13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that might work

FarmerGreen

I'm not the one with the time machine....
I've just checked and it aint looking good!

YouAreDreaming

Time travel may be possible in a hologram, but impossible in physical matter where wave function has formed enough mass to organize into the density of nucleons and thus form an atom.

If I take the model of the big bang and throw all matter outward into all directions, then each atom that is cycling through atomic death and rebirth is akin to a baseball moving along a trajectory of which in time/space is measured by the path it's thrown.

Time travel implies that we can magically move this forward mass backwards on itself into another local within this explosion that created it all implies that the past still exists to "rewind" to and the future already "exists" to move forward to.

If that is the case, that the past and the future already exist, then we may as well ignore everything we think we know about reality and treat it like some DVD that has a fast forward and rewind feature.

If it's just a DVD, then you need to create a player that has a pause button, a rewind and a fast forward. You'll need to create a disk head that uses a laser to scan the data and it then needs a GPU to render this data into a view by which we can then say is the picture of reality on this cosmic DVD in some time/space local by which we scanned to and are now observing. This is not your invention.

So either we are on a cosmic DVD where time travel can exist, or a big explosion happened throwing matter in all sorts of directions and moving backwards or forwards is impossible because everything has to move in one forward wave brought on by the biggest explosion in history, and the rewind button quite simply cannot exist. Let alone the fast forward. Just an ever changing present.

If you think moving mass through a singularity will have a pretty outcome where ever it ends up... it probably will look just like a sandwich you ate approximately seven hours later.

Michaelrsh

digme wrote: »

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

Ahhh, I see what happened here. This is not actually a 13 year old boy see. The mind of this '13 year old boy' is actually the mind of a 40/ 50 year old man who has somehow been able to 'rewind' his biological appearance back in time. So he actually comes from the future and is using his discovery (or someone else's) to change the future and get loads and loads of money.

I'm high at the moment so please ignore the discrepancies in my theory. :P

FarmerGreen

Maybe it does work, but it only goes forward in time.
In which case the disappearance of this guy is is explainable.
With magnets and a laser, sort of.

Bog_Warrior

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Money quote:



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.

I see the classic rejection of the petrified scientist........stasis as opposed to fear.
He'll make a good physicist in 15 yrs time because he will have succumbed to the status quo ??? God help him in the current academic quagmire of bureaucracy and conformancy.
I like his willingness to imagine outside the box. Historically it is people like him who have advanced the fields of physics in leaps, not the kind of cliched "good physicist" that you seem to allude to. 99% of physicists are mere recycle technicians.

Rather than tightly interpreting his semantics on a doughnut singularity, imagine a stable island transuranium element with exotic properties....not impossible since we don't have the data to reject it.

Professor_Fink

Bog_Warrior wrote: »

I see the classic rejection of the petrified scientist........stasis as opposed to fear.

.....

Historically it is people like him who have advanced the fields of physics in leaps, not the kind of cliched "good physicist" that you seem to allude to. 99% of physicists are mere recycle technicians.

I'm assuming you're not a physicist. What on earth makes you think you are even remotely qualified to judge the ability or promise of a physicist? How much physics do you even know? Mathematics even?

Bog_Warrior wrote: »

Rather than tightly interpreting his semantics on a doughnut singularity, imagine a stable island transuranium element with exotic properties....not impossible since we don't have the data to reject it.

See the thing is, what you have just said is utter meaningless nonsense. He's not talking about nuclear stability, yet you 'imagine a stable island transuranium element with exotic properties'. In case you don't know, all elements are made up out of the same building blocks, so while the property of materials consisting of them may change their effect on spacetime doesn't.

Professor_Fink

Sorry, I've had a stressful week.

Podge_irl

Bog_Warrior wrote: »

I like his willingness to imagine outside the box. Historically it is people like him who have advanced the fields of physics in leaps, not the kind of cliched "good physicist" that you seem to allude to. 99% of physicists are mere recycle technicians.

No it's not. I have to echo Prof Fink here and ask how much physics do you actually know. The vast, vast, vast majority of physics is a process of building upon current knowledge and advancing it slightly further.

Even someone like Einstein built upon what we knew at the time. Special relativity was in no way revolutionary. General relativity was bloody impressive, but did no contradict anything we knew at the time, merely provided a framework for better understanding gravity. But I suppose he was just another "typical physicist".

I've spent years learning what I currently know, and still have years to go to reach an understanding where I can postulate new ideas and discuss things on the Prof's level. I no more trust armchair physicists to come up with new theories then I would trust armchair engineers to build me a bridge.

gentillabdulla

I like the response and what you think of me but I have to come in defense for all the other scientists. They know what they are doing but they have their own points of view as I have mine. But I assure you this is not the actual experiment. The real one has been kept hidden by me this whole time and I won't tell the world until I patent it.

sponsoredwalk

It's online threads like these that keep reminding me of what Stephen Hawking wrote about in his novella, getting letters addressed to "hawkins" stating that QM is all wrong & that Einstein was all wrong too...


Personally, my favourite is John Baez' Crackpot Index,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I think point 33 in this list is what Fink was accused of earlier, although in a different grammatical register lol.

That said, there is nothing wrong with asking crazy questions as gentill did earlier & props to Fink to answering him thoroughly.

Oh, I just have to ask that poster, will all this crazily difficult stuff I'm studying and all this time I'm spending on it amount to me becoming a "recycle technician" in a few years? If so, what clothing should I wear to fit in with the "99%"?

Gurgle

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Steorn have clocked up over 11,000 points :eek:

FarmerGreen

Pons and Fleischmann must be getting worried

wyrn

gentillabdulla wrote: »

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.

Drat! I wish I realised that before I got my physics degree which comprised of alot of QM!

To be honest I seriously doubt Time Travel is possible - the physicist in me says never say never. So I'm 99.9999999% sure. Wouldn't want to be too narrow minded.

I'm afraid I've to echo Prof. Fink's comments.

Gurgle

wyrn wrote: »

So I'm 99.9999999% sure. Wouldn't want to be too narrow minded.

Phah, 0.0000001% chance?
You're soooooooooooo naive.

I'll say 100%.
Without causality science is meaningless, and even the possibility of time-travel negates causality.

FarmerGreen

Do the work and find out.
Theorising and hypostulating and asking for opinions is well, pointless.
If you have a mad idea go and test it.
Is time travel possible? Go and ask a bus queue.
If they all say yes then it is.
No need for research, its been sorted by public opinion.

wyrn

Gurgle wrote: »

Phah, 0.0000001% chance?
You're soooooooooooo naive.

I'll say 100%.
Without causality science is meaningless, and even the possibility of time-travel negates causality.

Ha ha I should have known better than to give figures. I don't believe time-travel is possible in the slightest.

The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much I do not believe in something I will not rule it out completely due to the fact that I/we do not know everything. This is purely due to working on sets of data which I do not wish to bias (even though that's impossible). Now I don't deal with time-travel data, but that would certainly be more interesting!

Gurgle

wyrn wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much I do not believe in something I will not rule it out completely due to the fact that I/we do not know everything.

I completely agree, I'd hedge my bets with 0.0000001% on everything except time-travel
Any theory can be added to, modified, tweaked, improved or replaced but time-travel would mean dumping the whole lot and giving up. We couldn't even start again as there would be no place to start.

Angry Troll

please tell him to give me a ring when he has it all working…i need to go back to 1996 to buy a few internet shares and then to late 1999 to sell them again, maybe with a brief stopover in 1997 to marry the now lost love of my life…
if that works i would also like to book a trip to 1917 to see grandpa in action in the trenches killing frenchmen…

bigdogbarking

I have just invented my own time machine, still got a few teething problems though.
So far I can only get it to go forwards in time and only very slowly.

Lab_Mouse

bigdogbarking wrote: »

I have just invented my own time machine, still got a few teething problems though.
So far I can only get it to go forwards in time and only very slowly.

1 second at a time?

rgunning

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Ahhh, I see what happened here. This is not actually a 13 year old boy see. The mind of this '13 year old boy' is actually the mind of a 40/ 50 year old man who has somehow been able to 'rewind' his biological appearance back in time. So he actually comes from the future and is using his discovery (or someone else's) to change the future and get loads and loads of money.

I'm high at the moment so please ignore the discrepancies in my theory. :P

It's probably more likely that one of Prof Frink's PhD students found out he posts on boards.ie and decided to spend a little time pulling the pyss out of him. God knows I used to do worse to my supervisor....

I admire, but do not necessarily share, his patience

bigdogbarking

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

1 second at a time?

Ye know too much!!!!!

Angry Troll

oh and the article says that gentill guy is also working on a new grand unification theory and a perpetual motion machine…has to be a true genius…who needs losers like einstein and hawking with their limited intellects when we have gentill abdulla…i would assume gentill has also worked out cold fusion in a tumbler a while ago, just as a side project in between the real stuff…finally some of the breakthroughs the world has been waiting for…we need more gentill abdullas around here…

Angry Troll

bigdogbarking wrote: »

I have just invented my own time machine, still got a few teething problems though.
So far I can only get it to go forwards in time and only very slowly.

yeah, i had a similar idea a while ago…and how do you keep yours going steady? mine seems to be accelerating all the time…and let me know when you find out how to make it go backwards…

wyrn

Gurgle wrote: »

I completely agree, I'd hedge my bets with 0.0000001% on everything except time-travel
Any theory can be added to, modified, tweaked, improved or replaced but time-travel would mean dumping the whole lot and giving up. We couldn't even start again as there would be no place to start.

It's a guilty indulgence due to watching Flight of the Navigator, Back to the Future, Time Bandits, Bill & Ted, Star Trek IV, Terminator and reading far too many books!

Bodicea

Given that time is a conceptual component of 3D existance I very much doubt he could capture it in a physical sense. Not only that, on a very simplistic level, if time travel were possible, then why has no one from the future made an appearance. E.g. the haitians could have been warned, as could have the Idonesians before that awful tsunami struck. The recession could have been avoided and all diseases cured....

Time travel will never be possible, not least cos it (time) only goes in one direction...forward.

Bodicea

Angry Troll wrote: »

to marry the now lost love of my life…

Awww....

Professor_Fink

Gurgle wrote: »

I'll say 100%.
Without causality science is meaningless, and even the possibility of time-travel negates causality.

Actually, there has been some interesting work on this over the last 20 years (though predominantly in the context of what you can compute using closed timelike curves). It turns out that it is quite possible to come up with consistent solutions for spacetimes which contain closed timelike curves. Deutsch had a paper in 1993 showing that there was always a solution for the wave function on such a spacetime, and while I believe that there is a mistake in the paper, it is clear that at least some setups have consistent solutions. These largely work by making sure the information sent back in time could have been guessed from the beginning, removing the paradox and simply producing an unlikely (rather than impossible) event. So it is conceivably possible, we just don't know of any mechanism to allow it within our universe.

northernpower

Don't get me started on gravity!

sebastianlieken

If time travel is possible, how come you're future self hasn't already cracked it, come back in time and given you the schematics??....