Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: x_XTacTX_x on April 30, 2008, 09:33:31 pm
-
As stated above, the following has nothing to do with the Chrono series, or any video game at all.
I really do hope I'm not the only one here who believes in the Big Bang theory, that all existence was once a tiny molecule that rapidly expanded in a moment of intense heat. My question is, hypothetically if we could travel back in time, could one alter that molecule to his or her preference?
I originally thought that this could be correct, and with the Ability of Time Travel one could alter that molecule, but recently I've discovered a few factors that conflict with this idea.
Factor 1: By altering the molecule, you would be changing the blueprint of history and the laws of time and physics. In turn, you would be destroying yourself and everything else from utter reality. Reality wouldn't be able to exist at all.
Factor 2: If you could travel back in time, you wouldn't be traveling through space. Since your a part of That molecule which expanded to create our world (just like the rest of us), you would be finding yourself compressed to an exteremely miniscule size when you were inside of the molecule. Meaning you would either die, or fade out of existence if you somehow were pushed out of the molecule. The molecule IS all existence, I believe, so nothing exists outside of it. Nothing could exist outside of it, considering it consists of pure nothingness.
With these factors in play I believe that I could state the Idea of Altering the molecule which started all life to be pure fiction, and impossible considering the basic laws of physics.
However, I truly desire to discuss this topic and to find out anyone else's opinions. If i broke any rules with this thread, I apologize.
-
Time travelling to alter the Big Bang? very impossible..
You are correct in stating that the single molecule (or was it just an atom??) comprises all of existence..
Time Space only exists in that single molecule, and there is nothing beyond that.. no time, space, matter, just pure NOTHING.. maybe you could see multiverses from that perspective, but it is doubtful..
But, even if your were able to alter the molecule/atom, then reality would still exist, only, a very different one from what we are familiar with.. time and physics would exist in a very bizarre manner, because, it is a wholly different setup now..
And i think that this post is more appropriate in the general discussions board, though i'm not sure of that..
Consult our senior members..
-
Yeah, I'm trying to get Boo over here. i really want a senior members insight on this.
-
This is actually more appropriate in the General Discussion forums, but it's okay... Just try to keep Chrono stuff in the Chrono forums and anything else in the General Forums, okay?
As such, traveling back in time to pre-Big Bang creates a multitude of paradoxes. For instance, since all matter in the universe is a constant (it just changes form; plus, the universe is supposedly expanding), adding additional matter to the universe could cause any sort of widespread space-time problems.
However, since your concept is traveling back in time to pre-Big Bang, I would say that you could, in theory, alter the course of history - of the universe itself - by tampering with the 'atom' (or whatever the Big Band supposedly is). But most likely I would think (I am no knowledgable scholar concerning the Big Bang and related universal ideas) that it would be impossible to pull off. Traveling to a time before matter even existed doesn't seem probable, because obviously nothing exists besides the Bang object itself.
Then again, I wouldn't be the best person to ask...
-
Another thought, maybe our Universe is an extension of another universe!!
I've read somewhere that turbulent space-time may cause infinite numbers of Big Bangs..!!
If another Universe was turbulent enough it may create another "pocket" universe independent or attached to it..
if that were true, and our Universe is just a "pocket" to another universe, then if you were to return back in time to the Big Bang, then you might be able to encounter our parent universe..!! That is how i think the multiverse setup works, similar to Lavos PD, except at a larger scale..
-
Then again, I wouldn't be the best person to ask...
Do you know who would? I'm sorry, i'm coming off as a jackass but I feel like the giuy from A Beautiful Mind here. I'm really eager to find other's opinions, for this is my first Brain busting theory where I've actually found myself pacing back and forth.
-
Another thought, maybe our Universe is an extension of another universe!!
I've read somewhere that turbulent space-time may cause infinite numbers of Big Bangs..!!
If another Universe was turbulent enough it may create another "pocket" universe independent or attached to it..
if that were true, and our Universe is just a "pocket" to another universe, then if you were to return back in time to the Big Bang, then you might be able to encounter our parent universe..!! That is how i think the multiverse setup works, similar to Lavos PD, except at a larger scale..
So, wouldn't that make somewhere in our universe an "Angelus Errare" (sorry if it's mispelled) trigger like area?
-
Another thought, maybe our Universe is an extension of another universe!!
I've read somewhere that turbulent space-time may cause infinite numbers of Big Bangs..!!
If another Universe was turbulent enough it may create another "pocket" universe independent or attached to it..
if that were true, and our Universe is just a "pocket" to another universe, then if you were to return back in time to the Big Bang, then you might be able to encounter our parent universe..!! That is how i think the multiverse setup works, similar to Lavos PD, except at a larger scale..
So, wouldn't that make somewhere in our universe an "Angelus Errare" (sorry if it's mispelled) trigger like area?
in a sense, yeah..
-
So what you're saying is that somewhere in time, maybe even away from our planet, an event could of occured that triggered a dimension split...
Wow. I wonder if Masato Kato believed in this stuff when he was designing the Chrono Series...
-
Yeah, alternate realities and multiverses are *probably* being formed as we speak, depending on different things happening in sequence and precision..
the number of multiverses could be infinite, and we thought our Universe was big enough... :?
-
Fuck that, I would punch every Universe in the face! *coughdanecookreferencecough*
But all joking aside, you're probably right... Hell, there could be an alternate reality in which the Chrono series is reality, and we are simply fiction.
Think about that...
-
Hopefully, there is.. who knows?? and maybe someone will develop a multiverse traveling machine, and we could visit the Chronoverse for real!!
that would be pretty overwhelming!! :D
-
Yeah, I know! But then again, the chances of meeting anyone we've heard of would be quite slim...
But still! We could go to Termina or Fort Dragonia! Climb Death's peak or visit Leene Square.
I'm having such a nerdgasm... :O
-
Yeah, I know! But then again, the chances of meeting anyone we've heard of would be quite slim...
But still! We could go to Termina or Fort Dragonia! Climb Death's peak or visit Leene Square.
I'm having such a nerdgasm... :O
Hahahaha!! :lol: if we made a multiverse traveling machine, then we could also make a time traveling one!!
Now we get to meet Chrono and Co., and all the others!!
-
And what if we could see key points of the game? What if we could go to Zeal? I mean, imagine how much we'd learn...
And I just wanna see Frog in person at least once.
-
Aaaahhhh... Zeal...
*starts to daydream*
i'll spend years in Zeal studying the arts, and when i'm ready, i'll assasinate queen Zeal!!
then rulership would be placed on Schala or Janus, and Zeal would live forever!!
hahaha!!
(sorry... :lol:)
-
Uh, since the Big Bang is the start of space/time, the phrase 'travel to' is fraught with an impossible paradox. Simply put, it can't be done. You cannot alter the original molecule as altering requires a temporal action which does not exist. It's along the same lines as the impossibility of knowing if the universe had a beginning or not. Technically, it's impossible to know, because it would require being able to perceive the start of space/time, which is a logical impossibility. All we can do is know that it is so old, at least. Basically, we know the universe is 12 billion years old. But we'll never be able to say exactly when it began because simply stating that is itself a contradiction. In the same way, altering the original molecule is an interesting thought experiment, but is a paradox.
However, altering things in the moments after the big bang is more within the realm of logical possibility.
-
Yeah, it is indeed impossible.. One *might* be able to travel back in time, be he/she can only go so far..
it will get more harder and harder for the time traveler once he approaches the Big Bang, the singularity of creation..
And isn't the Big Bang actually a small one? it made possible the creation of the basic building blocks of the Universe, and then inflated after these building blocks interacted with one another, thereby setting the motion for the expanding universe we see today.. I'm not sure about this though.. :?
-
Well theory is it was INTENSELY COMPACT.
-
Yes, the universe was intensely compact, until cosmic inflation occured, and then the Universe started expanding at a huge rate..
and thanks to radical dreamer for putting this thread here in the general discussion forum..
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png)
"Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want."
-
Whoa, Kebrel.. what was that?
i did not know there was a connection between programmers and the Universe..
-
and maybe someone will develop a multiverse traveling machine, and we could visit the Chronoverse for real!!
The question is: Would our essence be compatible with that universe or would our existence decay into energy?
You cannot alter the original molecule as altering requires a temporal action which does not exist.
Higher dimensions than time, if they exist, would be required to change such a thing.
It's along the same lines as the impossibility of knowing if the universe had a beginning or not.
Beginnings and endings are relative to checkpoints anyways; since we are assuming the Big Bang happened then yes--it had a beginning.
we know the universe is 12 billion years old.
A closer estimate would be 13.7 billion years old, but I'm not arguing--just noting.
we'll never be able to say exactly when it began because simply stating that is itself a contradiction.
How so... when we know what happened down to the Planck time unit(10-43 seconds) after the Big Bang; there is, however, an intrinsic truth to what you say, but only because of a technicality--Planck time units aren't divisible, and since one must approach the Big Bang to reach it--there's a roadblock--an 'event horizon', so to speak.
However, altering things in the moments after the big bang is more within the realm of logical possibility.
Only to the extent that the Butterfly Effect will allow... However one could, in theory, 'destroy' the known universe by causing the matter/anti-matter cycle to be infinite, causing the universe to be a sea of pure, 'cold' energy.
Well theory is it was INTENSELY COMPACT.
Rather it was 'infinitely compact'; otherwise known as a singularity.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png)
"Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want."
Good comic, Kebrel. :lol:
Whoa, Kebrel.. what was that?
i did not know there was a connection between programmers and the Universe..
Initial conditions are a reality in both the universe *and* programming.
-
Hmm.. the Chronoverse seems to have the same elements of space-time as ours do, and also the same laws of physics.. we'd be compatible.. Well, the Chrono world might not even be in a different universe because of that, maybe it is somewhere in OUR universe.. it is certainly big enough, and we cannot possibly explore every nook and cranny of it.. But i shudder to think that if it was indeed the case, then members of the Lavos species might be headed for our Earth right now!!! :):D :lol:
And the age of our Universe, although more reasonable around 13.7 billion years old, might still be as early as 15 billion years, or as late as 11 billion years.. mathematical concepts clearly allow for a large margin of error, because any value would, however accurate, still not be the true value; i mean, we can never be precise enough...
And how would one create such large amounts of antimatter to destroy the Universe? not with today's accelerators..
And how would such a cycle be infinite? only if there are likewise infinite, equal amounts of matter and antimatter...
In a sense, matter would annihilate equal amounts of antimatter, turning them into energy. but if matter/antimatter weren't infinite, then there would come a point that there will be nothing left to destroy, please correct me if i'm mistaken.. But i like the notion of existence as pure energy though..
-
And how would one create such large amounts of antimatter to destroy the Universe? not with today's accelerators..
And how would such a cycle be infinite? only if there are likewise infinite, equal amounts of matter and antimatter...
In a sense, matter would annihilate equal amounts of antimatter, turning them into energy. but if matter/antimatter weren't infinite, then there would come a point that there will be nothing left to destroy, please correct me if i'm mistaken.. But i like the notion of existence as pure energy though..
:|
It is now thought that symmetry was broken in the early universe during a period of baryogenesis, when matter-antimatter symmetry was violated. Standard Big Bang cosmology tells us that the universe initially contained equal amounts of matter and antimatter: however particles and antiparticles evolved slightly differently. It was found that a particular heavy unstable particle, which is its own antiparticle, decays slightly more often to positrons (e+) than to electrons (e−). How this accounts for the preponderance of matter over antimatter has not been completely explained. The Standard Model of particle physics does have a way of accommodating a difference between the evolution of matter and antimatter, but it falls short of explaining the net excess of matter in the universe by about 10 orders of magnitude.
Only to the extent that the Butterfly Effect will allow... However one could, in theory, 'destroy' the known universe by causing the matter/anti-matter cycle to be infinite, causing the universe to be a sea of pure, 'cold' energy.
I meant destroy metaphorically; hence the ' '... And by "infinite" I meant the process would be recursive(i.e. X-1+1 --> Xi+1-1 --> [...]).
-
Interesting. I think you're right with Factor 2, that eventually you'd die. Not only because you'd be compressed, but because travelling back in time, unless you do it through some alternative dimension, would mean you'd become unborn.
-
Indeed, matter/antimatter symmetry was broken because matter had 1 more unit than anti-matter, hence giving rise to the matter based Universe we see today, from what i've read.. It is also possible that there are other Universes that are made up wholly of antimatter, when the symmetry is violated to the antimatter's favor. But i do get your point somehow..
-
I pray this doesn't turn into the "Oh No. Oh God." thread, but I'm not 100% sold on science as a whole. Most of it's right, yes, but a lot of the details that take forever to discern (ie - carbon dating) are not exactly completely accurate. There's actually a large margin of error with carbon dating, taking into account unknown environmental variables that bombarded the tested subject, and results can sometimes be millions of years off.
That's why a scientist usually goes to multiple scientists to have multiple carbon dating tests.
-
Who cares when and how the univerise started. The past is the past, what is done is done. Look forward! [And live in the moment!] But if you insist, Belthasar probably had something to do with the supposed "Bag Bing".
-
I'm actually in the same line of thinking, placidchap. For instance, I could care less about creationism. We were created. Good enough for me.
-
Who cares when and how the univerise started. The past is the past, what is done is done. Look forward! [And live in the moment!]
One must learn from his past, in order to make the best of his future.
I pray this doesn't turn into the "Oh No. Oh God." thread
Believe me Boo, I do as well...
but I'm not 100% sold on science as a whole.
I think it would be fairer to say the current practice of science; there's nothing inherently 'solid' in science, so it's always 'evolving'.
-
I think it would be fairer to say the current practice of science; there's nothing inherently 'solid' in science, so it's always 'evolving'.
Agreed. You worded it better. Thanks.
-
Who cares when and how the univerise started. The past is the past, what is done is done. Look forward! [And live in the moment!]
One must learn from his past, in order to make the best of his future.
Ehh, normally true but I don't believe finding out how the universe started would help much of anything other than a scientist or two getting recognition as well as a plethora of books, both fiction and non. Of course, that is my opinion.
-
Ehh, normally true but I don't believe finding out how the universe started would help much of anything other than a scientist or two getting recognition as well as a plethora of books, both fiction and non. Of course, that is my opinion.
Physics in general would benefit from this; our understanding of space, the very nature of time, the laws that govern existence and interaction; nay *'everything'* hinges on knowing more about the Big Bang.
-
Physics in general would benefit from this; our understanding of space, the very nature of time, the laws that govern existence and interaction; nay *'everything'* hinges on knowing more about the Big Bang.
Well, I failed physics in high school, so I won't try and refute something I have no idea about and something you seem very passionate towards.
-
Well, I failed physics in high school, so I won't try and refute something I have no idea about and something you seem very passionate towards.
Passionate, no; there has been much ill-truths fraught against the Big Bang theory and science in general--I merely am balancing the scales.
-
Ooh. The smell of pseudoscience can be felt from three blocks away.
-
One must learn from his past, in order to make the best of his future.
(http://i2.tinypic.com/2h4hs9d.jpg)
-
One must learn from his past, in order to make the best of his future.
(http://i2.tinypic.com/2h4hs9d.jpg)
*shutters*
Not even gonna go there...
-
Pictures are worth 100 words
-
Wow. All of this in less than 24 hours? That's why I love this forum...
Unlike the "Oh no.. Oh God No" thread I think I'll become a steady poster in this thread.
Boo the Gentleman Caller stated that the fact that we were created simply satisfied him. I definitely agree with this, being agnostic I don't tend to ridicule others' beliefs and I like to believe their is a higher power.
But to refer back to when I started this thread, I do believe the Idea of traveling back in time to that singular molecule is copmeletely false and would result in immenent death.
Also, to the Chronoverse theory, the characters depicted in the game tend to be human, or at least of humanoid nature. I think we'd fit in just fine. Our answer to Demi-Humans appear to be Primapes, or something like that, and we all have a similar biological structure so it would be very probable we'd stay in our own form, not just disentigrate into energy.
-
Boo the Gentleman Caller stated that the fact that we were created simply satisfied him. I definitely agree with this, being agnostic I don't tend to ridicule others' beliefs and I like to believe their is a higher power.
I tend to agree with this(Big Bang Theory) as well as a 'God'(to those who would pull the Occam's Razor card; keep it to yourselves please.), as well I believe in actively attempting to preserve neutrality(I hate when the scales are tipped *too* far, regardless of their effect.)--a rare trait these days--and protect the opinions of others, if they have legitimacy.
Also, to the Chronoverse theory, the characters depicted in the game tend to be human, or at least of humanoid nature. I think we'd fit in just fine. Our answer to Demi-Humans appear to be Primapes, or something like that, and we all have a similar biological structure so it would be very probable we'd stay in our own form, not just disentigrate into energy.
If there were *extra*(or less), hidden or known dimensions in this 'Cronoverse'(an effect of different initial conditions) it would cause the imported matter(us) to become effectively unstable and break down into radiation; if we're lucky, that is.
-
If there were *extra*(or less), hidden or known dimensions in this 'Cronoverse'(an effect of different initial conditions) it would cause the imported matter(us) to become effectively unstable and break down into radiation; if we're lucky, that is.
Not neccesarily.The term human is actually thrown around a lot in both games, even though our depiction of them is of an animated nature. If what you're saying is that we wouldn't be compatible because of the Chronoverse's denizens designs, where's your evidence? There's a chance that our own biological structures could be altered to fit that world. Then again, we're not even sure we're not fully compatible.
But on the other hand, we're talking about a video game here.
-
If there were [...]
:roll:
-
What are you getting at?
-
What are you getting at?
:| I was saying the fundamental conditions between realities can be so greatly diverse, and if there were differences between ours and theirs, our existences, if we so chose to 'cross', would become unstable.
-
Okay, I see your point now. I guess... I have to agree with you on this one. :/ Congrats.
-
ok, the problem with all this theorizing you guys are doing is that your using the rules of classical physics to describe phenomenon of an "object", if you will, in which classical physics does not apply. For instance, superposition. If there is a universe with a certain placement of molecules and another universe with the same molecules in a different placement, a universe also exists with the molecules in both places at the same time. so, this means that there is also the possibility of one space being occupied by two or more molecules. SOOO, if someone were to trael back in time to the moments where the universe was but a singularity(but NOT a blackhole, something that can ONLY exist if time exists outside of the singularity), this person would be forced into the only place that time exists, the same space as the singularity, and in time the particles of the person would be forced to be of another, universe, of the start of many universes, and the negative direction of the density of the first universe would cause the particle to become unstable(something that increasing the density, strangely, does not do...) and you have a "big bang". :) So, in the end, you'll really have changed nothing.
Of course there's more to superposition and quantum physics than that(which I severally simplified) but theres really no reason to get into wave functions, now is there? :P
Oh yeah, and you would not be broken down to radiation in this other universe, also thanks to superposition, because the universe would then simply have the same particles in two different places at the same time. And do keep in mind, this phenomenon has been observed many times in our own universe....
EDIT: Bump :p
-
Whatthebleepady, I was thinking the same thing recently. This thread died out ages ago...
But yes, I definitely agree with you. It's impossible for other reasons as well... For example, If everything outside that one speck "doesn't exist" the time traveler would cease to exist, no?
AND WELCOME TO THE COMPENDIUM.
-
Yeah, sorry about the bump, I found this topic in the time siencey section of the chrono disscutions, and hadn't realized it was a month old till I had already posted it. And since I had spent the time writing the post, I decided I might as well leave it.
And thanks for the welcome :)
-
As impressive and 'sciencey' as you tried to make your post sound, it seems to rely on the assumption that one can, without having ever observed it before and thus without scientific evidence, predict what would always happen when 'matter' from any given universe enters another. I don't see how logic could support that either.
-
As impressive and 'sciencey' as you tried to make your post sound, it seems to rely on the assumption that one can, without having ever observed it before and thus without scientific evidence, predict what would always happen when 'matter' from any given universe enters another. I don't see how logic could support that either.
If you read the post, I said it was impossible. (which makes me wonder why I started this thread in the first place)... You don't have to be a jerk about this, either. Don't act all high and mighty just because I'm incorrect. This thread died a month ago because I knew I was wrong in every aspect. I appreciate your input, but you're just kicking a dead horse.
-
As impressive and 'sciencey' as you tried to make your post sound, it seems to rely on the assumption that one can, without having ever observed it before and thus without scientific evidence, predict what would always happen when 'matter' from any given universe enters another. I don't see how logic could support that either.
I can see how your confused by this. The problem is that matter is NOT entering the given universe. It already exists. the only thing "entering" the universe is the arrangment of particles, which does not cause a density shift in the given universe, since arranging something in different ways does not change it's mass.
EDIT: And yes, we HAVE observed this in our very own universe, as I stated in my first post. It's called Superposition, and it is the basis of quantum physics. If you want proof, look at the recent breakthroughs in quantum computing. Entanglment is what you want.
OBSERVING = SCIENTIFIC PROOF
-
If you read the post, I said it was impossible. (which makes me wonder why I started this thread in the first place)... You don't have to be a jerk about this, either. Don't act all high and mighty just because I'm incorrect. This thread died a month ago because I knew I was wrong in every aspect. I appreciate your input, but you're just kicking a dead horse.
My apologies...not for my post, but for being ambiguous as to its target: whatthebleepady.
To them, I admit that I didn't read their message carefully enough. Touché.
-
If you read the post, I said it was impossible. (which makes me wonder why I started this thread in the first place)... You don't have to be a jerk about this, either. Don't act all high and mighty just because I'm incorrect. This thread died a month ago because I knew I was wrong in every aspect. I appreciate your input, but you're just kicking a dead horse.
My apologies...not for my post, but for being ambiguous as to its target: whatthebleepady.
To them, I admit that I didn't read their message carefully enough. Touché.
Oh. In that case, I apologize. My mistake.
-
whatthebleepady, sorry for not answering in a timely manner as I was preparing for the upcoming contest.
Alright...
1)You set up a strawman, BTW :wink:;Superposition assumes a common domain(i.e. a shared beginning, conditions, and initial density) between universes. So, in essence, you're right if say Universe A and Universe B belong to a Domain X. However, if only Universe A belongs to Domain X and Universe B belongs to a Domain Y then there will be 'foreign' density introduced.
2) Starting conditions are critical─my main point of my posts─and(I'm going to pull an analogous example rather than a literal one) as such if there is a universe that 'allows' an upside down house of card and that house 'crosses' into a dimension where such a thing is impossible that object would break-down into it's simplest components. Now, take this and apply it to the syntax of a theoretical subatomic structure, say, a pleeberon. If Dimension A has two dimensions of space and two of time(a provision of Special Relativity) and the pleeberon is 'stable' and the particle moves to Dimension B(our universe)─three of space, one of time─that particle would obviously become 'unstable' and break down into radiation, no?
3)OBSERVING = SCIENTIFIC PROOF
No, validating observation=scientific proof.
4)a side note: while I agree with QT, it is just that, a 'theory':
theory
n. coherent group of general assumptions, body of principles belonging to a certain subject; speculation, hypothesis
-
Ahh, I hadn't considered origin as a factor in changing existence....
But I still disagree about the radiation. In theory, if the origin is different, causing a different ratio of time::demension, wouldn't an Einstein-Rosenberg bridge between the two dimensions be impossible?
-
But I still disagree about the radiation. In theory, if the origin is different, causing a different ratio of time::demension, wouldn't an Einstein-Rosenberg bridge between the two dimensions be impossible?
Not necessarily, seeing as dimensions of time and dimensions of space are interchangeable according to Einstein. Here's a quick digest I found related to the discussion at hand: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html
-
Interesting. I never thought that time could be slowing down... That also would aid the existence of black holes.
Cool. Alright, I see now how that would work. And, to further that, would it be possible that matter crossing through the bridge with a largely different origin could cause the existence as things like quantum particles? I mean, I know there are other reasons they occur, but could this happen? If the matter became unstable, it may just collapse into a single particle, to our dimensional standards, random, but to a dimension with other physics, it may just be how things work.
-
I'd imagine the incompatible packet of 'particle' would break down into dimensionless energy(i.e. radiation) which likely would eventually coalesce into new particles.