOOK LIKE when it is dying? It look's like it is being compressed right. What if there is actually being absorbed from the inside. The most massive stars are as hot as they can be right. So that is the reason why only massive stars become black holes.Because a perfect emitter , a star, is also a perfect absorber , a black hole. Now assuming we all know what a black body is let's say that when a massive star dies there in it's core a black body occurs at it's core.It then absorbs the light from the star then turns it into a different form of radiation ,but it can't radiate it fast because it is all going towards the center ,what it does to the light is it converts it to mass. So since all the mass can't be bigger than the universe it is sent to the center and all that mass is at one little tiny spot a singularity. As I have said before it still radiates. Some people call this black body radiation others call it HAWKING radiation. Also what if this is happening every second of every day. See this might be what causes gravity. Space time being absorbed in the smallest part of an atom which makes all of the atoms clump together.This causes an object to be made.

Professor_Fink

Hi Gentill,

You seem to be confusing several concepts here, so I'll try to break up your last post into points to clarify. The most perplexing problem is where you refer to blackbody radiation. I think you are perhaps confusing it with something else, but I'll come back to this. Let's start at the begining:

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Alright ,I will begin with light. Let's say light has an infinite amount of energy distributed in photons.

It doesn't. A mode never has an infinite amount of energy in it, it's just not a situation that arises in physics, since there is only a finite energy density that can be supported without creating an event horizon.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Now as I'm sure everyone know what a star is. Imagine this what does a star LOOK LIKE when it is dying? It look's like it is being compressed right. What if there is actually being absorbed from the inside.

Well, it would be a mistake to assume everyone knows what a star really is, but I can assure you I do know. Stars die in different ways depending on their mass. It's not quite so straight forward a process, since in different mass regimes there are different physical processes occurring. For high mass stars, you have gravity winning, be collapsing the star to a neutron star or black hole. For our sun gravity does less well, only creating a white dwarf. Before that can happen, the sun will grow to be a red giant, and a large amount of mass will be jettisoned before the white dwarf is formed. So stars don't really look like they are being compressed when they die, it's just not how it works. Also, when a star does collapse it tends to be accompanied with a large ejection of mass, so it doesn't really fit your picture.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

The most massive stars are as hot as they can be right. So that is the reason why only massive stars become black holes.

No, it's not the temperature that causes a black hole. The contribution of the kinetic energy of the particles is small compared to their mass, so the thermal energy doesn't play much of a role in the formation of an event horizon. The behaviour is dominated by the gravitational mass of the particles.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Because a perfect emitter , a star, is also a perfect absorber , a black hole.

This sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm not really sure there is any meaningful way in which something can be a "perfect emitter". It does emit light, but actually in a rather inefficient way, since the bulk of the star is opaque, so photons created outside of the first few millimeters can take many thousands of years to propagate out.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Now assuming we all know what a black body is let's say that when a massive star dies there in it's core a black body occurs at it's core.

The problem here is that I don't think you actually know what a black body is. It's just a source of light where the emitted light is in thermal equilibrium with the object. Stars satisfy this pretty well, due to the enormous number of scatterings an average photon undergoes before leaving the star. A black body isn't something that "occurs", it's just an idealised model of a system in thermal equilibrium with the radiation it emits.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

It then absorbs the light from the star then turns it into a different form of radiation ,but it can't radiate it fast because it is all going towards the center ,what it does to the light is it converts it to mass. So since all the mass can't be bigger than the universe it is sent to the center and all that mass is at one little tiny spot a singularity. As I have said before it still radiates.

This bit is incorrect. It doesn't in anyway reflect the physics of what's occurring.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Some people call this black body radiation others call it HAWKING radiation.

That's not what Hawking radiation is. Hawking radiation is what happens when you apply quantum field theory near an event horizon. Basically, you have pairs of particles and anti-particles being created and destroyed all the time in the vacuum state (everywhere, not just near black holes). With blackholes, however, it is possible for some of the particles to propagate past the event horizon before they can be destroyed, leaving their partners to propogate away from the event horizon. That's a very simplistic picture and glosses over the details, but should be enough to give you the idea.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Also what if this is happening every second of every day. See this might be what causes gravity. Space time being absorbed in the smallest part of an atom which makes all of the atoms clump together.This causes an object to be made.

Actually, we know what keeps atoms together. It's a combination of the electromagnetic interaction and the strong and weak interactions which holds the nucleus together. Electromagnetism alone is sufficient to take care of the electrons.

Please don't take my remarks here as any animosity towards you. When I was younger I had similar kinds of ideas, though on quite different topics. So, I really do feel you should be encouraged to study physics in more detail, because I believe this kind of enthusiasm and imagination are necessary in a good theoretical physicist. I don't mean imagination to have any negative connotation, as I feel the ability to see a problem differently is a key skill for any talented physicist or mathematician. So I have tried to talk to you as I would talk to one of my PhD students, or to a colleague who had made an unwitting error. I know some of what I have said has been a little harsh, but that is often the way we treat each others ideas. Being harsh on an idea doesn't mean you have a low opinion of the person.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Yes but there are certain problems such as the uncertainty principle.

Actually, the uncertainty principle isn't a problem with quantum mechanics, but rather a problem with the language we use to describe the world. Quantum mechanics says essentially that position or momentum alone is sufficient to describe the state of a particle (provided we allow linear superpositions), but that these correspond to different bases on the state space of the system. I've posted a much more detailed explanation in one of the other threads, so I won't retype it here. The point, however, is that the uncertainty principal is not really about uncertainty at all, but rather about us trying to impose preconceived notions of how the universe should work onto a model that doesn't support them. There is no uncertainty in the evolution of a quantum system.

gentillabdulla

Okay it is the temperature that causes the black body to form.The strength of the black body depends on the mass of the star.Infinite energy and finite energy are all dependent on size.I'm implying that the smaller the part then the more energy. Why well because objects have infinite energy because of infinitesimally small size.The inefficient way the star lets out it's photons is because of it's gravity that is what I believe have been proven.When I meant a black body is made I meant that the core cools down to change into a circular black body ,and that black body absorbs everything down to the center.And the ejection of mass is due to the release of the extra mass that escapes the pull of the star.

And I don't take your remarks as animosity I take them as your point of view compared to mine.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Okay it is the temperature that causes the black body to form. The strength of the black body depends on the mass of the star.

Actually, the star behaves as a blackbody independent of it's temperature. It is simply that the emission spectrum has a peak energy which depends on the temperature.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Infinite energy and finite energy are all dependent on size.I'm implying that the smaller the part then the more energy. Why well because objects have infinite energy because of infinitesimally small size.

We don't know what happens below the Planck scale, but we get an event horizon far before that happens, so infinite energy density really shouldn't come into the picture. Also, note you probably mean energy density, not energy, since shrinking a system doesn't alter it's energy.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

The inefficient way the star lets out it's photons is because of it's gravity that is what I believe have been proven.

Actually, it isn't. Sure, an event horizon stops light being emitted, and time dilation reduces the rate, but that's not what I was talking about. Light scatters off particles throughout the star. It's like shining a laser at the ground in Ireland, and looking for photons from it in Australia. Eventually the laser will heat the planet enough to alter the blackbody spectrum of light emited in the infrared bye the soil in Australia, but it will take a long long time.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

When I meant a black body is made I meant that the core cools down to change into a circular black body ,and that black body absorbs everything down to the center.And the ejection of mass is due to the release of the extra mass that escapes the pull of the star.

Again, that's not exactly what happens. I think you are using black body and black hole synonymously, however they are completely different things. Black bodies are nothing to do with singularities or event horizons. The ejection of mass isn't straight forward either, since it is usually driven by an explosion, although not always (again, it depends on the mass regime).

gentillabdulla wrote: »

And I don't take your remarks as animosity I take them as your point of view compared to mine.

Great!

gentillabdulla

I meant the black bodies strength depends on the mass because of the temperature depends on the mass of the star. Also we get an event horizon because our space time is being used as space time for another universe inside these small scales.What we call singularities are literally other universes.Which are shown in black holes which are just a bigger version of what really happens at a very subatomic level. Thank you for the info about the star's inefficiency.Now I have a question for you what would happen to a star if you could keep all that mass released from the star when it goes supernova inward? p.s. I already know the answer.

Professor_Fink

Hi again,

gentillabdulla wrote: »

I meant the black bodies strength depends on the mass because of the temperature depends on the mass of the star.

The problem is simply that the word "strength" doesn't have any meaning in the context of black body radiation, other then perhaps the intensity, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Also we get an event horizon because our space time is being used as space time for another universe inside these small scales.What we call singularities are literally other universes.Which are shown in black holes which are just a bigger version of what really happens at a very subatomic level.

You need to be carefully about separating speculation from implications of known physics. The above is clearly speculation, as it certainly is not a direct consequence of general relativity.

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Thank you for the info about the star's inefficiency.Now I have a question for you what would happen to a star if you could keep all that mass released from the star when it goes supernova inward? p.s. I already know the answer.

Well, the if the physics causing the ejection of mass were suppressed then you would have higher density. Since the mechanism for suppressing this isn't given a lot of things could happen, if we simply assume the mass is added to the core of the star, then it will simply lower the thresholds for formation of neutron stars and black holes.

Since you say you already know the answer, I guess this is supposed to be a test to see if I actually know anything about physics. I would have thought it unnecessary, since if you look through other threads you will see my comments on them which should give you an idea of my level of understanding.

gentillabdulla

Okay good answer that was unnecessary but I'm 13 you can't blame me just for asking. Alright my final question is do you accept the theory or do you at least understand it?

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Okay good answer that was unnecessary but I'm 13 you can't blame me just for asking. Alright my final question is do you accept the theory or do you at least understand it?

I believe that I understand at least partly how you are thinking about this problem. It doesn't work out the way you seem to thing it will though, since you have glossed over a lot of fairly complicated physics. The major problem is that you aren't doing the necessary calculations, but rather trying to reason about what will happen. Reasoning is a good first step, but it can lead you astray as often as it helps, and so you need to work through the necessary calculations. I don't really expect you to be have the maths yet, since the mathematical tools used to solve this type of problem are very advanced. I didn't learn the necessary differential geometry to do these calculations until I was 21, despite being hooked on physics since I was tiny.

If you want, I can point you towards some textbooks or lecture notes that would give you the tools to try to work through the problem rigorously.

gentillabdulla

Alright. If I ever have an answer to this I will post it here.At the most I think it will take me a week I believe though I have been wrong before.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Okay good answer that was unnecessary but I'm 13 you can't blame me just for asking. Alright my final question is do you accept the theory or do you at least understand it?

Don't worry, I don't blame you at all. For what it's worth, I'm a theoretical physics fellow at one of the older Oxford Colleges, which I'm sure Podge can vouch for. I've had a research interest in quantum mechanics on multiply-connected spacetime manifolds for a few years, so I know about this stuff pretty well by now.

As I say, while I find your current approach to be flawed, I'm impressed by your enthusiasm and creativity, so I really do think you can be a great physicist. Unfortunately there is an aweful lot of reading that you need to do so that you have the tools to rigourously test your models yourself. I found school and the first few years of university immensely frustrating, as you don't get to cover the really interesting physics, and I expect you will find it the same. If you can stick through it though, you'll have a much wider set of tools which will in turn open up even more interesting possibilities. I really do wish you the best of luck with your future endeavors.

By the way, if you want to try your hand at some more interesting physics, I can probably dig out some accessible books/lectures. I can even point you towards open questions (since a lot of the interesting open questions are not really known to the outside world).

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Alright. If I ever have an answer to this I will post it here.At the most I think it will take me a week I believe though I have been wrong before.

People can spend years on these kind of models, so taking a long time a sign of weakness, it just shows it's a hard problem.

gentillabdulla

Alright then point away!Also I compute problems much faster than the rest of my so called "generation".No offense to any of my current friends though. I highly value their opinions.

Professor_Fink

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Alright then point away!Also I compute problems much faster than the rest of my so called "generation".

I didn't have your age in mind with that last comment. Some problems are simply hard, requiring you to find some transformation to make the problem solvable and you can never tell how long it will take for inspiration to hit. I try to be working on many problems simultaneously, since then when you hit a roadblock with one, you can continue with the others while waiting for inspiration.

Well, as regards the formalism needed to mathematically model, since the physics is all classical electrodynamics and general relativity, "General Relativity" by P. A. M. Dirac probably contains sufficient physics to model the system. It's a very condensed book though, so you probably need wikipedia or a more introductory textbook to fill in the blanks. The good new though is that it is almost certainly out of copyright by now, so should be freely available on the internet.

gentillabdulla

Thanks.

Professor_Fink

Any time.

gentillabdulla

Maan they don't have it at my library.Any other books perhaps?