×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

332 comments

Testable! (4, Insightful)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516062)

So, when it did already cause matter to have appeared?

Re:Testable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516132)

It can't yet, because of the Gas Effect. Once that problem is solved, it is more likely that you will get the results you are expecting.

Re:Testable! (2)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516148)

...and why couldn't I go back and not screw up my first-ever first post?

Re:Testable! (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516260)

...and why couldn't I go back and not screw up my first-ever first post?

Because it's not going to be magic, it's just going to be a time machine.

Re:Testable! (4, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516522)

Future You liked the post you will have did shall post better than the one you were going to intending posted was in the yesterday future.

Re:Testable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516190)

You can't see snake

Re:Testable! (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516620)

At last, the English language's obsession with what time something occurred serves it well. Usually it just serves to confuse the hell out of ESL learners, since the ESL teachers love to test for obscure tenses.

I sure hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516112)

I put my large hardon into a large hardon collider.

I wish I could go back in time, so as to not make that mistake again. Ouch!

avoiding paradox? (1)

xophos (517934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516144)

the article claims the theory avoids paradox but in the same breath proposes that messages could be sent to the past...

Re:avoiding paradox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516320)

There is no paradox if you treat the timeline like a tree. At any moment in time, there are many possible futures, but there is only one past. Therefore, if you send a message to the past, at that point in time in the past, you are branching off into a different timeline, from which it is impossible to get to the point you sent the message from, because the past at that point is different than at any point after the message was received. Essentially, you'd be sending a message into someone else's past and not your own. You'd never be able to observe the results of the changes made by altering the past.

Re:avoiding paradox? (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516580)

Bill DeSmedt wrote about the possibility of sending message to the past in his book Singularity [amazon.com]. An interesting take where the messages sent to the past directly lead to the future from where the messages could be sent. It kind of implies that neither the past nor future can be changed but cause and effect are not bound by time.

Re:avoiding paradox? (1)

mhelander (1307061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516592)

So now the Universe houses both timelines? Because I assume that the person sending the message - and his Universe along with him - doesn't just disappear after sending the message?

Re:avoiding paradox? (1)

Sky Cry (872584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516618)

You'd never be able to observe the results of the changes made by altering the past.

So you're saying that whatever you do, no one can verify any of that? None of the actions you do are ever going to be observable? In other words, for all intents and purposes, you did exactly NOTHING.

Re:avoiding paradox? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516726)

This lends credit to the idea that time travel is only possible if parallel dimensions exist. The old show Time Trax [imdb.com] used this as their explanation of it all.

Re:avoiding paradox? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516838)

*sigh* Can you *please* just play along with them on this? They came up with the theory to explain to their wives how porn mags got into their desks. ("Must have been some pranksters that sent them back in time!")

No paradoxes? (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516160)

FTFA:

"Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."

Send a message to a hitman saying "kill X and I will send you the results of any race horse of your choice". How's that for not being able to go back and kill your grandfather?

Re:No paradoxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516214)

FTFA:

"Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."

Send a message to a hitman saying "kill X and I will send you the results of any race horse of your choice". How's that for not being able to go back and kill your grandfather?

So what if that did happen?

Why does the universe have to follow the human notion of causality? Because the tools we've played with so far don't violate causality? Because it offends some human sensibilities?

Re:No paradoxes? (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516410)

More like because it wouldn't really be "travelling back in time", it would (if it worked) be spawning different realities, or communicating with already existing realities which are separate from our own. Slightly creepy, and also it doesn't seem that plausible. Not that it's impossible..

Re:No paradoxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516218)

Then the world is going to blue screen and we all are going to die in the great reboot.

Again.

Re:No paradoxes? (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516256)

I bet he would be far more interested to know about the results of the horse race than the results of the race horse.

Re:No paradoxes? (4, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516394)

I bet he would be far more interested to know about the results of the horse race than the results of the race horse.

It's already happening! I could swear I typed the word 'horse' before I typed 'race'...

In which races will this horse win, place, or show (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516792)

I read "results of the race horse" as how the horse would do in all its coming races. It won't help you place a trifecta wager, but it will help you know when to bet on that horse to win, place, or show in its next races.

Re:No paradoxes? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516370)

Send a message to a hitman saying "kill X and I will send you the results of any race horse of your choice". How's that for not being able to go back and kill your grandfather?

Just hope that someone else doesn't send a message back in time to kill the horse.

The "Time Modem" (2)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516486)

Exactly. If you can send information into the past - which effectively means sending mass/energy - that's all you need. You don't have to send individual bits. You could send emails. You could send sound files. Heck, you could hook up some cameras and watch the future in... er... 'real time'.

The only question is the bandwidth, and how many people have access to the channel. See here [homeunix.net].

Re:No paradoxes? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516550)

By killing X, there would be no need to send the message, hence no reason to send (or memory of promising to send) the results backwards, which means no incentive to ever do anything that someone in the future asks you to do based on a promise of future knowledge.

And nobody says that time is linear. We just don't know. We assume so, because of the way we perceive it (but we also only perceive it "forwards" and that might not be true either), but we don't know. Maybe it would create an instantaneous alternate universe where those actions DID happen and two "you"'s branch off down two separate universes, one where X did die and you knew you'd ordered it, maybe one where X disappeared and was never heard of again, maybe one whereby X changes something and you were never born (but the order came from "nowhere" in the future back into the past)? Who knows?

Re:No paradoxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516686)

The only down side to the multiverse theory is energy.

It would take an infinite amount of energy being created every picosecond of our existence. Energy does not just appear.

Now you could take the energey from somewhere else. However, if you are taking the energy from say an existing universe to create a new one the existing one would be that much smaller. Eventually it would run out (and rather quickly too).

Re:No paradoxes? (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516570)

Wow! And all along I've been blaming the dog for the voices I heard telling me to kill! kill! kill!

Now I know it was in fact Higgs singlet messages being sent from the future!

Re:No paradoxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516728)

If you assume time being consistent, then we can only send back notes to kill the people who where killed in our past due to notes sent from the future.
Though in any case notes are pretty big things, and I don't think any hitmen sat around in the past trying to pick up binary signals from particle generators.

Re:No paradoxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516836)

Even better: send contents of the book to it's author (back in time, before he actually written anything) so he doesn't have to write it anymore.

Stupid idiot (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516184)

So who is this Higgs bozo and how in hell's name did he lose his singlet yesterday before he even got it?

John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516208)

I read the article this a.m. over coffee, & 2 things came to mind:

1.) The film from my subject-line above (good classic sci-fi/horror flick about what this article entails in part (being able to send messages back & forth through time - as this article notes in its content))

&

2.) John Titor (this was a weird one from a decade or so ago online, about a guy claiming to be an actual time traveller, who used "counter-clockwise spinning orbiting twin blackholes" as a method of time travel (or, something along those lines))

APK

P.S.=> Interesting stuff, but as usual, seems to be the province of theorists only, currently (Thus, I don't subscribe to any of it serisouly, not until it's "practical application" & provable in practice - that'd certainly be something to witness though)... apk

Am I the only one (3, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516212)

Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?

This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.

Re:Am I the only one (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516364)

Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?

This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.

I am a time traveller... I am moving into the future at a speed of one second per second.

Re:Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516374)

Theoretical physicists have friends?

Re:Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516800)

Theoretically, yes, we wioll haven.

Re:Am I the only one (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516498)

Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?

This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.

No, this is why you don't get invited to those parties.

Re:Am I the only one (1, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516514)

Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?

I know. Those people who proposed we'd be able to harness the force of lightning, or build an atomic bomb, were annoying too.

Re:Am I the only one (1)

TC Wilcox (954812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516624)

Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?

This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.

Especially since we learned years ago that the Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible. (http://ent.trekcore.com/episodes/season1/1x26/quotes.html)

Re:Am I the only one (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516754)

I have a theory that any theory which allows for time travel will be proven wrong. For example, general relativity allows for time travel, but requires negative mass-energy. We're know general relativity is mostly right, so negative mass-energy, being the larger assumption, is probably wrong.

so it's false (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516242)

otherwise we'd have gotten a message indicating that it works

imho (1)

Torvac (691504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516270)

if all this crap would be possible in practice, someone would have used it and we would know it allready. razored.

Re:imho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516724)

Actually, not really. This type of time-travel (well, information being sent through time) requires that the past civilization have developed a receiver/method to detect the messages from the future.
 
If we developed the technology to send messages back in time using this method next week, we wouldn't be able to receive the messages until next week because right now we don't have anything set up to receive the messages.
 
Your argument is rather like saying that the TV show Big Bang Theory (or any TV show for that matter) because you don't have a TV.

Re:imho (1)

BriggsBU (1138021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516770)

Actually, not really. This type of time-travel (well, information being sent through time) requires that the past civilization have developed a receiver/method to detect the messages from the future.

If we developed the technology to send messages back in time using this method next week, we wouldn't be able to receive the messages until next week because right now we don't have anything set up to receive the messages.

Your argument is rather like saying that the TV show Big Bang Theory (or any TV show for that matter) because you don't have a TV.

Message Not Received (1)

Kraagenskul (828606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516274)

If they could send messages to the past, doesn't that mean their theory is wrong since they haven't received a message yet?

Re:Message Not Received (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516438)

What does a receiver look like for this kind of message?

How many neutrinos went through our planet before we built detectors capable of noticing an insignificant fraction of them?

Re:Message Not Received (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516460)

Depends if we already have a means for reading the messages or not. If the multiple universes concept is correct then I guess we'd probably be getting an infinite number of messages though.. might be kind of hard to read such a message. Maybe we already are getting an infinity of such messages in our background radiation.. [insert further stupid idea here]

Re:Message Not Received (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516546)

Would they tell if they did? Maybe someone could analyze the percentage of physicists who win the lottery.

I got this singlet message yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516276)

It read "Time travel is impossible or we would have already sent you a message, moron".

Dyslexic much? (1)

Krusso88 (1252390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516300)

Am I the only one who read that as Large Hardon Collider is a Time Machine?

Re:Dyslexic much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516772)

Yes. Now get your mind out of the gutter and learn to read.

notice how time is 'catching up' getting 'faster'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516342)

no. can't happen. we don't have a machine for that, nor does it meet our georgiastonemason 'math' parameters. so disappear.

ALL MOMMYS, GET YOUR BUTTS TO MIDDLE EAST, ONT, JAPAN, DC, LA, NY, FL ETC..., WE'RE DYING HERE.

Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516344)

...it was only a matter of time.

Pseudo science FTW! (2)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516366)

Sigh.... I do LIKE imaginative thinking. Something that is lost with most scientists... but please be careful with what you say.

Time is one of the LEAST understood concepts. I think we've let science fiction be our guide on our understanding of time.... and... cough... I think it's "time" for that to stop.

88mph? (4, Funny)

gravos (912628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516418)

Is it really so difficult to get the atoms up to 88 miles per hour?

Re:88mph? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516532)

Have you seen the size of that thing?

Re:88mph? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516614)

No, the problem is building flux capacitors small enough to fit in a backpack for an atom to wear.

Limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516466)

The 'time machines' that physicists say are 'possible' can only go back as far as the creation of the time machine itself. You can't go back to 1937 to warn people that the Hindenburg is gonna burn, nor back to 1963 and take out the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Anything like this in Sci-Fi? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516484)

Anyone know of any Sci-Fi where people are freely able to send messages across time? It would require a multiverse to avoid violating causality, similar to the John Titor story, and it would be impossible to send messages to any time before the machine was powered on. Imagine if you could email yourself or others across time by relaying an email through a "temporal router." What a crazy world that would be.

Re:Anything like this in Sci-Fi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516588)

Is it time for people to re-read (or read) James Hogan's Thrice Upon A Time?

Re:Anything like this in Sci-Fi? (1)

israel (28011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516900)

FYI; In Thrice Upon A Time, http://www.amazon.com/Thrice-Upon-Time-James-Hogan/dp/0671319485 [amazon.com], a scientist discovers the ability to sent particles back through time, affording the ability to send messages. At the same time, a giant fusion reactor starts to create mini-blackholes, and he needs to use this ability to send information back to correct things before disaster strikes. Published in 1980, it appears to predict and foreshadow much of the LHC issues, fears and discussions.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time [wikipedia.org] for more info.

Re:Anything like this in Sci-Fi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516736)

It comes up a bit in Steven Baxter's Manifold: Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold:_Time), which is a great book.

Re:Anything like this in Sci-Fi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516878)

When I read the article, I immediately thought of the James P. Hogan novel "Thrice Upon a Time"

The answer to your question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516500)

The answer to your question is 42 ..

Avoids paradoxes? Yeah... right. (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516502)

From TFA:

"One of the attractive things about this approach to time travel is that it avoids all the big paradoxes," Weiler said. "Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."

How does this avoid paradoxes? A scientist sends a message back in time "Kill my father". Past performs the deed. Paradox opened.

Re:Avoids paradoxes? Yeah... right. (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516648)

Hitman acts on message from "man from the future". Kills someone. That someone never has a child. That child never sent the message back. Hitman still claims that he received the message until the day he dies.

A paradox only occurs if you believe time is linear. What if time bifurcates at every decision, as some philosophers/scientists have posited? Then the "you" that sent the message wasn't the "you" that was never born, hence it's still valid and the hitman still *received* the message to act on, even if, from that point on in that particular "Trouser of Time", the message never got sent back.

In either "leg" of the universe, however, causality is intact. In one, you send a message "to the past" that seems to never have been received or acted upon, and in the other, some loony kills a guy and says he was told to by space aliens from the future who turn out to never have existed, or sent any message.

Re:Avoids paradoxes? Yeah... right. (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516652)

Was just about to ask the same question. Had it half way typed out and saw this one sitting right at the bottom.

TimeMachine...TimeTravel (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516536)

Ain't possible.

It may produce events that represent possible/probable past events. A representation of past events is not TimeTravel.

What no McFly or Doc Brown jokes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516540)

I'm seriously disappointed in all of you.

Re:What no McFly or Doc Brown jokes? (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516734)

You mean this one [slashdot.org] posted 10 minutes before you? Hello McFly!!

Unless it was posted from the future... nevermind...

so it only transports matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516564)

hmm

Ghost particles travelling backwards in time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516626)

I've been wondering this for a long time as well.

It seems to stand to reason that *if* this actually happens and *if* you are able to detect these, the best time frame to look for them is from the moment the collision becomes unavoidable until the actual collision occurs. This is of course a very short time.

IF particles can travel further back than that, I will be able to predict the collision with 100% certainty when I shouldn't be able to and thus can "predict the future" which is illogical.

IANA particle physicist.

where was the buzz generated? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516660)

The article says:

In 2007, the researchers, along with Vanderbilt graduate fellow James Dent, posted a paper titled "Neutrino time travel" on the preprint server that generated a considerable amount of buzz.

They did indeed post it [arxiv.org] in 2007. But where was the buzz generated? As far as I can tell, that paper has never been cited, not even in another arXiv preprint. I can't even find evidence of it being discussed on mailing lists or blogs, at least anything [google.com] Google knows [google.com] about, prior to the current bit of publicity due to this article. Did it generate a bunch of hallway buzz that never made it onto the internet in any form?

John Titor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516682)

Time travel and CERN's LHC, but no mention of John Titor?

M-Theory for morons (1)

sweetser (148397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516760)

Here is the easy message: it is not a theory - a way to do many calculations, all confirmed by experimental tests. People who work on M-Theory hope it becomes a theory some day. Even us folks on the ultra-conservative fringe of physics (http://bit.ly/GEMblog) would not publish such silliness.

Be a real man, woman, or pre-op tranny and buy the "No Stinkin Higgs" t-shirt (http://bit.ly/GEMtshirt) that predicts, well, that they will not find the Higgs or some time-traveling singlet.

Doug
http://visualphysics.org

Overcompensation (1)

gedankenhoren (2001086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516798)

With the LHC having still not reached the energies it's designed for, methinks this is overcompensation, self-aggrandizement when faced with humiliation.

Filing patent application today... (1)

Sentrion (964745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516850)

Communication and computational device for transmitting data faster than data is generated.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...