My new job brings with it a terribly long commute. 90 minutes each way. It's not so bad, at least for now, and the job itself is thus far worth it. So, to try to continue to look on the bright side (optimism? that doesn't sound like a good idea), this commute gives me a minimum of 3 hours each day where I'm effectively alone and listening to stuff. Music was fine for a while, but I'm now filling the time with audio books. (Sure, reading actual books is still preferred, but who has the time?)
I'd recently tried a few already, namely World War Z and some strange audio book Jen got for free somewhere, and had rather enjoyed the experience. World War Z in particular was an excellent listen because it had a cast of excellent voice actors (Mark Hamill, Alan Alda, etc.). All in all, it provides more mental stimulation than my usual iPod playlist, which itself gets tiring after a few hours.
So, with more driving time on my hands these days, and with the personal enjoyment of World War Z, I recently obtained two more audio books: The Zombie Survival Guide and Pride And Prejudice And Zombies. The former was alright, mostly because it was the same author as World War Z and thus shared in much of the same details, making the two something of a companion set for one another. It wasn't spectacular or anything, but it was an interesting listen.
I'm just over halfway through the latter, and it's pretty awesome. Basically, the author took Pride And Prejudice and added some phrases/passages to it to create a zombie-infested backdrop to the story. A brilliant idea, really. I mean, what wouldn't be better with the addition of zombies? Also, the book has ninjas. Seriously.
Now, the core story and main plot and dialogue of the book is still Jane Austen's classic mind-numbing drivel. But the fact that it's now instead set in a zombie-infested English countryside protected by ninjas makes the whole thing pretty bad-ass. I actually find it interesting, provided any given scene has at least some of the new additional text. After all, the original dialogue just sounds like a Victorian episode of Gilmore Girls, but slower. (Come to think of it, Gilmore Girls really can be accurately described as a modernized Austen or Bronte novel played in fast-forward.)
Again, the whole idea was just brilliant. I hope this mash-up style continues, and I may have to try it out for myself. The addition of zombies, pirates, perhaps even robots may even make some of Sylvia Plath's work vaguely palatable. By itself certainly a non-trivial goal.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Why I Don't Want Flying Cars
Every once in a while a Slashdot article is either about or tangentially related to the dream of flying cars. There have been several prototypes over the years, some certainly much better than others, but it's just not a reality yet. And, invariably, the Slashdotters complain about this. We're in the 21st century, we have all the technology and civilization to make this happen, so why doesn't it happen? It must be the oil companies keeping us back, right?
No, what's keeping us back is plain old human nature. People do a poor enough job driving on a 2-dimensional plane, how do you think they'll fare with the exponential increase in complexity of a 3rd dimension? Have you ever seen somebody change lanes without looking and not notice (or care) that somebody is in their blind spot? And you want to give that person a much larger blind spot so they can descend without looking? Good call. Seriously, picture your daily commute to work. Now picture yourself standing under it.
Honestly, to anybody who wants our society to have flying cars, I envy you. Apparently you have never stalled, suffered a mechanical failure, or been in a minor collision while driving. Because these relatively small inconveniences take on an entirely new meaning during flight. Aeronautic travel presents a very unique set of circumstances not present in other means of travel. When driving along the ground, if something goes wrong you coast to a stop. When at sea, if something goes wrong you float. Even in space, if something goes wrong you still kind of float. But in the air, you fall. And die. A lot. Sure, there are circumstances where those other examples aren't quite so safe. There are dire situations where land, sea and space travel can kill. But it's not quite so readily apparent as with air travel.
I've heard lots of arguments to the contrary, and they all demonstrate only that the person arguing just wants their shiny toy and hasn't really thought it through. Let's take a look at some examples:
Also, I don't know about you but I like the fact that a drunk driver has to negotiate a series of obstacles before he can crash into my house. Currently he would have to leave a main road onto a lesser main road, leave that and enter my subdivision, navigate the turns and down the hill to the end of my street, jump the curb, not be stopped by the car in the driveway or the tree or the mailbox (the mailbox wouldn't stop him, but may indicate to him that he should stop), and even then the brick front porch provides a decent shield. What's to stop a drunk pilot from crashing into my house? Some shingles and plywood.
Come to think of it (and damn you Slashdot for making me present this point), I bet flying cars will be really popular among terrorists both domestic and foreign. Again, it's comparatively easy to defend a structure against cars. But small planes? That's a whole new kind of problem. Ever see the kamikaze video footage from World War 2? You can't really shoot them down. They're small, hard to hit, moving really fast directly towards you, and best of all even if you do hit them all you can really do is make them ballistic. Rather than having a small plane screaming towards you, now you have a small ball of fire screaming towards you. Physics is fun like that.
So, ya, I don't want flying cars. I specifically don't want them precisely because of the aspects of our culture that make people on Slashdot want them. We as a people are demanding, inconsiderate and filled with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. Just because it's the 21st century doesn't mean you get a flying car.
No, what's keeping us back is plain old human nature. People do a poor enough job driving on a 2-dimensional plane, how do you think they'll fare with the exponential increase in complexity of a 3rd dimension? Have you ever seen somebody change lanes without looking and not notice (or care) that somebody is in their blind spot? And you want to give that person a much larger blind spot so they can descend without looking? Good call. Seriously, picture your daily commute to work. Now picture yourself standing under it.
Honestly, to anybody who wants our society to have flying cars, I envy you. Apparently you have never stalled, suffered a mechanical failure, or been in a minor collision while driving. Because these relatively small inconveniences take on an entirely new meaning during flight. Aeronautic travel presents a very unique set of circumstances not present in other means of travel. When driving along the ground, if something goes wrong you coast to a stop. When at sea, if something goes wrong you float. Even in space, if something goes wrong you still kind of float. But in the air, you fall. And die. A lot. Sure, there are circumstances where those other examples aren't quite so safe. There are dire situations where land, sea and space travel can kill. But it's not quite so readily apparent as with air travel.
I've heard lots of arguments to the contrary, and they all demonstrate only that the person arguing just wants their shiny toy and hasn't really thought it through. Let's take a look at some examples:
- Air travel is statistically safer than driving. Ya, funny thing about statistics. They can be made to say anything. Just remember that, statistically, more people survive car collisions than plane collisions. See, there are relatively very few vehicles in the air, and the passenger to vehicle ratio is extremely high. Also, pilots are generally well trained. Drivers just have to not kill someone during one 20-minute drive when they're 16 and they're pretty much licensed for life.
- Pilots say that flying is easier than driving. Of course, they don't have to worry about assholes cutting them off or people talking on cell phones while eating a cheeseburger and trying to fly a plane within a few feet of them. The skies are pretty open and clear. The roads, not so much.
- We can make the vehicles safer. Back to an earlier point, can you make the vehicle remain aloft while not functioning under its own power? (And if you can, how light and delicate is that craft going to be? Hopefully the flying Suburban sees you and can swerve around you, and give you enough room that the wake of its turbines doesn't shred your parachute.) We've been making cars safer for years and people still drive like dicks. Also, all of the "safety" equipment in cars is pretty heavy. It's not hard to add weight to a car, but it's very hard to add weight to a plane. That's all we need, giant flying SUVs that are marketed to their owners as being "safe."
- More lanes means less traffic, we can make it safer by simply stacking more lanes arbitrarily. Wrong. Just wrong. You want to see what happens with more lanes of traffic? Go sit on the outer edge of a parking lot at your local WalMart or shopping mall or something like that and just watch. There are tons of lanes specifically designed to keep cars moving through with minimal difficulty. What do you see? People jumping from one lane to another randomly, people going the wrong direction in a lane, people speeding, people stopping and blocking a lane for no reason, people cutting each other off and pissing each other off. More lanes just means more opportunities for opportunistic assholes to practice their craft.
Also, I don't know about you but I like the fact that a drunk driver has to negotiate a series of obstacles before he can crash into my house. Currently he would have to leave a main road onto a lesser main road, leave that and enter my subdivision, navigate the turns and down the hill to the end of my street, jump the curb, not be stopped by the car in the driveway or the tree or the mailbox (the mailbox wouldn't stop him, but may indicate to him that he should stop), and even then the brick front porch provides a decent shield. What's to stop a drunk pilot from crashing into my house? Some shingles and plywood.
Come to think of it (and damn you Slashdot for making me present this point), I bet flying cars will be really popular among terrorists both domestic and foreign. Again, it's comparatively easy to defend a structure against cars. But small planes? That's a whole new kind of problem. Ever see the kamikaze video footage from World War 2? You can't really shoot them down. They're small, hard to hit, moving really fast directly towards you, and best of all even if you do hit them all you can really do is make them ballistic. Rather than having a small plane screaming towards you, now you have a small ball of fire screaming towards you. Physics is fun like that.
So, ya, I don't want flying cars. I specifically don't want them precisely because of the aspects of our culture that make people on Slashdot want them. We as a people are demanding, inconsiderate and filled with an over-inflated sense of entitlement. Just because it's the 21st century doesn't mean you get a flying car.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Determinism and Retro-Determinism
I was watching another one of those History Channel specials where they have futurists (including that guy with the increasingly crazy hair, I can't remember his name) talking about the technology to come (I know, I need to stop doing that, but it's entertaining. And how does one become a "futurist" and get on TV talking about things that don't exist? That sounds like a great job.) and one of the subjects that came up was how, with distant future technology, a civilization would be able to "model the universe" such that, having unlocked "the equation of the universe," they could theoretically construct a model of the universe and rewind/fast-forward to any point in order to study the past or predict the future.
You know "the equation of the universe" we're talking about here. It's the idea that there is somehow one complete mathematical model that describes the interaction of all things which exist (matter, energy, various forces such as gravity, things we haven't even discovered yet, maybe a Higgs-Boson for good measure, etc.). It's sort of an unofficial goal of the entire physics community, some are just a little more realistic about it than others.
This idea didn't sit right with me, and I've determined two main reasons why that's the case. It's not so much that "the equation of the universe" isn't possible, or isn't worth at least in part pursuing, but rather it's the idea of "rewinding and fast-forwarding" that doesn't seem to add up in my own reasoning.
Let's start with fast-forwarding. Seems simple enough, right? You construct a complete model, you have the equation, you just move it forward faster than time itself is moving forward. Computers are fast, future computers will be even faster, so it should work, right? No. See, there's a problem of infinite recursion.
The model of the universe needs to contain everything within the universe, right? Otherwise you're not modeling the universe, you're modeling a pretend universe. Hardly a useful model, because then you're just predicting a pretend future based on non-existant circumstances. So you need the whole thing. Well, the universe includes the computer you're using to model it. Which means the computer needs to also be calculating its own act of calculating, which is part of the overall interaction of matter/energy/forces/etc. in the universe. And it needs to do this in fast-forward. Essentially, the computer needs to be able to calculate what its own calculations will determine faster than it itself would have determined them.
Yes, in the future we'll have really fast computers. But this particular application of the technology would require a computer that's faster than itself. Maybe someone can throw together a lot of quantum mechanics terminology and theory and begin to imagine a computer of unbounded processing speed, where it can calculate without being limited by the passage of time and therefore be infinitely fast. Sounds cool, sure. But isn't all of that still within the scope of "the equation of the universe" and therefore still needing to be calculated?
All you've done by removing time from the equation is demonstrated that any single "step" in the model being calculated can contain an infinite amount of interactions. It's not entirely dissimilar to Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. That particular example was a little silly, of course, related rates being what they are. But that age-old philosophical exercise would actually become real under this model. In order to calculate "the next step" (that is, predict the state of the universe a moment before it happens) you first must calculate an infinite number of interactions taking place within that step. In this case that includes your own act of calculating the calculations.
The second thing that didn't sit well with me, of course, was the act of "rewinding." This doesn't fall into the same trap at fast-forwarding because when looking backward time is finite. The act of calculating takes place after the base state of the model and therefore doesn't need to be calculated. So it makes more sense and seems more plausible, right?
But what would this mean about the model of the universe and the equation of the universe? If any state of the universe, given a finite set of previous states, can be calculated backward to any of those previous states, and if there are an infinite number of states moving forward, then that would mean that the state of the universe can contain an infinite amount of information (considering also previously where I discussed that there can be an infinite number of interactions in any infinitesimal amount of time). It would also mean that the equation of the universe is an algorithm of infinite decompression of information (and, by extension, infinite compression of information).
Could such a thing even be considered plausible? That somehow, in some way, the current state of the universe contains within it all of the information about all of its previous states. And that this collection of information continues to grow within the confines of a finite model which does not grow. That somehow a finite amount of matter, energy, forces, etc. can contain an infinite amount of information. And that this is possible because at the very core of the nature of existence exists a single equation that, essentially, does nothing more than compress and decompress information between finite and infinite sizes.
You can see where that wouldn't sit right with me. It's great to sit around and think about the boundless possibilities of future technology. (And it would be awesome to have that job.) And things like the technological singularity present deeply fascinating thought exercises regarding all facets of human nature. But I just haven't been able to reconcile these particular gaps in the speculation.
Granted, there are probably aspects of this I don't fully understand. I do understand that time itself is not a constant line forward (or backward) and that it is a variable part of that whole equation. I understand that "in the beginning" (that is, in the immediate moments following the big bang) time was a very different thing than it is now, and that it will continue to change, well, over time. (I've often pointed out when asked "what was before the big bang?" that, given the nature of time and the universe, "before the big bang" isn't part of the coordinate system. It's akin to asking "what's north of the north pole?" Time isn't constant, and it itself began when the universe began.) But, simply as a matter of exercising what I consider to be reason, these seem to be significant holes in the theory.
You know "the equation of the universe" we're talking about here. It's the idea that there is somehow one complete mathematical model that describes the interaction of all things which exist (matter, energy, various forces such as gravity, things we haven't even discovered yet, maybe a Higgs-Boson for good measure, etc.). It's sort of an unofficial goal of the entire physics community, some are just a little more realistic about it than others.
This idea didn't sit right with me, and I've determined two main reasons why that's the case. It's not so much that "the equation of the universe" isn't possible, or isn't worth at least in part pursuing, but rather it's the idea of "rewinding and fast-forwarding" that doesn't seem to add up in my own reasoning.
Let's start with fast-forwarding. Seems simple enough, right? You construct a complete model, you have the equation, you just move it forward faster than time itself is moving forward. Computers are fast, future computers will be even faster, so it should work, right? No. See, there's a problem of infinite recursion.
The model of the universe needs to contain everything within the universe, right? Otherwise you're not modeling the universe, you're modeling a pretend universe. Hardly a useful model, because then you're just predicting a pretend future based on non-existant circumstances. So you need the whole thing. Well, the universe includes the computer you're using to model it. Which means the computer needs to also be calculating its own act of calculating, which is part of the overall interaction of matter/energy/forces/etc. in the universe. And it needs to do this in fast-forward. Essentially, the computer needs to be able to calculate what its own calculations will determine faster than it itself would have determined them.
Yes, in the future we'll have really fast computers. But this particular application of the technology would require a computer that's faster than itself. Maybe someone can throw together a lot of quantum mechanics terminology and theory and begin to imagine a computer of unbounded processing speed, where it can calculate without being limited by the passage of time and therefore be infinitely fast. Sounds cool, sure. But isn't all of that still within the scope of "the equation of the universe" and therefore still needing to be calculated?
All you've done by removing time from the equation is demonstrated that any single "step" in the model being calculated can contain an infinite amount of interactions. It's not entirely dissimilar to Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. That particular example was a little silly, of course, related rates being what they are. But that age-old philosophical exercise would actually become real under this model. In order to calculate "the next step" (that is, predict the state of the universe a moment before it happens) you first must calculate an infinite number of interactions taking place within that step. In this case that includes your own act of calculating the calculations.
The second thing that didn't sit well with me, of course, was the act of "rewinding." This doesn't fall into the same trap at fast-forwarding because when looking backward time is finite. The act of calculating takes place after the base state of the model and therefore doesn't need to be calculated. So it makes more sense and seems more plausible, right?
But what would this mean about the model of the universe and the equation of the universe? If any state of the universe, given a finite set of previous states, can be calculated backward to any of those previous states, and if there are an infinite number of states moving forward, then that would mean that the state of the universe can contain an infinite amount of information (considering also previously where I discussed that there can be an infinite number of interactions in any infinitesimal amount of time). It would also mean that the equation of the universe is an algorithm of infinite decompression of information (and, by extension, infinite compression of information).
Could such a thing even be considered plausible? That somehow, in some way, the current state of the universe contains within it all of the information about all of its previous states. And that this collection of information continues to grow within the confines of a finite model which does not grow. That somehow a finite amount of matter, energy, forces, etc. can contain an infinite amount of information. And that this is possible because at the very core of the nature of existence exists a single equation that, essentially, does nothing more than compress and decompress information between finite and infinite sizes.
You can see where that wouldn't sit right with me. It's great to sit around and think about the boundless possibilities of future technology. (And it would be awesome to have that job.) And things like the technological singularity present deeply fascinating thought exercises regarding all facets of human nature. But I just haven't been able to reconcile these particular gaps in the speculation.
Granted, there are probably aspects of this I don't fully understand. I do understand that time itself is not a constant line forward (or backward) and that it is a variable part of that whole equation. I understand that "in the beginning" (that is, in the immediate moments following the big bang) time was a very different thing than it is now, and that it will continue to change, well, over time. (I've often pointed out when asked "what was before the big bang?" that, given the nature of time and the universe, "before the big bang" isn't part of the coordinate system. It's akin to asking "what's north of the north pole?" Time isn't constant, and it itself began when the universe began.) But, simply as a matter of exercising what I consider to be reason, these seem to be significant holes in the theory.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Bible as an Online Video Game
I certainly hope this is being taken seriously by its creators, and honestly it's about time someone seriously considers the stories of the Bible as a rich source of video game material. Sure, it's a hot topic rife with controversy. But if some literary allegory about ancient figures is more taboo than stealing cop cars and shooting hookers then your society is broken.
Penny Arcade chimed in on the topic as well and raised some good points. Namely that the stories provide an absolute ton of rich content for adventure, not to mention that the characters have a lot of room available for depth. Even the most pivotal and important characters have wide gaps in the story which can be filled with all kinds of interesting adventures.
Naturally, I'm already a fan of the subject matter. And I would be lying if I said I wouldn't enjoy holding any kind of small tactical advantage over the average douchebag gamer as a result of my familiarity with the subject matter. (Where's your precious flying spaghetti monster now, mofo? *unloads a full clip of sanctification on opponent*)
The subject has come up before, actually. I remember a discussion about this very topic on Slashdot many moons ago. And, in usual Slashdot style, I was engaged in a pseudo-argument by some random windbag. And, let me assure you, nothing brings them out like a discussion even tangentially related to religious beliefs. Seriously, it's textbook Pavlovian behavior. My wife is the same way. Mention anything that can, in 4 degrees or fewer, be in any way linked to anything remotely religious and expect to get a diatribe about the evils of religion. And of course by "religion" they invariably mean "American Christianity." It's difficult for some people to separate the two.
Anyway, what basically happened was I made some random point on the topic. Something about how I like the idea and how the Bible has a ton of content that can be used for video games. Then someone randomly added to the conversation by stating his views on how God isn't real and none of the stories in the Bible actually happened and how even the events that inspired it were historically insignificant, being confined to that little corner of the world. And, of course, that we're all idiots for following ancient superstitions.
First of all, -1 Offtopic. Nobody cares about your religious beliefs, we're talking about a video game. (And, yes, unshakable faith in the absence of a god is, by definition, faith. It's a religious belief. Deal with it.) But more to the point... what was the point? Was he insinuating that only historically significant events can qualify for video game material? Please, explain to me the historical significance of Mario and Luigi.
And even still... "historically insignificant"? The Bible? Whatever this guy's been huffing, he may want to lay off for a bit. I can see where he was trying to go with that, being stories of random little prophets and comparatively small-time kings (except the king in Esther, which may very well be my favorite Bible story, who was likely Xerxes or some Persian king of that period and very much not small-time) and tribal skirmishes otherwise unnoticed by the more developed societies surrounding them.
But then it was written down, and boy howdy did it become significant. Wars and empires, kings and heroes, for thousands of years they have risen and fallen under the weight of the Bible's pages. Granted, I see as the great irony the fact that western Christianity has traditionally been a Roman institution and not necessarily a Christian institution. Thanks Constantine, you simultaneously put Christianity on the map and forever altered it to suit your own views. But that institution has been far from "historically insignificant."
I guess this guy had his own religious beliefs on history. Again, the irony is delicious. It's one thing to not believe in God, it's another thing entirely to plug your ears and shout "la la la..." whenever the subject of history rears what you consider to be its distasteful head. Yes, pretend the whole of human history and all the colorful religions that have decorated it never happened. That'll lead to true progress. Science be praised!
Now, here's hoping this turns out to be an interesting online game. Again, tons of stories from which to choose. And, as Tycho from Penny Arcade also pointed out, it's conveniently all public domain. No licensing, no lawsuits, and a time-tested brand with proven earning potential. I've heard it referred to as a niche market. Are millions of devout followers considered a niche? Well, those millions of people are historically insignificant, so their brand loyalty doesn't matter. Right?
Penny Arcade chimed in on the topic as well and raised some good points. Namely that the stories provide an absolute ton of rich content for adventure, not to mention that the characters have a lot of room available for depth. Even the most pivotal and important characters have wide gaps in the story which can be filled with all kinds of interesting adventures.
Naturally, I'm already a fan of the subject matter. And I would be lying if I said I wouldn't enjoy holding any kind of small tactical advantage over the average douchebag gamer as a result of my familiarity with the subject matter. (Where's your precious flying spaghetti monster now, mofo? *unloads a full clip of sanctification on opponent*)
The subject has come up before, actually. I remember a discussion about this very topic on Slashdot many moons ago. And, in usual Slashdot style, I was engaged in a pseudo-argument by some random windbag. And, let me assure you, nothing brings them out like a discussion even tangentially related to religious beliefs. Seriously, it's textbook Pavlovian behavior. My wife is the same way. Mention anything that can, in 4 degrees or fewer, be in any way linked to anything remotely religious and expect to get a diatribe about the evils of religion. And of course by "religion" they invariably mean "American Christianity." It's difficult for some people to separate the two.
Anyway, what basically happened was I made some random point on the topic. Something about how I like the idea and how the Bible has a ton of content that can be used for video games. Then someone randomly added to the conversation by stating his views on how God isn't real and none of the stories in the Bible actually happened and how even the events that inspired it were historically insignificant, being confined to that little corner of the world. And, of course, that we're all idiots for following ancient superstitions.
First of all, -1 Offtopic. Nobody cares about your religious beliefs, we're talking about a video game. (And, yes, unshakable faith in the absence of a god is, by definition, faith. It's a religious belief. Deal with it.) But more to the point... what was the point? Was he insinuating that only historically significant events can qualify for video game material? Please, explain to me the historical significance of Mario and Luigi.
And even still... "historically insignificant"? The Bible? Whatever this guy's been huffing, he may want to lay off for a bit. I can see where he was trying to go with that, being stories of random little prophets and comparatively small-time kings (except the king in Esther, which may very well be my favorite Bible story, who was likely Xerxes or some Persian king of that period and very much not small-time) and tribal skirmishes otherwise unnoticed by the more developed societies surrounding them.
But then it was written down, and boy howdy did it become significant. Wars and empires, kings and heroes, for thousands of years they have risen and fallen under the weight of the Bible's pages. Granted, I see as the great irony the fact that western Christianity has traditionally been a Roman institution and not necessarily a Christian institution. Thanks Constantine, you simultaneously put Christianity on the map and forever altered it to suit your own views. But that institution has been far from "historically insignificant."
I guess this guy had his own religious beliefs on history. Again, the irony is delicious. It's one thing to not believe in God, it's another thing entirely to plug your ears and shout "la la la..." whenever the subject of history rears what you consider to be its distasteful head. Yes, pretend the whole of human history and all the colorful religions that have decorated it never happened. That'll lead to true progress. Science be praised!
Now, here's hoping this turns out to be an interesting online game. Again, tons of stories from which to choose. And, as Tycho from Penny Arcade also pointed out, it's conveniently all public domain. No licensing, no lawsuits, and a time-tested brand with proven earning potential. I've heard it referred to as a niche market. Are millions of devout followers considered a niche? Well, those millions of people are historically insignificant, so their brand loyalty doesn't matter. Right?
Monday, August 23, 2010
Light Cones and Retro-Causality
Maybe I'm just not understanding something about this, which is entirely possible given that we're talking about quantum mechanics. I was watching something on television last night (I know, hardly a means of studying the subject, but bear with me) and there were various guests, filmed in silly locations where they try to use real-world objects as analogies of quantum mechanics, talking about time travel.
Now, there was no shortage of discussion on forward time travel. Enter or leave various gravitational effects, approach the speed of light, etc. Forward time travel, as presented in this program, wasn't really time travel at all. It was merely a change in the relative perception of the passage of time. It had the perceived effect of time travel, but so does freezing yourself and being revived in a thousand years. The passage of time, relative to your perception as you zip through space at near-luminal speeds, remains. That is, you continue to physically exist throughout the entire time as perceived by anybody. You don't blink out of existence and re-emerge in the future across any kind of event horizon.
But when it came to backward time travel, that was a whole different story. There was really no way around the fact that speeding up or slowing down one's relative passage of time doesn't make it go backwards. (Much in the same way as when someone misses their turn on the road and suddenly begins to drive very slowly as they try to figure out how to go back and make that turn. There is no forward velocity that's slow enough to take you backward. Deal with it. Take the next left and double-back.)
So the only segment the program had on this subject was a professor who is conducting experiments for the purpose of using quantum entanglement to send information backward in time. Experimentally we're only talking about a couple of photons, not a letter that you can write to yourself in the past. But it's a start. But the way he described it just didn't sell the idea to me at all.
He spent some time attempting (with delicious looking pizza, boardwalk style) to illustrate the idea of a light cone. Well, the concept isn't terribly difficult. Looking forward and backward on the scale of time, a cone shape outward into the scale of space emerges relative to the speed of light from any given point. This cone contains the realm of causality for that point. Anything within the scope of the reverse cone can affect the point, and the point can affect anything within the scope of the forward cone. This is based on the idea that nothing can travel faster than light. And, even if we can travel faster than light, we simply change the volume of the cone. The cone itself still exists.
Enter quantum entanglement. Quantum mechanics may indeed tell us that anything can happen at any time for any reason, but more specifically it tells us that particles are linked together by a means that has no limitation of velocity. If you affect one state of the entanglement, the other state will instantly know. This happens regardless of distance. Even separated by light years, the two states of the entanglement share information instantaneously. Somehow the information is transmitted and received trans-luminally. No energy is sent, and energy is bound by Einsteinian physics anyway so it wouldn't be able to traverse any distance instantly. It's just... instant. On the light cone the information remains on the same plane as the point.
The professor with the pizza barely touched this as he attempted to explain the idea of sending a message back in time. Basically, the idea was that you can use quantum entanglement to transmit information to a distant recipient. But he kept describing it as the recipient receiving the information before you sent it. This was where he lost me. As I see it, perhaps the recipient is watching the sender through a telescope, receives the message, then later witnesses the sender transmitting the message in the telescope. But that's not "back in time." That's just causality outside of the confines of the light cone.
Essentially, on the scale of relative perception of the passage of time (remember the speeding or slowing velocity of the passage of time), you've discovered the number zero. The light cone becomes entirely flat. It's now a plane. Don't get me wrong, this is a big deal. But it's not "backward in time." You haven't actually crossed back over that plane. You've achieved a non-positive time difference, but not a negative time difference.
Consider two machines with synchronized atomic clocks measuring time to within the trillionth of a second. One machine sends a piece of time-stamped information to the other via traditional means. When the other receives it, the time stamp is different from (lower than) what it currently knows. Time has passed. Now instead imagine that one machine sends a piece of time-stamped information to the other via quantum entanglement. When the other receives it, the time stamp is exactly equal to what it currently knows. Some time later, it may perceive through conventional means that the first machine is about to send a message... the message that it has already received. But it didn't receive that message before the message was sent, merely before it knew that message was sent. Not time travel.
The idea of sending a message back in time is the idea that, after something happens, you can send a message into the past to someone who can prevent that thing from happening. Causal paradoxes and alternate universes aside, what you're talking about is retro-causality. The future affecting the past. But that's laughable compared to what is actually physically being attempted. The physics is describing trans-luminal causality, that's all. The idea that the present can affect the present, where previously it could affect only the future. It does nothing to change a past event.
It's possible to conceive of a machine which could, using all kinds of ridiculously advanced control over quantum mechanics, affect things outside of the scope of time. But it still can't touch the past. The past is, and always will be, gone. This machine can, from the moment it is activated, affect any point in space or time forward from its initial relative position. But it can't go back to any point in time prior to its own existence. The Wonkavator can go sideways, slantways and squareways, but I'm afraid it can't go backwards.
Now, there was no shortage of discussion on forward time travel. Enter or leave various gravitational effects, approach the speed of light, etc. Forward time travel, as presented in this program, wasn't really time travel at all. It was merely a change in the relative perception of the passage of time. It had the perceived effect of time travel, but so does freezing yourself and being revived in a thousand years. The passage of time, relative to your perception as you zip through space at near-luminal speeds, remains. That is, you continue to physically exist throughout the entire time as perceived by anybody. You don't blink out of existence and re-emerge in the future across any kind of event horizon.
But when it came to backward time travel, that was a whole different story. There was really no way around the fact that speeding up or slowing down one's relative passage of time doesn't make it go backwards. (Much in the same way as when someone misses their turn on the road and suddenly begins to drive very slowly as they try to figure out how to go back and make that turn. There is no forward velocity that's slow enough to take you backward. Deal with it. Take the next left and double-back.)
So the only segment the program had on this subject was a professor who is conducting experiments for the purpose of using quantum entanglement to send information backward in time. Experimentally we're only talking about a couple of photons, not a letter that you can write to yourself in the past. But it's a start. But the way he described it just didn't sell the idea to me at all.
He spent some time attempting (with delicious looking pizza, boardwalk style) to illustrate the idea of a light cone. Well, the concept isn't terribly difficult. Looking forward and backward on the scale of time, a cone shape outward into the scale of space emerges relative to the speed of light from any given point. This cone contains the realm of causality for that point. Anything within the scope of the reverse cone can affect the point, and the point can affect anything within the scope of the forward cone. This is based on the idea that nothing can travel faster than light. And, even if we can travel faster than light, we simply change the volume of the cone. The cone itself still exists.
Enter quantum entanglement. Quantum mechanics may indeed tell us that anything can happen at any time for any reason, but more specifically it tells us that particles are linked together by a means that has no limitation of velocity. If you affect one state of the entanglement, the other state will instantly know. This happens regardless of distance. Even separated by light years, the two states of the entanglement share information instantaneously. Somehow the information is transmitted and received trans-luminally. No energy is sent, and energy is bound by Einsteinian physics anyway so it wouldn't be able to traverse any distance instantly. It's just... instant. On the light cone the information remains on the same plane as the point.
The professor with the pizza barely touched this as he attempted to explain the idea of sending a message back in time. Basically, the idea was that you can use quantum entanglement to transmit information to a distant recipient. But he kept describing it as the recipient receiving the information before you sent it. This was where he lost me. As I see it, perhaps the recipient is watching the sender through a telescope, receives the message, then later witnesses the sender transmitting the message in the telescope. But that's not "back in time." That's just causality outside of the confines of the light cone.
Essentially, on the scale of relative perception of the passage of time (remember the speeding or slowing velocity of the passage of time), you've discovered the number zero. The light cone becomes entirely flat. It's now a plane. Don't get me wrong, this is a big deal. But it's not "backward in time." You haven't actually crossed back over that plane. You've achieved a non-positive time difference, but not a negative time difference.
Consider two machines with synchronized atomic clocks measuring time to within the trillionth of a second. One machine sends a piece of time-stamped information to the other via traditional means. When the other receives it, the time stamp is different from (lower than) what it currently knows. Time has passed. Now instead imagine that one machine sends a piece of time-stamped information to the other via quantum entanglement. When the other receives it, the time stamp is exactly equal to what it currently knows. Some time later, it may perceive through conventional means that the first machine is about to send a message... the message that it has already received. But it didn't receive that message before the message was sent, merely before it knew that message was sent. Not time travel.
The idea of sending a message back in time is the idea that, after something happens, you can send a message into the past to someone who can prevent that thing from happening. Causal paradoxes and alternate universes aside, what you're talking about is retro-causality. The future affecting the past. But that's laughable compared to what is actually physically being attempted. The physics is describing trans-luminal causality, that's all. The idea that the present can affect the present, where previously it could affect only the future. It does nothing to change a past event.
It's possible to conceive of a machine which could, using all kinds of ridiculously advanced control over quantum mechanics, affect things outside of the scope of time. But it still can't touch the past. The past is, and always will be, gone. This machine can, from the moment it is activated, affect any point in space or time forward from its initial relative position. But it can't go back to any point in time prior to its own existence. The Wonkavator can go sideways, slantways and squareways, but I'm afraid it can't go backwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)