UM-Bot Posted January 24, 2016 #1 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Scientists have put forward a new model in support of the idea that time can run in both directions. The idea that there could exist an almost limitless number of parallel universes is nothing new, but what if some of those alternative universes were actually running in reverse ? Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/290857/time-could-run-backwards-in-parallel-universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 24, 2016 #2 Share Posted January 24, 2016 That is funny, as time is a relative and progressive parameter... and progressing in itself means that it goes forward, not backwards. Now, backwards in relation to our universe us a completely different story. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 24, 2016 #3 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Anyone traveling to this parallel universe wouldn't notice a thing. It's not like you could stand there and watch a death in reverse. If you could get a window on it and watch from here, then you could. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted January 24, 2016 #4 Share Posted January 24, 2016 For time to run backwards in a parallel universe, would not the future have to already happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted January 24, 2016 #5 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I think the final scene from the Red Dwarf episode tells it all. I'll pass. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblykiss Posted January 24, 2016 #6 Share Posted January 24, 2016 So Mork from Orc was from a parallel universe? Realistically it is an interesting thought exercise with no way of establishing its authenticity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted January 24, 2016 #7 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Just throwing-out some thoughts (could be wrong)... "Time" can only exist if "change" exists. It's always a "relationship"; change within itself and/or change relative to something "outside" of itself. Without "change" time, per-se, does not exist. It is from "one state" to a "changed state" that the "interval", time, comes into play. Not sure where to go with this... I ran out of time. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnicolette Posted January 24, 2016 #8 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Im not sure i can fathom this. I dont believe that running in reverse to our time would even be noticeable or much different than our reality would it? I mean it would still be an ordered flow of events so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted January 24, 2016 #9 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Im not sure i can fathom this. I dont believe that running in reverse to our time would even be noticeable or much different than our reality would it? I mean it would still be an ordered flow of events so... A "time-reversed" universe, it seems, would implode upon itself on creation, or very shortly thereafter. I just don't see this as a viable extension of a multiverse theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted January 25, 2016 #10 Share Posted January 25, 2016 A simpler explanation is that physics has reached a 'Copernican' point, as when the determination to preserve the circle as a 'perfect' form resulted in ever more complicated compound circular orbits (called "epicyclets") being proposed to explain planetary orbits that were in fact elliptical. We are now in the position of arguing, to preserve the standard model, that <i>all</i> possibilities happen, which if true makes the experimental testing of hypotheses a little pointless. I wrote a short book on the conflict between our apparent free will and our bodies' apparent mechanistic nature. I won't go into the reasoning here - the book isn't that short - but my conclusion was that the world responds to will, and that a three-dimensional world driven by will avoids the problems suffered by current physics, which posits a world which is incoherently both a four-dimensional solid (general relativity) and so fragmented that every point within it functions in utter isolation (standard model). It's the fact that the world responds to will that lets us impose order on it, and the arbitrary nature of that imposition lets us use the two sorts of physics (which could not coexist if they were inherent) as different 'operating systems' to manipulate the underlying substrate. Just as we can use either Windows or Linux to operate the same computer even though they're incompatible with each other, so free will lets us use incompatible schools of physics to operate the underlying world. But as far as time goes, it doesn't exist: we do not experience time, we experience motion; and a perpetual present full of motion is all we need to describe the world we see. This is what will acts on, and it is free to act because even the past, whose dead hand lies so immovably on standard causality, exists only as a part of the present and is as vulnerable to will as any other part. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Mirdad Posted January 25, 2016 #11 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Theres a movie which uses this concept briefly. Its called mr.nobody. Anyone with nenflix can watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted January 25, 2016 #12 Share Posted January 25, 2016 If time ran backwards in some parallel universe, where would its starting point be? In our universe the temporal starting point is the Big Bang. There is a conjecture that at the BB two universes were created opposite to each other, one moving forward in time, the other backward in time relative to each other, sort of like matter and anti-matter. Living in either one would seem normal, time-wise, though from the perspective of either universe the other would seem to be running backward in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhmetta Posted January 25, 2016 #13 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Personally, I think time is like the surface of a slippery ball. It can go in any direction. However, it always comes back to itself. Once the momentum has started, it's hard to go back in the opposite direction. It might be easier sliding off to the side. Perhaps, it's difficult to reverse the slippery momentum because we really aren't suppose to or allowed to? Granted, I am no scientist nor am I even smart. I just like to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted January 25, 2016 #14 Share Posted January 25, 2016 This is a good read that plays with different versions of time. http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Dreams-Alan-Lightman/dp/140007780X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acute Posted January 25, 2016 #15 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) I know it's not the most helpful comment, but... In the grand scheme of things, we know NOTHING about time, space, space-time, dark matter, other dimensions, the universe/multiverse. Edited January 25, 2016 by acute 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 25, 2016 #16 Share Posted January 25, 2016 In the grand scheme of things, we know NOTHING about time, space, space-time, dark matter, other dimensions, the universe/multiverse. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because we don't know everything we know nothing, it's simply not true. Science knows a great many things, it also knows it still has much to learn. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acute Posted January 25, 2016 #17 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Don't make the mistake of thinking that because we don't know everything we know nothing, it's simply not true. Science knows a great many things, it also knows it still has much to learn. I am a big fan of the Multiverse Theory (The 'double slit' experiment proves it, in my opinion), and it throws almost everything we 'know' straight out of the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted January 25, 2016 #18 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Fascinating idea, but it seems to assume that backward time would need everything to be predetermined. Personally, I always wonder if matter, and events, create both time and space. I understand that current models show that is clearly Not the case, ... I just wonder. Edited January 25, 2016 by lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summerin1905 Posted January 25, 2016 #19 Share Posted January 25, 2016 i gotta say when i first saw doctor who parallel universes baffled my mind and got me interested and now this! This is Fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 25, 2016 #20 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I am a big fan of the Multiverse Theory (The 'double slit' experiment proves it, in my opinion), and it throws almost everything we 'know' straight out of the window. No. The opposite in fact. New facts are being thrown in the window at us. There's nothing in any of the various multiverse theories that would cause us to throw anything out. That is, the science we have worked well enough to give birth to these multiverse theories. I think you meant that it throws everything you "know" out the window, because what you think you know probably needs to go out a window. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Ghost Posted January 26, 2016 #21 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Scientists love to speculate about how things could be in a "parallel" universe. Very convenient that we will never be able to confirm or deny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Mirdad Posted January 26, 2016 #22 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) Edited January 26, 2016 by Dr. Mirdad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali smack Posted January 26, 2016 #23 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I always take everything scientists say with a pinch of salt. half the stuff they say has no proof 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted January 27, 2016 #24 Share Posted January 27, 2016 of course. Scientists said it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 27, 2016 #25 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I always take everything scientists say with a pinch of salt. half the stuff they say has no proof Which is why they use the term "hypothetical" a lot. Science is not about absolute truth... it's religions that claim that, it is a methodology to SEARCH for the truth, and to do that hypotheses need to be proposed to explain that which is observed. Those hypotheses are then evaluated and either accepted or rejected based on the supporting evidence. Think of scientists as being detectives. When detectives have a long list of suspects they aren't claiming they are all guilty, they are simply trying to find evidence to eliminate suspects and determine the real culprit. Exactly the same with scientific hypotheses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now