Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 11/26/16 at 2:23am UTC, wrote Hi Mathew, I have only just come upon your video. Its nicely done. Thanks...

Matthew Marsden: on 9/2/14 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote Hi Joe, Thank you for watching my video, and your comments ( no I don’t...

Matthew Marsden: on 8/22/14 at 20:53pm UTC, wrote Hi FQXI contest viewers, if you have any questions re this possible...

Matthew Marsden: on 8/22/14 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote Video Image Video URL ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Joe, What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Jason, You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written..." in First Things First: The...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

Jason Wolfe: "The best we can do with the environment is to plant more trees and..." in More on agency from the...

gmail login: "Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I..." in Bonus Koan: A Lake of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, I don't think the quantum representation of the hydrogen atom is an..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "You are very good at defending a classical macroscopic and objective..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

SAJ Real Estate: "Nice one. Real Estate Sales St Kitts" in A Close Encounter


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
November 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Show Me the Physics! Video Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Time travel, Worm hole, billiard ball' paradox, Timelessly. (re Paul Davies- New scientist article) by Matt Welcome Marsden [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Matthew Marsden wrote on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Video Image





Video URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5cRGOGIEU



Video Description

Professor Paul Davies describes the “Worm Hole Billiard Ball” paradox as if Einstein's Relativity proves not only that gravitationally affected oscillators “run slow”, but as if GR also proves the existence of “time” and “different Times”, (e.g. a temporal “past” and “present”). However, a careful examination of section 1 of “on the electrodynamics of moving bodies” shows Einstein provides no proof, or reason at all to convince us that extra to motion, and (dilated) change, there is also a past, and or future, or thing called “time” that “passes. Specificallly – “Electrodynamics” on “time” , states only.... [We must be] quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.” (This reasoning only “assumes” a pointer attached to a motor shows the existence and passing of a thing called time Thus,without citing other proof, all that is shown here is that “trains” and “rotating pointers” may stationary or moving, and there locations and velocities can be being compared if one wishes). Instead “Electrodyanmics” seems only to “assume” a thing called time exists, and describes its findings as if Time is proven elsewhere – however, critically, most scientist seem to assume that the demonstration that a moving light clock ticks differently to a stationary one –also- proves the existence of a past, future, and “time”. This video demonstrates how “IF” Relativity only shows us spaghettification, warped space, and dilated rates of change, the “Worm Hole Billiard Ball” paradox may be resolved completely.... without any parallel universes, or Hawking’s “chronology protection conjecture”. Matthew Marsden (auth “A Brief History of Timelessness” )

Video Creator Bio

Matt (welcome) Marsden, is a stand up, and science geek, his "“A Brief History of Timelessness” eBook website and Youtubes attempt to explain and explore (open mindedly) a question and possibility that no other expert on "time" seems to have considered. Let alone considered and dismissed or otherwise. The key question addressed being "if matter just exists, moves, interacts and changes.... including the matter in our own minds... would this be enough to mislead us into thinking a "temporal" past, and thus a thing called time might actually "exist"? the analysis is not "metaphysical" or "phylosopical" or "sematics", but science and logic.

Bookmark and Share



Matthew Marsden wrote on Aug. 22, 2014 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi FQXI contest viewers, if you have any questions re this possible timeless interpretation of the wormhole billiard ball paradox, please post a comment.

M. Marsden.

Bookmark and Share



Matthew Marsden wrote on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT
Hi Joe,

Thank you for watching my video, and your comments ( no I don’t take them as vindictive : ). Far from "completely mistaken", the theme for this video is based around a very legitimate and well known and established time “paradox” that far from mistaken, is published in scientific American, and mentioned in many books and articles exploring the suggested nature of “time”, if it exists.

The nature of the scenario is deliberately abstract, because like any "thought experiment" or “Gedankenexperiment” the idea is to simplify a scenario to it’s simplest logical components (without worrying at the first stage, about too many concrete details, e.g. 'how would you build a wormhole', 'what actual particles are you considering sending through it' etc), so as to analyse the most basic logic of a particular theory or argument.

This way if a “paradox” can be shown to rely on false assumptions, or to fail in even a simplistic abstract analyses of it’s logic this can indicate that there may be no need to go to the effort and expense of analysing an idea in a more detailed theoretical, practical or experimental level.

What I think I have shown here is that the initial suggested paradox relies on unproven assumptions that 'time', and a 'temporal past' exist. And, if it is considered without these assumptions it becomes sensible and solved... ultimately suggesting that the paradox itself far from proving time, and it mysteriousness, in fact shows how the 'theory of time' itself may be invalid, and unfounded.

mm

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 26, 2016 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Mathew,

I have only just come upon your video. Its nicely done. Thanks too for your comments about the nature of the paradox.

I agree with you about objects only existing Now and the particular argument you present on that point. However I am surprised when you nonetheless go onto talk about the object Now passing through the wormhole, when you have explained that there is no actual evidence for the existence of time in Einstein's description. So isn't the whole idea of the wormhole scrapped by your suggestion? Why do you still need to consider warped space?

I don't want to entirely eliminate the idea of the 'time tunnel' but to present a different idea of what it is and how an object would interact with it. I'd say that there is potential sensory data in the environment and its not completely unfeasible that it could be disturbed in such a way as to form a tunnel. The object only exists Now though, and passing through a tunnel of potential sensory data would not affect the time at which the object itself exists. As it is only Now it wouldn't meet itself or need to be spaghetti-fied. The potential sensory data with temporal spread within the information continues to exist Now but where the object was and is Now do not both exist. So no meeting itself, unless it is a long object already, that fits all of the way through the tunnel of em information. The 'wormhole' entering object is just encountering data pertaining to different -Now configurations of the Object universe, the older on exit compared to younger on entrance. Yet it is always within the only foundational time that I call uni-temporal Now.

This paradox like the other temporal paradoxes is dispelled by recognition of the need to differentiate material objects in foundational reality, potential sensory data in that environment, and outputs formed from sense-able information.

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.