The Science of Intimidation

[Midnight Palace]

I recently read a news article online, in which scientists declared time travel impossible. They didn't say it was yet to be discovered or mysterious, they said it was "impossible". In other words, "since we haven't figured it out, it must not be a valid concept and is therefore unworthy of any further consideration." I have a real problem with this.

Now, what are the chances that back in the year 1401, or 1327 (pick your own year at random for fun), people envisioned man flying through the sky? To go a little further, what are the chances that the people of those years even entertained the thought of man constructing a machine that could fly itself? What if someone in the year 1401 said that flight through the air was impossible? Right about now, we'd be looking back on them as products of their time, unable to see the reality that we currently understand. So, to go back to the scientists' statement, to say that something is "impossible" is not only a bit narrow-minded, but pompous to say the least.

What do they see in the mirror that tells them how smart they are? The scientists are assuming that throughout all time, behind and ahead, they have reached the absolute pinnacle of intelligence. Again, let's examine the choice of words – "impossible". That means, by their calculation, that NOBODY will EVER realize it. Because they have failed in trying to prove its legitimacy, it simply can't be. It never occurs to them that they just may be too primitive to understand. This is where the pompousness comes into play. It also seems to me that in failing, they still want to be in control of "concluding". Even though they haven't proved time travel (which is "negative" in terms of how they look for "failing"), they want to be able to declare conclusively (the "positive" counteraction, redemption, saving face) that it's impossible. This puts them back in a position of authority. The minute they say something is impossible, they're simultaneously admitting failure. Science, itself somewhat arrogant, finds great discomfort in not being able to pin an explanation on something. The entire concept of science is built on debunking, and most often it tries to debunk "that which is greater than science".

I want to make it clear that whether or not people realize it, they're time traveling their whole lives . Did you not start at one moment in time? Are you in that same exact moment right now? No? You mean you're in a different time than you used to be? That's interesting.

I feel that in declaring something impossible, they're belittling everything and everyone else who may not put 100% into the opinions of science, and its flaws that stem from it being conducted by imperfect human beings.

That's just how I feel about it.

 

[Starius]

I agree with you on this. I think they can easily say time travel is "highly unlikely" but "impossible" seems short sighted and limiting. But then again, often with the scientific method something is true until proven otherwise.

I feel I should point out that there have been interesting experiments involving time in the past. Did you know that the faster an object moves the less effect time has on it? It's such a simple little law of physics ... and "easily" measured too.

If you synchronize two atomic clocks, put one on the ground and put the other in a super sonic jet, you can measure something really cool. Take the one atomic clock for a little faster-than-sound trip in the sky and bring it back down to earth. If you compare the two atomic clocks, they will no longer be synchronized. Less time will have passed on the airborne clock.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

You said it! So many so-called scientists get on a bent and their thinking can turn into nothing more than rigid, stifling dogma. Hardly a scientific attitude at all, but more like cult thinking.
Nothing is impossible.

 

[Matt Deckard]

I think time travel is wrong.

 

[Twitch]

In about 1825 scientists stated that a rail coach traveling at 30 MPH would create a vacuum thereby suffocating all passengers.

We must take what scientists say lightly when it comes to prediction. The ongoing phrase they use to their own undoing is "with what we know today..." -"it is impossible to travel at the speed of light" "there are only 98 elements" "cryogenics to restore life is impossible" "we can't split something as tiny as an atom" "a chain reaction explosion will set the earth's atmosphere on fire."

"With what we know today..." is the limiting factor that stunts the imagination while it simultanoeusly boasts how smart we are.

 

[scotrace]

Somewhere I have a post-war magazine article about supersonic flight. There were many who felt that it was "impossible."

Scientific "Consensus Opinion" often gets it wrong. The 60's brought quite certain predictions of catastrophic global overpopulation leading to zero land space and social chaos, by the end of the century. I am old enough to remember public policy debates for dealing with the ICE AGE we were entering. Then there's that Y2K disaster hogwash.

Statements of absolutes seem like a bad plan. Humans tend to limit what they know by viewing everything through a human lens. We now know there are colors and dimensions we cannot see. Who is to say time travel is impossible?

The very worst development in the scientific fields of the last 50 years is that those who don't agree with Consensus Opinion are shouted down and blacklisted.

 

[Paisley]

I think predictions that cannot take into account all factors--especially the human one--aren't likely to be accurate. Climate change and population are prime examples.

But statements based on scientific principles are more likely to be accurate.

Keep in mind that the scientific method didn't exist centuries ago. People didn't test hypotheses.

I worked on a Y2K project for a power plant in 1999. Not all the equipment they had would have worked if left in place during the rollover.

BTW, I recently read in the Wall Street Journal that most scientific studies have significant errors in them.

 

[Ben]

I recently read a news article online, in which scientists declared time travel impossible. They didn't say it was yet to be discovered or mysterious, they said it was "impossible". In other words, "since we haven't figured it out, it must not be a valid concept and is therefore unworthy of any further consideration." I have a real problem with this.
QUOTE]

Three thoughts:

1. Who said it was "impossible" -- the scientists or the writer of the article who may be getting it wrong?

2. As Starius pointed out, time travel forward is possible when you consider relativistic reference frames. However, to make really large leaps forward you would have to be travelling so fast that uncomfortable physical things start to happen as I recall from freshman physics. (If anyone on in the Lounge is an expert on these things, I have some relative reference frame entropy questions I'd like to ask.)

3. There is pretty strong evidence that time travel backward is not possible. The evidence is that if it had happened, it would have happened already, and we'd know about it. Unless there were some really enlightened time travelers out there (which reminds me that I once saw a movie that suggested UFOs and alien sightings were actually time travelers from Earth.)

One last things, as regards scientists, the value of science is that it should produce repeatable results with a clearly defined method and it is always subject to revision once more knowledge is learned. So many times when scientists make a prediction or a statement, what they are really saying is "to the best of our knowledge based on these things...." That is sometimes left off in casual conversation or media reports.

 

[thunderw21]

I think this brings up the validity of academia. As of late I've found myself questioning the intellectual thought process and academia in general. I've seen many examples (ask and I'll provide some) where academic elites announce one thing but are wrong or cannot prove their theory one way or another. Science seems like one academic defending his/her theory while trying to disprove another all the while making a name for themselves.

I have an interest in Anasazi archeology. Yet reading through books about its history I find petty fights between archeologists who are defending their own theories, even if the artifacts disprove them. It discourages me and others from the field as well as makes me view academics in a suspicious light.

If the scientists did infact say time travel is impossible, how can they know? What tests did they carry out? What results did they produce? What kind of scientists are they? Frankly, I believe academia is quite overrated and we put too much weight on their 'findings'. They are humans like us who make mistakes, cling to fads and have biases and personalities that affect their decisions. I've found in my questioning that to put ones complete faith in other fallible humans is very flawed.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The scientist who says it is impossible is a fool, who doesn't really understand the nature of science. Impossible is a statistical impossibility.

Very very very very very very very improbable, yes. Impossible? Noone an say that.

It's this kind of statement that infuriates most scientists. Now when scientists say anything at all on the cusp of a political/societal issue (thinking embryonic stem cells or abortion or the likes), people trot out the pitiful arguments like (sorry Scott): You said that about supersonic flight and look what happened. It used to be that the very presence of a white coat and browline glasses inspired confidence. Now? You can't get anyone to listen. Largely because a few self-obsessed egoist scientists have wanted to see their names in print and saw ridiculous statements like the one that started this post as a good way of doing so. (Add to this the ridiculous nature of "media" giving equal weight to 'shout-as-loud-as-you-can-at-the-camera' lunatics and hard boiled 'by-the-book' logical scientists and you have a recipe for disinformation . . . whoops, politics.)


bk

 

[Fatdutchman]

Of course it's impossible.

Besides, if it were possible, someone would have done it already. Think about it.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I feel I should point out that there have been interesting experiments involving time in the past

And recent experiments with teleportation. The quantum computer is just around the corner (as it was, as i recall, circa 1990)!!!!

example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm


bk

 

[Paisley]

Very very very very very very very improbable, yes. Impossible? Noone an say that.
bk

"Not impossible, just highly improbable." -Jack Sparrow

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Statements of absolutes seem like a bad plan.

That's right. Watch out for them Pastors!

The very worst development in the scientific fields of the last 50 years is that those who don't agree with Consensus Opinion are shouted down and blacklisted.

I disagree. there have been several notable examples, but i don't think this is even close to being a general trend. For example, compare the openess of debate in the scientific field and in political debate. For at least the last 50 years it has been impossible to support any kind of vague socialism in the United States without being a victim of abuse, ridicule, and/or gaoling. Whereas in science the 'out-there' theories are going strong, and get a fair hearing.

When a scientist goes to a conference to present a poster or is invited to give a talk, let's say, and has a hard time. When he has a hard time publishing his papers, when he has a hard time with the rest of the faculty in his department, it's because they don't believe him. They don't believe his arguments; they don't believe his evidence. They know something about what he's talking about (in that they've got a grasp of what's come before in the literature) and they simply don't believe him. It's nothing personal. If he could convince people, we are willing to be convinced.

And believe me, i come from a lunatic fringe of the Biology establishment. Until the last 10 years or so, until our evidence accumulated to such a degree that it is undeniable, we have been marginalised, tolerated, but sniggered at. We've begun to convince people. This is what science is about. Convincing rational, incredibly intelligent people that you're not talking rubbish.


It is frankly impossible to debate cutting-edge science in the public arena, because the public (generally) hasn't got the background in the literature, the dogma (yes), the terminology, or the scientific method to truly engage. Just as it is impossible to discuss 'Bleak House', let's say, with someone who hasn't read the book. How many times have i heard "oh, i don't like Dickens" and it turns out the person has merely read some extracts on the internet, or has 'started' a book of his? Hard as it is to hear, it is not enough to have an opinion. If that opinion is not informed by the most recent advances as presented in the primary literature, it is - scientifically - without merit. This may sound pompous or pretentious, but that's how science works. You have to know what you're talking about before you say anything. This may be hard to fathom, but i think it's the only correct course for a discussion. It is not a discussion when one party does not know what the subject upon which they are expounding.

I should imagine that there might be about 20 people (that's probably an overestimate) on earth who can understand the physics and mathematics to truly make a judgement Re: the likelihood of time travel. I can't.


bk

 

[Starius]

With a lot of scientific research as of late, it seems results often get skewed towards a political bias - usually against the wishes of the researchers in question. I have seen a lot of statements from scientists recently expressing frustration with how their work is being used in various political slants.

I like my science like I like my journalism, just the facts - without the personal commentary. (Though expression of possibilities is good.)

With those kinds of motivations behind a lot of research, its a wonder we get any kind of impartial results at all anymore.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This is accurate. The recent furore about how climate change data was being mishandled by the (US) government agencies, under the guidance of the executive, is but the tip of the iceberg. Drug companies, private concerns, various other entities deciding what gets published and what doesn't. Glaxo SmithKline should not, for example, be funding the testing of it's own drugs vs. those from other companies. But they do, and the scientists who present this research are treated very skeptically. Perhaps this is wrong, but i personally don't trust a scientist who's funding source has a vested interest in the outcome of the supposedly independent research.

The system is sick, but the majority are not caught up in this. The overwhelming majority of science is still carried out in impartial "scientific" ways.

bk

 

[dhermann1]

I'm reading a fun novel called "The Proteus Operation" by James P Hogan. It involves time travel back to guess when? WW II. The explanations for how it works are really good first class techno fudge. I think most theories of time travel are fudge. But they're fun. Obviously, this gang wants time travel so we can go back and shop till we drop at Gimbel's circa 1939!

 

[dr greg]

another view

I'll let them tell ya, cos i don't really know
http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/end.html

 

[staggerwing]

Then again, an explanation I heard was "if time travel is possible, we or our ancestors would already have been visited by time travellers from the future." It does have a certain logic to it. Also, I have yet to hear anyone, "scientist" or not, put forward any ideas on how one might build a device to accomplish this.

 

[Starius]

I never bought that concept that because we know of no past experience of time travel, it will never happen.

If time travel was in fact possible, then so too might the theory of multiple universes or time lines. The act of going back in time could be altogether impossible to backtrack on one's own timeline. As a result, you could only travel back to a past point of a alternate frame of reality. If every possible outcome to every situation spawns a alternate possibility, than the universe is infinite in alternate versions and the odds of just any one possible occurrence in our own reality is rather astronomical at best. If you know what I mean.

On another note, I always thought the "Quantum Leap" version of time travel was rather innovative in it's approach. It certainly would explain there being no physical proof left behind.

Back to the point of time travel being "impossible" from the viewpoint of a scientist: I still maintain that it is far too narrow a view for science. Look at all the things we discover from history that would have been thought outlandish or impossible if there had been no proof found. Things like the 2,000 year old Baghdad Battery (possibly used for electroplating) or the Antikythera mechanism found on a ancient Greek ship.
These things are marvels because they were made in ages that we assume couldn't have contained such knowledge.

I am of the belief that we have lost more knowledge than we may ever know. If we are so wrong about what we believe happened in the past (which seems to be the case quite often) then how can we even have the audacity to say what will or won't happen in the future?