Slashdot Mirror


Far-Fetched Time Travel Concept Receives Private Funds

WED Fan writes "A University of Washington researcher who couldn't find funds the old fashioned way has raised funds from private parties to continue with his studies of 'time travel'. He is studying the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. Basically, using spooky action, he wants to be able to use entangled pairs to send messages, not only through space, but also in time. 'As the evidence for this has accumulated, several fairly contorted and unsatisfying efforts have been aimed at solving the puzzle. Cramer has proposed an explanation that doesn't violate the speed of light but does kind of mess with the traditional concept of time.' Despite the implausibility of the science here laypeople have been inspired by the researcher's idea, enough to donate almost $35,000 to his project."

83 of 505 comments (clear)

  1. obligatory by uolamer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I get the investors info?

    I have a bridge that...
    In soviet Russia Time Travel You.
    Is this the Lt. Commander Data theory or the Spock theory of time travel?
    if you do manage to do this, send me a copy of all the sports results for the next 100 years and history of the stocks, etc.

    Seriously.. If this was possible, i can only start to imagine how the wrong people or even the right people could really mess up things with their first little test.

    --
    s/©//g
    1. Re:obligatory by Intron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this worked then there would already be investors lined up who have sent messages to themselves from the future.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    2. Re:obligatory by oliverthered · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it could be that you can't send messages back any earlier than the time the message was created, effectively only slowing time down so it take less time for the message to arrive. Less time could be no time at all so the message arrives when it's sent.

      This won't allow you to send messages 'back' in time though.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:obligatory by dfiguero · · Score: 5, Funny

      Note to self from the future: don't invest in this idea.

      --
      My penguin ate my sig
    4. Re:obligatory by CommunistHamster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trouble is that there is no such thing as universal simultaneity. What clock do we measure by when measuring "before the message was created"?

    5. Re:obligatory by brunascle · · Score: 3, Informative

      i think you're thinking of the transactional interpretation which is apparently what the researcher subscribes to.

      i actually like the many-worlds theory. i find it easier to grasp.

    6. Re:obligatory by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to a November 12, 2010 article in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, this was exposed as an investment scam and the responsible parties have all been charged by the USDOJ Attorney General Sam Waterston.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:obligatory by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Funny

      it could be that you can't send messages back any earlier than the time the message was created, effectively only slowing time down so it take less time for the message to arrive. Less time could be no time at all so the message arrives when it's sent.

      So, how do you weed through the noise? How do you know what pair to listen to when you don't even know a message has been sent?

      Weaponize this sucker, grab an intangled pair in a critical system, like a reactor, twist the sucker until it does something bad. Boom, Three Mile Island goes into shut down because an Iranian...oh, wait.

      Turn this into an industrial sabotage device, grab an intangled pair from a critical processor, twist the sucker, Intel turns out faulty math co-processors in the mid-90's...oh, wait.

      Blimps...New Jersey...oh, wait.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    8. Re:obligatory by sconeu · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say he subscribes to it... He *developed* it!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:obligatory by tbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Disclaimer: I am a physicist who studies quantum information.

      You still make money in the many world interpretation. Though trading on a sport event might not be your best bet, By having a view of the future you can sell or invest in right technologies etc, this is robust enough not to be affected by small changes.

      Making money in Many Worlds is easy, even without time travel. Suppose you want to bet on who will win the World Series. Get some quantum bits, and decide beforehand on what (orthogonal) states of those qubits correspond to which teams. Prepare a superposition of all 30 possible teams. Now, measure your state, and bet all your money on whichever team your measurement tells you. Wait for the world series to finish, then either collect all your winnings, or, if you didn't win, kill yourself.

      In all worlds where you're still alive, you'll have won a lot of money.

      Note to theoretical computer scientists: this is very similar to how someone (who believes in Many Worlds) might try to compute the answer to a problem in the complexity class Post-BQP.
      Note to everyone else: don't try this at home.

  2. Its not that far fetched. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its not that far fetched.

    I invested some money in this guy next week and have been earning a decent return on my investment for the last 3 years.
    I did however feel a little shiver as I considered shorting his stock and for some damned reason pictures of my family have started to fade.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Its not that far fetched. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to SEC disclosure statements: "Principal investors, John Tobor, $1,000,000 New Dollars; John Smallberries, loan backed by 400,000 shares of YoyoDyne Propulsion; and one Captain J. Kirk, who hates whales."

    2. Re:Its not that far fetched. by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

      1. Profit!
      2. ???
      3. Invent Time Machine

    3. Re:Its not that far fetched. by bigdavex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was beautiful. I laughed out loud.

      --
      -Dave
  3. So? by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    he wants to be able to use entangled pairs to send messages, not only through space, but also in time.

    Big deal, Slashdot has been bringing us news from the past for years!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:So? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny

      he wants to be able to use entangled pairs to send messages, not only through space, but also in time. Big deal, Slashdot has been bringing us news from the past for years! Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future?
      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:So? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you know subscribers can see articles in the future?

      Oddly enough, most of the articles from the future are also from the past...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  4. As The Doctor once said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but, actually, from a non-linear viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

    1. Re:As The Doctor once said... by jnaujok · · Score: 3, Funny

      That sentence kind of got away from you there...

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
  5. First Post from 1972 by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wooo it works!!!

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:First Post from 1972 by teslar · · Score: 4, Funny
      Timestamp from actual first post:

      Tuesday June 12, @06:00PM
      Your timestamp:

      Tuesday June 12, @06:01PM
      For all those who think about making fun of this gentleman for not actually having made first post, remember that the post has travelled for 25 years and has arrived within 1 minute of its designated arrival time. That's an error of approximately 7.6x10^(-8) times total time travelled... and that is better than what i can achieve at darts :)
    2. Re:First Post from 1972 by teslar · · Score: 2, Funny

      has travelled for 25 years
      Damn, I just realised it's not 97 anymore, goes to show the accuracy of my own time machine...make that 35 years and recalculate the error as required :) Will still be in the order of 10^(-8) though I expect
  6. I'm all for the scientific method... by DanQuixote · · Score: 3, Insightful


    But I also admire folks who can inspire others toward some dream...

    --
    "We think people rightly feel that once they buy something, it stays bought," --Suw Charman, Open Rights Grp
    1. Re:I'm all for the scientific method... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference between a crackpot and a scientist with a dream is that the scientist still relies on the rigorous application of the scientific method even if their theory is way outside of mainstream. It sounds like this guy is taking the latter tack. He has experiments in mind, and is completely open to the idea that they may fail.

      You don't have to pick between dreaming and scientific rigor. The scientific method is how you turn your dreams into a reality -- if reality is ammenable to your dreams.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:I'm all for the scientific method... by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 4, Informative

      John Cramer has been writing science articles for the science fiction magazine Analog for some time. They are available online here: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    3. Re:I'm all for the scientific method... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If $35k buys him one experiment that disproves his theory, then he's saved 9x that much. If his experiment shows that his theory produces reproducible results, then he's that much closer to convincing people he's not a nut.

      The question is whether $35k is enough to fund one experiment.

    4. Re:I'm all for the scientific method... by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How exactly would $350,000 help substantiate his loony idea better than $35,000?
       
      The wealthier you are the more other people take you seriously.

  7. ROI by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If time travel can be produced, it's worth (asymptotically) nearly any amount of investmemnt to get it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:ROI by timster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah, it's not worth anything. If time travel is ever developed, the universe enters an unstable state. Stability isn't returned until a scenario occurs where time travel is never discovered in the first place.

      This process takes no time (obviously), so any discovery of time travel is immediately undone. Actually, this happens all the, er, time.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:ROI by squidfood · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If time travel can be produced, it's worth (asymptotically) nearly any amount of investmemnt to get it.


      It is extraordinarily sad to me that the "geeks" of this forum are considering this a financial investment rather than a scientific investment. I am a scientist, and I know that the logic of grants and funding agencies is a game that can be far removed from science, supportive of the status quo and the tenured. For $2-10K, if I had it lying around, I'd happily play "funding reviewer" in the hope of funding something small but with good potential.

      This "private investment" model is intriguing, it's much more accessible than the mammoth granting agencies, perhaps better for the public than funneling public money through the NSF. It creates direct communication between scientists and interested supporters. Especially as the article quotes seem to indicate the investors are intelligent - the pooling of a small amount of money for a credible scientific result is to be encouraged. Though I do recognize one must be careful, it can be a fine line sometimes between this credible (though bleeding edge and possibly wrong) research and snake oil.

      And small investments help: a year of a grad student can get a lot done. Well, with some grad students.

    3. Re:ROI by cowscows · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that there are plenty of people out there for which $35,000 is really a drop in the bucket. Giving that money to this guy is most likely money wasted, but if that money was most likely just going to sit in the bank with a few other tens of millions of dollars until you die, then you haven't really lost anything worth worrying about anyways.

      If you've got more money than you know what to do with, why not take a couple long-shot bets?

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:ROI by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If time travel can be produced, it's worth (asymptotically) nearly any amount of investmemnt to get it.
      Unfortunately, no. There are already experiments that seem to show time travel, but the nature of the experiment is that it takes longer to get the results, than the time distance you can travel backwards. i.e. I can send a message back 10 microseconds, but I don't know about it until 20 microseconds. The information isn't available until after the experiement is finished, rendering it useless.

      These experiments become physics parlor tricks, like wavefronts moving greater than the speed of light, but they aren't useful.

      If you could build a system that sent a small amount of information backwards in time, even only milliseconds, you could use it to build a computer that could run an infinite loop in constant time. Problems like traveling salesman could be solved with perfect induction.
      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    5. Re:ROI by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that "some time travel" != "unlimited time travel". What if time travel is possible, but only for info, and each bit transmitted requires just less than the total energy of the universe for some smallest time backwards? What if that bit can represent only whether or not the bit itself was transmitted? What if there's some other limit, and time travel falls somewhere in between? What if there's complex, perhaps cyclic, dependencies among several limits?

      Even those possibilities are possible to consider only after we've started to understand information dynamics, which itself is pretty recent. What if there are other kinds of limits, or other ways to get around limits, that more info engineering experience reveals? What if there are several cycles of paradigm change like that before we understand enough to even investigate time travel directly?

      And what about just proving in detail how the universe prevents time travel? The current model, based mostly on Einstein's Relativity, allows for time travel in some circumstances (eg. some rotating cylindrical black holes). Why isn't it easier? Does it already happen in nature? The "intermediate" results, or just disproof, would restructure a great deal of our model of the universe.

      All of which has economic benefit, likely greater than the cost.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:ROI by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 4, Funny

      So the technology was invented in the future, but we have it now. But since we have it, the people in the future won't bother to discover it because they already have it, which means it wasn't ever discovered, thus in the past we didn't have it to grant to the people in the future, which means that now they had the motivation to discover it, but since they sent it back to us, they had it in the past, and just took that knowledge for granted and didn't have to discover it, so the future never discovered it, so they didn't send it back to us, so we didn't have it, and thus they didn't have it to take for granted, so they discovered it, and then sent it back to us, and so on and so forth.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    7. Re:ROI by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily. It could enter into a self-sustaining stable harmonic state where it is alternately discovered and not discovered, or create a pocket self-contained universe where dinosaurs and lizard-men live and time travel is regularly performed inside special pylons using grids of glowing colored rocks.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    8. Re:ROI by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This brings up an interesting concept. Say you invent a machine to send a message back in time 20 seconds.

      So in testing the machine, you receive the message, and then in 20 seconds send it. It works! Great, but...

      On the second test, you start to wonder, "What would happen if I was going to send the message, but then change my mind when I receive it?"

      So you receive the message, then decide not to send it. Interesting paradox, huh?

      Either that, or the machine will always predict with 100% accuracy whether or not you'll push the button to send the message. So if you intend to not push it once you get the message, you'll never get the message. So there will be no way to "trick" the message into coming in.

      It's a bizarre concept. Thinking about it brings up interesting thoughts like whether or not we really have free will. :)

    9. Re:ROI by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally, an explanation of deja-vu that makes sense - the perception of parabolic ripples of collapsing flux capacitors killing their inventors before they are made! It naturally follows that as the ripples propogating through the ether cause my arms and legs to sleep when I'm awake, not to mention that every time I remember something different from my wife it's just the Uncertainty Principle asserting itself retroactively! Though it's suspicious that it's always in her favor...

      Who knew Chicago had it right all these years; I really do no longer know what time it is.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  8. Come on... by vurg · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I ever start thinking about building a time machine, I would make a promise to myself beforehand that my first plan of action is to send a message back in time to right now telling me that it works. I'm still waiting for that message.

  9. for chists sake by brunascle · · Score: 4, Informative

    how many times must it be explained, you cannot send information FTL using quantum entanglement. more specifically, you cannot send information using quantum entanglement. you can only use it together with a classical communication channel.

    you'd think these people wouldve already known that.

    1. Re:for chists sake by tylersoze · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhh this isn't FTL, the information is sent through advanced waves at exactly the speed of light.

    2. Re:for chists sake by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're right... he should finish the machine, then go back and tell himself to never start it!

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:for chists sake by wes33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      don't need a link: in QFT it is true that space like separated operators commute - so no communication; in short, you can't make what you want happen at the other end of the "channel" even though there is a correlation between what is happening at both ends. OTH, so far as I know, this condition on the operators is just "written in" to the the theory so I think it's definitely worth testing

    4. Re:for chists sake by tylersoze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with you that most descriptions of entanglement are BS, especially in the mainstream media, but as far as Cramer's transactional interpretation goes it's just an alternative interpretation of QM. The "transaction" that occurs in this interpretation when the wave function finally collapses happens atemporally through the advanced and retarded offer waves. There's no classical information transfer. As I understand it, initially Cramer was only using this alternative interpretation as a teaching tool. Apparently now he's trying to find experimental evidence in cases where it would differ from other interpretations.

      Yeah the problem with FTL is that it connects events with a space-like interval which will have different temporal ordering depending on what reference frame you're in. In the tranasctional interpretation quantum information is transmitted at exactly the speed of light (light-like separation, 0 proper time) symmetrically in time. I loved this symmetric time idea when I first read about in Feynman's Lectures on Physics (where it was applied to his absorber theory to explain radiative reaction in EM).

  10. I am already Half way there. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Funny
    I can send messages to the future but I am having sending messages back.

    #/bin/sh
     
    #send a message 5 minutes in the future
    sleep 300
    echo "Hello from the Past"
    But this doesn't seem to work yet

    #/bin/sh
    sleep -300
    echo "Hello from the Future"
    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I am already Half way there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, but it works in LOLCODE:

      HAI
      BRB -300
      VISIBLE "HAI FROM FEWCHUR LOL"
      KTHXBYE
    2. Re:I am already Half way there. by Panaflex · · Score: 4, Funny

      The reason it doesn't appear to work is the output happened before you even ran it, unless you didn't run it, See?? .... Look in your shell history silly man ...

      >:-*-D

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    3. Re:I am already Half way there. by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually my grandfather did develop a negative sleep function but I got so pissed off with my great grandchildren pestering me for an early inheiritance I went back and shot the bastard.

    4. Re:I am already Half way there. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, it does work. In C it does. You just have to wait a looooooooooooooong time (and ignore the compiler warning that claims you're trying to use signed where unsigned would make more sense).

      Ok, it doesn't work as intended, but it compiles, so hell, ship it!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:I am already Half way there. by zCyl · · Score: 3, Funny

      The reason it doesn't appear to work is the output happened before you even ran it, unless you didn't run it, See?? .... Look in your shell history silly man ...
      .bash_future?
  11. List of investors? by MECC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if there's a way to get the names of the people who gave him money, and their contact info.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  12. I can prove that it won't work by 14erCleaner · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If he could send messages back in time, he could just send his impoverished past self some winning Lotto numbers, thereby funding the project far more than $35K.

    Of course, the past impoverished researcher would have to build a receiver first, requiring funds up front. Maybe that's what he's doing now. Keep an eye on how this guy's "luck" goes in the, um, future.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  13. Push it to the limit by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if investors' safety is guaranteed.

  14. John Cramer by FredK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've wondered why so few seem to pay attention to his ideas. He has offered the only explanation for the weirdness of quantum mechanics that makes any sense to me. See http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_arc hive.html for Carver Mead's take on it.
    Fred

  15. Good idea by Usquebaugh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find the idea of public funded science research heart warming. No need for the government or the science establishment to get involved. If an individual wants to contribute good for him and the researcher.

    I care not if I think the researcher is not all there, it's not my money.

    For instance Robert Bussard is trying to raise funds to continue his fusion research. Now I don't think he spent money wisely in the past, I don't think he was too smart in his dealings with the DoD, I do not think he has solved all the problem. But I do think he is the closest to cheap fusion. Should I fund him?

    My only stipulation is that everything must be published, not only the research but also the money trail. I want to see where the dork spent $10k on software.

  16. Remember, folks... by InfinityWpi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not every crackpot is really a brilliant genius... but almost all brilliant geniuses were, at one point, considered to be crackpots.

  17. Transactional interpretation isn't crazy by tylersoze · · Score: 2, Informative

    This guy isn't crazy, the idea of using advanced waves goes all the way back to Feynman (see Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory which is what this is based upon). This merely another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. All he's trying to do is see if we can experimentally verify it as producing different results than the "standard" interpretations. It's called science people, look into it. Sometimes crazy ideas turn out to be true, you don't know until, you know, you run experiments. As crazy ideas go, this one isn't that off the wall, it's based on actual physics. There's no FTL involved, the transactions all occur at the speed of light through advanced and retarded waves.

    http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/ti_over/ ti_over.html
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_ toc.html
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/no de2.html

    1. Re:Transactional interpretation isn't crazy by DirtySouthAfrican · · Score: 2, Informative

      And for those who don't want to read all that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpr etation It sounds very much like conventioanl QFT viewed through 1930s eyes... Especially the part about waves cancelling. Expectation values of commutation relations vanish (decay exponentially) outside the lightcone where they are acausal.

  18. RIAA Funded by lbmouse · · Score: 2, Funny

    "This country puts a lot more money into things that seem to me much crazier than this," said Mitch Rudman, a music industry executive in Las Vegas whose family foundation donated $20,000 to the experiment.

    Oh no! This must be a conspiracy to allow RIAA hit-men to go back into time and take out the Internet before it was born.

  19. Maybe they did... by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do you know they didn't?

    Sure, it may seem like it's a foolish investment, but if it pays off... Oh, man... Invest a penny at the beginning at time, and before you know it, you'll be dining at Milliways.

    1. Re:Maybe they did... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Invest a penny at the beginning at time, and before you know it, you'll be dining at Milliways.
      Better check that (1) your bank will continue to exist for the requisite period ("Do you take Visa?" "Visa hasn't existed for 500 years." "American Express?" "600 years." "Discover card?" "Sorry, we don't take Discover."), and (2) that they don't have restrictions that you (a) maintain a minimum balance or (b) maintain a minimum account activity where, if either is violated, they start taking away your money (and, in the case of (b), do it retroactively from the month of your last transaction--yes, some banks do do this), and (3) their policies won't change over the course of your investment.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Maybe they did... by beckerist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or...invest in a few gallons of oil, or a few big diamonds, or have your future self send you the names of all the famous artists of the time (and buy some of their stuff for CHEAP!)

      Money rarely (and certainly not predictably) INCREASES in value over time...inflation alone generally out paces all other economical factors. Your best bet is in the value of rare goods...

  20. These People aren't Investors by m1a1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the comments here make no sense.

    These people are not investors. They did not get "scammed". Those of us who read the article know that this scientist did not even approach them for cash. Rather, news of his plight got out and people wanted to donate. He is a respected particle physicist with a theory that is a little odd. He wants to perform a relatively cheap experiment which should show whether his theory has enough going for it to be worth further examination. If these experiments fail, oh well, back to the drawing board.

    This is the way science is SUPPOSED to work. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but acting like this guy is a scam artist is ridiculous. This guy runs a super collider, yet everyone here is so damn sure they understand quantum phenomenon better than he does.

  21. Two counterpoints by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (1) Perhaps there are, and these investors are them.
    (2) Not necessarily, if one needs to develop a special kind of "receiver" in order to receive the messages, then the first point in time at which such messages could be received would be when such receiver technology was invented (such point in time would be in the future still). If that point was in, say, 2015, then you could send messages from 2019 to 2015 but not from 2019 to 2007. You could *send* such messages, but nobody would have the technology to even realise that such messages were being sent. Like transmitting radio signals to cavemen.

    1. Re:Two counterpoints by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like transmitting radio signals to cavemen.

      Cue pissed off insulted caveman Geico commercial.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Two counterpoints by s4m7 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dear Sir,
      I am writing to inform you that I have recieved a message from your future self. Included is the text from that message.

      Hello, me! I just wanted to let you know that I (you) got rich by investing in this man's method of time travelling messages! I (you) invested $2000 just one week after I (you) recieved this very message, and within six months I (you) was a millionare!
      signed, Me (You).

      Here's my address..
      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  22. I am an investor. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have yet to hear of any results, although I did have a strange experience the other day. I was about to try my first sip of Milo's Famous Sweet Tea when a 500 lb man appeared from thin air and knocked the glass from my hand before disappearing again.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  23. Not a crackpot. by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is based on the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

    It's based on hard science, and makes testable predictions. TFS grabbed the most sensational lines from TFA.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  24. Re:Causality anyone? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If relativity is correct (and even possibly if it isn't), backwards-in-time communication really REALLY F@#)(*s up causality. Heck, Faster Than Light (FTL) communication at all F@#)(*s up causality.

    Intra-universe causality, at least. If parallel universes exist (and mathematically it makes a lot more sense if they do), then causality is a moot point. When something travels back in time, it only appears in a parallel universe with the same history up to the point in the past at which it arrives, after which it is fundamentally different. This doesn't necessarily even require a violation of the laws of physics, because there is always some finite (but infinitesimal) probability of virtual particles assembling themselves into an object from a possible future or the past. If there are parallel universes, then there are almost certainly an infinite number of them, one for every possibility, and therefore some universes exist in which time travel happens as essentially an accident of random physics, but to the observers within the universe it looks just like time travel but without causality violations.

  25. Time? by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some people think time is just a human construct...a way in which we measure the difference in the state of matter. If you think of reality as a motion picture of individual frames, time doesn't really come into the picture. Time travel doesn't make sense in this case because you can't actually bring everything in your near reality back to the state it was in before, never mind everything in the world, universe, etc.

    I can take a paperweight on my desk and move it 6 inches to the left, and then back 6 inches to the right...I've essentially caused the rock to time travel, at least on an easily observable level, because it's in the same easily observable state it was in before. On a quantum level, no...because various things have changed in the rock (the little bit of airflow from movement along with my fingers grabbing it and dragging it on the desk likely scraped some matter off).

    Anyway, just another crackpot way of looking at things.

  26. Re:What is time, anyway? by Kam+Solusar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everyone is overlooking the rather large elephant in the room. What is time, anyway?
    Well, according to the latest Doctor Who episode:

    People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
    I think that's as good as any other explanation (until some senator finally reveals the truth: that time is actually a series of temporal tubes...)
    --
    The Angels have the Phone Box
  27. Dear God! by FST777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine you make said receiver, the first one ever invented. It would immediately spit out all kinds of spam messages from all kinds of futures.

    Now THAT would be annoying! Imagine turning the thing on for the first time ever, and immediately receiving Zetabytes of "Frist psot!" messages.

    --
    Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
  28. A problem of abstraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our understanding of time is a high abstraction. We represent it metaphorically as motion over distance because that is the only way we can make sense of it. There is no compelling reason to believe that this metaphor is very accurate, especially at the quantum level.

    Familiar concepts of movement over distance include the ability to move back to where you were, change something, and then move forward again. It is by analogy only that the ability to do this through time is even comprehensible. There is as of yet no good reason to believe that this extension of the motion-over-distance metaphor is in any way accurate.

    Furthermore, there are some very good reasons to believe that the concept is irrational (note, I am not saying "the concept makes sense but is impossible," but rather I am saying, "the concept itself is irrational."). Here is one: if I make a mistake, and send myself a message into the past saying "don't make this mistake," and hence I don't make the mistake, I have just destroyed my incentive to send the message. More fundamentally: the changing of an event that has already happened will result in further changes along the chain of cause-and-effect, thus changing the event which caused a previous event to change...and the whole universe falls into an infinitely recursive loop until it runs out of memory and crashes.

    Please understand that I am not claiming that quantum retrocausality is impossible (that has yet to be tested), but that even if it does happen on a quantum level there will be no means of making this sort of use of the phenomenon, as "this sort of use" is nothing more than a mis-perception of how time works based on an ill-applied metaphor.

    If any crowd can understand bad analogies, it should be this one...

    1. Re:A problem of abstraction by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is one: if I make a mistake, and send myself a message into the past saying "don't make this mistake," and hence I don't make the mistake, I have just destroyed my incentive to send the message. More fundamentally: the changing of an event that has already happened will result in further changes along the chain of cause-and-effect, thus changing the event which caused a previous event to change...and the whole universe falls into an infinitely recursive loop until it runs out of memory and crashes.
      Some science fiction writers have managed to get time travel that is at least consistent by disallowing scenarios like this. You can travel back in time, but you can't "change" the future. Because you traveled back in time, following events always occur as if you appeared. For a good treatment of consistent time travel, take a look at Babylon 5's episodes "War Without End". The line "I tried to warn them, but it all happened just the way I remember" sums it up fairly well.
    2. Re:A problem of abstraction by PresidentEnder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here is one: if I make a mistake, and send myself a message into the past saying "don't make this mistake," and hence I don't make the mistake, I have just destroyed my incentive to send the message. But what if you send the message anyway, remembering that it was the reason you avoided the mistake in the first^h^h^h^h^hsecond^h^h^h^h^hthird^h^h^h^h^hohda mnit place?
      --
      I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    3. Re:A problem of abstraction by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes - a Type One Plot. Another example is Greg Egan's Hundred Year Diaries.

  29. Re:I wanna see this technology at the network laye by SuperGillies · · Score: 2, Funny
    shouldn't it be:

    64 bytes from 192.168.65.24: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=-23.45 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.65.24: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=-20.84 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.65.24: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=-21.33 ms
    64 bytes from 192.168.65.24: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=-19.43 ms


    ----science.slashdot.org PING Statistics----
    4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max = -23.45/-21.26/-19.43 ms

    myserver:/home/idontgno > ping science.slashdot.org
    PING science.slashdot.org (66.35.250.150): 56 data bytes
    --
    sig not found. please replace sig.
  30. Receiving messages from the future by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    More to the point than trying to speculate about the physics of the system, you can't receive a message from the future unless you've built a receiver. So even if the system works, you've got to spend the cash upfront before you can find out.

    *Then* you can use it to violate causality and send yourself stock market and horse-racing results from the future....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  31. Not hard for those with superior intellect by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 2, Funny

    If this worked then there would already be investors lined up who have sent messages to themselves from the future.

    it could be that you can't send messages back any earlier than the time the message was created, effectively only slowing time down so it take less time for the message to arrive. Less time could be no time at all so the message arrives when it's sent.

    The trouble is that there is no such thing as universal simultaneity.

    Pffft...everyone knows that really intelligent people have already figured this out.
  32. Yes, but look at the bright side... by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Along with all that spam would come technology from the future to eliminate baldness and increase penis size.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  33. Re:ahahaha... by Chowderbags · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm pretty sure that defining velocity in terms of Newtonian mechanics and then using modern understanding of time counts as being wrong. Attempting to define motion through time as a simple substitution is bound to create problems, mostly because it's making shit up.

    Heck, the site even says that time dilation doesn't occur and instead attributes it to clocks slowing down ("for whatever reason"). Now, experiments in time dilation have shown that cesium atomic clocks, devices accurate to within a billionth of a second every day, show results extremely close to that predicted in general reletivity. Unless this site wants to come up with an explaination of mechanical failure for devices with such accuracy, I'm going to stick with the evidence for time dilation.

    Overall, I have to say that crackpot sites by people who as far I can tell have submitted no papers to peer reviewed journals or otherwise shown expertise in the field are probably not the best place to get information on physics.

  34. 2038 by Kamokazi · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, is this why I keep getting lots of spam email from 2038?

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  35. Re:ahahaha... by Chowderbags · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's funny. I had no idea that velocity was defined otherwise. It is still v = dx/dt, is it not? Whoever thought that your post was insightful needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
    Well, for one, equations for distance involving spacetime already result in interesting situations that you wouldn't get from Euclidean geometry, distances that are positive, zero, or imaginary. I'm pretty sure that you can see at this point where there's a problem, namely that using time as a dimension gives you unintuitive results (though it's certainly a plus that they, you know, work).

    The evidence that cesium clocks slow down is not evidence for time dilation. It is evidence that cesium clocks slow down under certain conditions, nothing more. Anybody who insists that time can change (an oxymoron) is either an idiot, an ass kisser, or is talking about something he/she is clueless about. IOW, he or she is talking out of his/her ass. ahahaha... Uhh, given that the difference in time kept by the clocks matches almost exactly with what is predicted by relativity, I'd say that's pretty damn conclusive evidence for time dilation occuring. Unless you've got some other mechanism that you can pull out of your ass that is repeatabe, can be verified, and is otherwise examinable, then you are the one talking out of your ass.

    Peer review is synonymous with ass review, IMO. ahahaha... This is why people like John Cramer, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, etc.. can get away with their time-travel crap and still pass as serious scientists. They're all a bunch of crackpots kissing each other's asses. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Phew! Making phun of crackpot physicists is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
    Getting your methodology, results, conclusions and every other piece of information about your theories, experiments, crackpot ideas, etc out to other people who are experts in the field so that they can run your experiment, analyze your data, comb through the reasoning behind your conclusion, and otherwise do anything else to vet your theories as being good or bad is the cornerstone of science. Unless you want to attempt a system of science where everything ends up on obscure websites that attempt to find support in the bible for physics theories with no apparent grounding in reality. Hell, that same website says that not only does time not exist, but space doesn't either and instead says that everything is particles and their properties. Well, if he wanted to rebel against science he sure has done it, because as far as I can see he has no evidence backing his theories. No experiments, no models, no readily testable properties, nothing. No wonder you and the site go against peer review so much, you would have to actually put up or shut up. Instead, you and the site take pot shots at science and scientists who actually bother to follow a systematic approach to increasing knowlege.
  36. This won't work by kmac06 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Disclaimer: I am a physicist working in a quantum information group, and have taken a graduate level physics course on quantum information.

    This won't work. The article doesn't give details, but by googling the scientist, I found this proposal, and immediately recognized the flaw in the experiment. He's trying to use a quantum eraser (wiki of quantum eraser, and link to good article on them) to change the image of the downconverted photons on a camera, but that simply cannot be done. The image on a screen can be changed using a nonlocal eraser, but only when you look at conincidences of the two photons. This is a common proposal for FTL communication, I just can't believe no one ever told this guy why it wouldn't work.

    The quantum eraser (linked above) can be pretty tough to get your head around. It combines interference, entanglement, and nonlocality, all tough nonclassical phenomena. Feel free to ask if you read the article and don't understand something.