Dateline:2020 - The International Year of Time Travel Science
Welcome To The Future of the PAST...
2020 will be called the International Year of Time Travel Science, because for the first time ever, it is obvious that time travel to the past is going to happen much sooner than anyone predicted. It is only a question of where, when and by who, but on an international level, the activity leading up to that has been well underway, though you wouldn't know it by looking at the news media. Though outlets like ABC, Bloomberg, and Space.com will occasionally cover time travel science stories, but if they do it is always seen as a far off notion or only theoretical and always based on Einstein's theories of Relativity - Einstein, a man who didn't even believe in time travel to the past and as if nothing else has happened over the last 100 years.
This is especially true if the focus of the story is UConn professor Ronald L. Mallett. Mallett, a protected media hoax who, until recently, had managed to suck all of the air and the media attention for his claim of solving the problem of time travel to the past. His self-proclaimed "discovery" of exact solutions from Einstein's equations from General Relativity for a rotating ring laser, that would allow for the creation of closed time-like curves, is now over 16 years old with no changes or progress noted and numerous papers proving it wrong - and yet Francesca Street, of CNN has just put out another rendition of the same old refrains, joined by the chorus of Michael Eli Dokosi, Caroline Delbert, Bhaswati Guha Majumder, Elizabeth Rayne and Scarlett James. As one Kim Anderson tweeted, "Another article with an erroneous headline promising nothing". Never mind that Mallett, in the entirety of his career, has never penned an academic paper in time travel science, the nature of time or any other approach to time travel - aside from his one singular idea about his stupid toy - which won't work - not even with massive amounts of power just to attempt to send a particle to the past (which I've shown it won't). The fact is that Ronald Mallett is the same "time travel scientist" that was involved with the World Patent Marketing scam that involved Trump appointee Matt Whitaker back in 2018 that made the media howl with ridicule. Mallett in fact conspired with World Patent Marketing CEO Scott Cooper to raise more than $500,000,000 based on false and misleading information in a video they had produced which broke Florida laws - facts that were sent to the FTC as part of their investigation which eventually shut World Patent Marketing down.
In fact, it was as if it was almost in expectation of the announcement of the proclamation for which this article has been penned, that all these recent articles sprang up like crab grass. You want know the definition of "fake news"? Look at each article. Some make it sound as if this is a recent development. Now do a search for Ronald Mallett and you will find every single story, or recorded interview, is essentially the same story that just came out. Nothing new for over 16 years!
If nothing else, this is a time for real scientific debate on the topic, to set the record straight, if you will, because for far too long the focus has been on the work of scientists who have no honest intention of trying to actually do time travel, but instead merely use its apparent conundrums as ways of testing the very theories that have no real connection with the subject at all. All that ends...now.
But before we cover the recent events that have placed the realization of the practical ability of time travel to the past, right smack dab in the middle of our apparent trajectory toward the future, I want to take an accurate look back, first, to make clear exactly where it is that we've come from because, as they say, hindsight is 20/20...
Although he is seen by many to be responsible for making time travel "a thing" as the kids are prone to say these days, the fact is that Albert Einstein didn't even believe in time travel to the past nor do either of his theories provide for actual time travel in either direction. But in this video, here's how it's presented.
While time dilation and all other aspects of Relativity are correct, they do not amount to true time travel. Time dilation only produces a retardation in aging as does various forms of suspended animation. Time dilation also doesn't produce time travel to the past. As I pointed out in my report, A Special Report: Temporal Escape, Kip Thorne's famous idea for using wormhole's for time travel suffers from the fatal flaw of using time dilation - "Thorne sets the stage himself when he says that we can go through the wormhole on Earth, come out near the black hole surface and be a billion years in the past and fly through the external universe and back to Earth's past. This is false. The wormhole that is near the black hole is in the same external universe as Earth. The wormhole being younger has zero effect on the external universe and thus the Earth that would be reached, either through the wormhole or via the external universe, is the same one and is the same age and in the same external universe. In order to be either in the future or the past, the external universe has to be one in the future or the past and Thorne's time dilated wormhole scheme does not deliver that."
Furthermore, there is no form of significant time dilation that doesn't require a space program to utilize it, making 100% of the time travel solutions from Einstein's work - impractical. Want to travel really fast so your personal clock slows down? You'll need a real powerful rocket and no one is going to pay for that. Just like no one is ever going to fund time travel using any aspect of black holes. Not only does that require many more times the cost of just trying to slow time down in an accelerated reference frame, the results won't be available for thousands of years since the closest black hole is 1,600 light years away from Earth. No one is going to fund something like that. Doubt me? You do the math.
So the state of the mainstream view of time travel, even in the physics community, is one of confusion, misinformation, and pointless contributions from individuals with no understanding of the subject or the temporal mechanics from which it is derived. I can think of no better, overall example of that than Matthew Szydagis, assistant professor of physics at the University at Albany who appears in the TEDx video below, demonstrating why he doesn't need to be anywhere near the subject of time travel.
Although he begins, alright, pointing out how even experts in the past have been wrong concerning their predictions on what is and isn't possible, he starts right in, proving my initial statement on him by saying that any talk on time travel really needs to start with Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and I've already shown why that's wrong and a massive waste of time. Szydagis does nothing to prove otherwise. Neither does he get any positive traction by citing obvious no-go solutions from General Relativity. Thus, being the case, it's pretty obvious that anyone continuing to obsess over such extrapolations isn't serious about finding any real solutions nor perhaps smart enough to even be in the conversation. Szydagis indicates that he might be one of the later when he cites Ronald Mallett as "the only, real life, experimental physicist, who's not a crack pot...the real deal", which proves Szydagis knows little about Mallett (Mallett doesn't describe himself as an "experimentalist" just the opposite!) as well as having no cognitive ability to understand that there's no way that Mallett's flawed, convoluted idea will ever work - something I've proven in a number of papers, the most recent being, Turning Professor Ronald Mallett's Failed Time Machine Design Patent Into A Breakthrough Experimental Platform (He Should've Seen For Himself).
Szydagis finally gets around to quantum mechanics and reveals simultaneously how little he understands time travel physics overall when he states that the previous examples given from General Relativity are examples of things that we could do, when not one of them is feasible in reality. He also states that we won't know if time travel is possible until there's full combining of quantum mechanics and General Relativity - when in fact that is only true if you want to follow the no-go solutions derived from General Relativity. When you address the time travel question from the quantum mechanics position, you don't need General Relativity because it's not the driving mechanism behind the action, the quantum mechanics is as you will see. He gives short shrift to the actual solution that comes from quantum mechanics and instead baths in a laundry list of ludicrous dilemmas that only belong to bad science fiction, proving conclusively that Szydagis shouldn't be giving a lecture on time travel anymore than he should on what it's like to be raised as a salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
The actual solution that Szydagis gives short shrift to is exactly where the impetus of this new time travel science all began and it is very simple - for those who actually have taken the time to read the original work of Hugh Everett III - the originator of the quantum mechanical interpretation that posits for the existence of parallel universes as the result of the non-collapse of the wave function. After all, it's in the first paragraph of the paper, "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics (see http://jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/EverettHugh1957PhDThesis_BarrettComments.pdf ) that Hugh Everett states, "The task of quantizing general relativity raises serious questions about the meaning of the present formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to so fundamental a structure as the space-time geometry itself. This paper seeks to clarify the foundations of quantum mechanics. It presents a reformulation of quantum theory in a form believed suitable for application to general relativity."
As you should know by now, General Relativity is the ground where physicists like to play when they want to pretend that they're seriously working on time travel and, when they do that, they like to invoke either closed timelike curves or wormholes. Sometimes both simultaneously, as Stephen Hawking was known to do at times. Mallett is the only one claiming to apply it to light, probably because the others know better. However, by applying the Everett Relative State Interpretation to the proceedings, you get parallel universes in your solution which, as Oxford physicist, David Deutsch, was to discover, terminates all of the dreaded time travel paradoxes, and I mean all of them. Below Deutsch speaks, amidst inaccurate and wild speculation, on the part of the narrator:
To look at where the real origins of the new movement began, I think we have to look first at the seminal theoretical work that culminated in the 1991 paper by David Deutsch, entitled, The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel. It was that year that David Deutsch came up with a proposal for the time evolution equations, with special note as to how it resolves the grandfather paradox and nondeterminism. However, his resolution to the grandfather paradox is considered unsatisfactory to some because the time traveller enters into another parallel universe, and the actual quantum state is a quantum superposition of states where the time traveller does and does not exist. In 2012, I would publish a solid example of how the Everett solution completely destroys the grandfather paradox with my MCEBPS formula (Marshall's Copenhagen Everett Barnes Paradox Solution ) and later, my 2016 work would resolve both those issues as the superpositional state in it is based on whether the time travel effort works or not as probability waves (in some worlds it doesn't although I've solved that) and that the parallel universe is the result of that action and didn't exist prior to the time travel event. As I explain in detail, in my paper, Using Todd Rundgren's Song Parallel Lines To Prove Hugh Everett's Parallel Worlds, all of the objections concerning conservation of energy, entropy etc, are resolved.
However, in 1992, an Israeli American physicist would propose what would become a major step forward, although he was not so sure about it himself. Reported in the Discovery magazine article, Time Travel Redux, Yakir Aharonov postulated that a massive hypothetical balloon, whose size was a direct result of quantum measurements, could be instantly expanded or shrunk to any of a wide variety of sizes. Aharonov determined that the simultaneous tiny distortions of time caused by the counter actions of the balloon (based on General Relativistic results) could add up to a massive distortion in one time direction or the other. "Any two particular sizes for the balloon, determined by two observations of the particle, would be like the two possible paths for the electron in the two-slit experiment", the article by David H. Freedman, explains. "Classically the two possibilities are independent, but quantum mechanically they would affect each other."
What Aharonov did was create the first design for a quantum mechanical mechanism that would control a time machine. Aharonov knew his idea was just theoretical and too large to be practical, but thought that someone might think of a way to construct a small, simplified version that would send particles into their own future or past. However, what we really want is to send ourselves into the future or past. At least, as far as the past is concerned. The clues as to how become obvious if one considers the implications of the late, John Archibald Wheeler's work, with retrocausality as described in the video below.
In 2014, in my special report for select members of Congress, Paradox Lost: The True Geometries of Time Travel, I recognized and resolved the apparent paradox of retrocausality which violates the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, by invoking the application of the Everett Interpretation which would present a parallel universes solution, as had been previously applied to the time travel question by Deutsch. The basis for this would be the Participatory Universe model which Wheeler describes briefly in the video below:
What Aharonov and Wheeler's work point to is a framework for a time machine that would be controlled by quantum actions that would induce a change in the present for a specific, target area that would switch its condition to being a copy of one from an earlier time. I first wrote about Wheeler's contribution in, Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine.
Meanwhile, in 1995, German astrophysicist Rainer Plaga came up with an idea for an experiment to test for parallel universes. Reported on in the New Scientist article, Talking To The World Next Door, of special note is that Plaga predicted that the evidence would be discontinuous results - effects without an apparent cause - because the cause was coming from a parallel universe. No one ever tried the experiment but it was noted and not forgotten.
In the video below, Deutsch explains his position about exactly what happens when a time travel event happens and Mallett states specifically that we'll have to wait for a time machine to be built in order to see if parallel universes are real or not, though he should've known better because of Rainer Plaga's 1995 work - 7 years before Mallett made this statement, and since then, I've proved Mallett wrong on that as well.
Meanwhile, 2 years later, Deutsch, along with David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford, come up with a rigorous, mathematical proof of Everett's interpretation. Roger Highfield, reporting for the Telegraph said "the work addresses a three-century-old problem with the idea of probability itself, described by one philosopher, Prof David Papineau, as a scandal".
Saunders, reportedly told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
"Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible." So wrote FoxNews.com reporter, John Brandon concerning a discovery by a team led by UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland.
"Cleland has proved that quantum mechanics scale to slightly larger sizes," writes Brandon. "The next challenge is to learn how to control quantum mechanics and use it for even larger objects. Do so -- and we might be able to warp to parallel universes just by manipulating a few electrons."
Warping to a parallel universe just by manipulating a few electrons? Seeing a pattern yet? You don't see any mention of Einstein, either. Cleland worked with John Martinis and Aaron O'Connell, who is shown in a TEDEd talk video below in 2011, after winning the Science and AAAS 2010 Breakthrough of the Year, award. O'Connell gets my vote for looking fab enough to stand in for Simon Le Bon as lead singer of Duran Duran.
2016 is when I began to take on the paradoxical issue with retrocausality head on, prompted in part by a clique of time travel fans calling themselves, I Am Time Loop and their questions regarding which universe time travelers to the past end up in, since we don't ever seem to see them here.
I did my own, reinterpreted, retrocausality experiments (which I call RetroWorldality), which were so successful they apparently frightened Wheeler's last PhD student, Benjamin Schumacher, who didn't think I'd get results on a macroscopic level, as I did. More importantly, I was getting the exact type of results that Plaga predicted as evidence for parallel universe detection - discontinuous, as you can see in the video below.
So instead of Einstein, the other men one really needs to know about are Gabriel Kron, H. David Froning, Nikola Tesla, N. A. Kozyrev, Alain Aspect, Rene Thom, R. Buckminster Fuller, Vannevar Bush, J. R. Oppenheimer, Nick Herbert, Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, E.E. Witmer, Gregory Meholic, Seth Lloyd, Yakir Aharonov, Rainer Plaga, John Stewart Bell, Benoit Mandelbrot, Bernhard Riemann, Henri Poincare, Edwin Abbott, Norbert Weiner, John von Neumann, Oswald Veblen, T. Townsend Brown, Francis Bitter, Ilya Prigogine, Richard Hamming and Claude Shannon, while knowing that not all their positions are correct or germane to the topic, but you need to know about them, nonetheless, to have a proper, well rounded education in the foundations of the science of time travel - the math, the engineering, theoretical conceptualizations, and all the rest of it.
Where this will all take us, if anywhere, is already under serious consideration. One thing is certain - the path forward includes none of the laughable tropes and thought problems that fascinate the Paul Sutters, Brian Coxes, Matthew Szydagis' and the rest of their ilk. With an increasing number of people - from tech billionaires in Silicon Valley, to futurists, wanting to hedge their bets against a future - rife with potential extinction level events, time travel to the past is the only guaranteed way to survive in the future and for that reason, A Special Report: Temporal Escape was written, detailing every major aspect supporting the idea - from the science, time era, logistics, religion, technology, geopolitics and National Security issues.
As I had often said before his death, if someone had attached a gun to Stephen Hawking's head and told him, "Alright now, Stephen. Get busy. In one year's time that gun's going off unless you have a cogent solution for string theory...", I think he could've done it. Likewise, since 2015, myself and others have felt there was a gun being held to our own heads when we looked at the status of the world.
With recent Middle East events in mind, how do you feel?
So, now the stage has been set, and it is only a matter of seeing how things play out. One thing for sure, a new view of time travel has arrived, with funding, related experiments and purpose, and there's no need for the former misinterpretations, without foundations in any physical reality, to go unanswered anymore. In fact, they'll no longer be tolerated. Enough is enough, already...
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.