"Time Travel" via the Hyperinflationary Bubble Universe Method

[Zachary Smith]

Let us assume for sake of discussion that our universe is an off-shoot from an older universe and came into being in accord with the hyperinflationary "bubble" universe theory. Let us further assume that other "baby" universes may spring into existence as offshoots from our own in the same fashion and that we are able to artificially generate such universes (perhaps through use of some "exotic matter) by concentrating mass and energy into an artificial singularity.

Given the premise that if one has the same combination of elements and conditions, the same results should occur time after time, the new "baby" universe would be a haploid duplicate of our own, a mirror of our own reality but at the dawn of creation. Given enough "time" and presuming no outside interference disrupts the native conditions, this universe should develop exactly as our own did, including people and events--like a rerun of our own history playing in universe next door. How then, can this duplicate "parallel" universe be a mechanism for "time travel"?

Very simply. One positions the singularity (and therefore the "doorway" through which this "daughter" universe is accessible) into an adjacent dimension. This is a dimension which is inches away along one axis but infinitely distant along another axis. When the singularity has thus been positioned, one begins to rotate it in an arc around a central point to near light speed. The focus of the rotation must be at a point along the long axis of the dimension NEARER to the baby universe to that, from the perspective of that baby universe, WE are nearing light-speed.

Thus, through relativistic manipulation we are able to ARTIFICIALLY and RAPIDLY "age" the parallel duplicate universe to what ever moment in "time" we desire. We access the singularity via nearby dimension, pass through the "doorway" and "bingo" we have traveled into the "past".

Granted, it is not "OUR" past but it is IDENTICAL in every respect. Interference in historical events in THAT universe would have no impact on our universe so we should feel free to act there with impunity. We cannot "interfere" there because the instant we intervene, the daughter universe is no longer a "parallel" but an "alternate" universe. We could then return to our OWN universe, shift the focus of rotation along the long dimensional axis to place it nearer OUR universe and thereby travel in to the FUTURE of the Alternate universe of, conversely, we could generate ANOTHER singularity and offshoot universe and, by the same method, explore our "own" future (again, not literally "ours" but an exact duplicate).

With this method we should feel free to explore, observe, test alternative historical concepts or even utilize it for recreation. Want to go on a dinosaur safari? See how events would have unfolded if Hitler had been smothered as a baby? Give "yourself" next week's winning lotto numbers?

Here's how! What say ye?

 

[Lindley]

Don't you run into a problem trying to see the future of our universe when, as each "child" universe reaches "now", it spawns off its own child----resulting in (pretty much instantly) an infinite number of child universes popping into existence?

Other than that, it sounds kinda like the theory of time travel used in the book Timeline by Micheal Crichton.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Don't you run into a problem trying to see the future of our universe when, as each "child" universe reaches "now", it spawns off its own child----resulting in (pretty much instantly) an infinite number of child universes popping into existence?

Other than that, it sounds kinda like the theory of time travel used in the book Timeline by Micheal Crichton.

You have a point (incidentally, I never read the Crichton book). If, however, you stay focused on the baby universe of your creation and ignore the second generation "baby" universes you should still reasonably be able to interpret "our" future by observing "them"

In an "infinite" multi-verse an infinite number of universes shouldn't be a problem anyhow. There should be room for us all.

 

[JustAFriend]

Hmmm.... you want entire universes to be identical in every respect when you cant even find identical snowflakes???

....the universe is more chaotic than you think....

 

[Zachary Smith]

Hmmm.... you want entire universes to be identical in every respect when you cant even find identical snowflakes???

....the universe is more chaotic than you think....

Maybe you just need to travel further than you think to find that identical snowflake.

It might be worth considering that you take a big step BACKWARD in terms of perspective. "Chaos" may be a local phenomenon that disappears on the cosmic scale, exactly the same way the APPARENT random scattering of stars take the shape of galaxies when you look from a more distant perspective. The random "splatter" of galaxies form galactic "bridges" and "bubbles" when you back up further. "Chaos" may well be nothing more than an illusion resulting from the use of too narrow an observational viewpoint. A butterfly flapping it's winds in Beijing causing a typhoon in Fiji might have EXACTLY the same obvious correlation as a lever lifting a stone; IF you have suitable means to assess ALL the possible variables, crunch the numbers and predict the outcome. WE might not be able to do it due to our inherent limitations and inability to observe and collect the relevant data but that doesn't mean the cause/effect process does NOT occur in predictable patterns. The limitation is OURS--not the Universe's. We simply term it "chaos" when the level of complexity of possibility rises beyond our ability to assess the variables. After all, all variables are NOT equally likely. If they were, NOTHING would ever happen--all possibilities would be fighting to occur and thus NONE could. What happens, however unlikely it seems to us, IS the MOST likely outcome or it would NEVER happen at all.

In the end, this seems a sound scientific principle: take the same materials under the same conditions and perform the same actions, you SHOULD get the same results, right? Therefore, most likely outcome = identical results = identical universes (assuming matching starting conditions and essential energy/materials).

 

[Chaos Descending]

I would imagine that quantum uncertainty would almost guarantee that the spawned universes would wind up different from our own, regardless of how closely the intial conditions are met.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

In the end, this seems a sound scientific principle: take the same materials under the same conditions and perform the same actions, you SHOULD get the same results, right?

Except that in the real world we don't always get the same results, because no matter how much we try to start out with the same materials and the same conditions and perform the same actions, tiny little differences creep in. Therefore, even good car designs produce a few models that fail shortly after leaving the lot. I suspect that to make an entire universe identical to ours, we would need starting conditions that are far more precise than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would allow.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Having said that, your idea for sort-of time-traveling by making daughter universes is interesting and clever.

Of course, if you could make a universe identical to ours, it would bring up all sorts of ethical questions. For example, if you create a universe in which all of history's wars play out just as they did in ours, are you guilty of causing the deaths of millions of inhabitants of the duplicate universe?

 

[Zachary Smith]

Having said that, your idea for sort-of time-traveling by making daughter universes is interesting and clever.

Of course, if you could make a universe identical to ours, it would bring up all sorts of ethical questions. For example, if you create a universe in which all of history's wars play out just as they did in ours, are you guilty of causing the deaths of millions of inhabitants of the duplicate universe?

Why assume we would be the "prime" universe? We had to come from somewhere, therefore the more likely scenario is that WE are repeating someone ELSE'S history . . .

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Why assume we would be the "prime" universe?

I assumed nothing of the sort.

We had to come from somewhere, therefore the more likely scenario is that WE are repeating someone ELSE'S history . . .

That would not change the ethical question I brought up. If you intentionally create a universe in which you know that another Holocaust will kill another six million people, it doesn't matter whether OUR Holocaust was the first one or not.

 

[Zachary Smith]

On the other hand, if you create another universe wherein billions or perhaps trillions of other people/beings throughout that reality live and breathe and love and hate and exist for the natural span of their time, does that balance the Holocaust? Is it possible to be charged with being responsible for the lives of others when, perhaps, we are not even ultimately responsible for ourselves and are merely reacting to (or even repeating) events unfolding? Is one even able to claim credit (or blame) for the "creation" of those lives when, in all actuality all that was done was the setting in motion of mechanisms whereby those lives came about?

It actually opens a host of interesting considerations. Not the least of which is whether one has lesser or GREATER responsibility (if any) if the "normal" unfolding of events is interfered with. If one DOES generate a daughter universe and he changes it into an "alternate" reality by intervening and, say, killing Hitler, does the architect of such actions have a greater responsibility for that which follows? It seems that ONLY someone operating from OUTSIDE the confines of that universe would have TRULY free will as everyone else, up to the moment where a temporal/historical change is made, would simply be playing a role. By changing a single event (perhaps even a minor one) it could be claimed an outside interventionalist might be actually FREEING billions of people on the planet, or perhaps across that universe from being locked in a path of predestination they are not even aware of.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think our concepts of ethics and morality kind of hit a brick wall once you start talking about creating universes.

The ethical thing to do is not create universes, because there is no way a human being could be adequately responsible for them.

So, if you're gonna do it anyway, you might as well throw ethics by the wayside. Events that occur outside your own universe aren't really relevant to your universe in the first place, so you could be the worst war criminal in history in your daughter universe, and a totally upstanding citizen in your home universe. And both would be right.

 

[TeknoNurd]

I would imagine that quantum uncertainty would almost guarantee that the spawned universes would wind up different from our own, regardless of how closely the intial conditions are met.

Quantum stuff hasn't been demonstrated to affect the "real world". If it did, we couldn't count on chemical reactions to occur the same every single time, down to as many decimal points as we care about.

I only have three problems with this experimint:

1. Even in a spin off universe, we'd have to gather all that matter and energy in one spot.

2. How can we be sure the exact same amount of energy and matter exist in the spin off universe?

3. How do we determine the exact positions of overy proton,neutron, and electron of our original BB event to recreate it exactly?


I'm not sure how morally responsible we would be for that universe. We spawn children that go on to live their own lives, and we aren't responsible for them beyond a certain short period of time. In point of fact, I think the most moral approach is to go "hands off" and allow the occupants of that universe as much "free will" as the mechanics of the universe will allow. Anything less, and we're nothing but puppet masters.

Even if we choose to leave the 'paralell universe' idea and just go with an 'alternate' that we can change certain aspects, I'm not sure that we bear moral responsibility other that those events that our interference spawn. It would be most useful if we could back up the universe before we make the change, then test out several possibilities while returning to our 'safe point'. BUT, if we start fiddling with the universe, then we've destroyed even the perception of free will, which would make us morally responsible (to whom?).

In principle, and taking resolving the 3 questions above, this would be a good way to repeat history, but not to view it. It would take innumerable monitoring devices in so many unlikely places as even if they were nono sized they would innevetibly affect something somewhere with the attending 'butterfly effect', But, if our sights are low, we could at least get pictures of histories big players, perhaps a 'gods eye view' of battles.

What would such a universe look like if the 'oberserver' were to make periodic visits? If you picture the new universe as a snowglobe, we would not be bound by the rules of the snowglobe, we could just move outside of it. But, once inside the globe, wouldn't we be bound by the rules there? Would we, being outside the snowglobe universe, obverve time differently that those contained within it?

One would also need a way to manipulate the passage of time for such a universe to be useful as a paralel viewing tool. But would manipulating time destroy the paralel? Likely.

Also, it was mentioned that this spawned universe, if undisturbed, would spawn still another universe, and another, in another case of infinite regression. One would also have to think that if one person can figure out how to spawn a universe, they might do it more than once, or others might also figure it out and do it. Ultimately, wouldn't that devalue all universes to an extend that starting or ending one would have the moral impact of turning a light on or off.

 

[Zachary Smith]

^^

"We're OVERSTOCKED! GIANT Universe SALE! You WON'T find prices lower than THESE!"

 

[tharpdevenport]

^^

"We're OVERSTOCKED! GIANT Universe SALE! You WON'T find prices lower than THESE!"

"Here at OVerstock.com, we have plenty of Universe for you to choose from."



"Wackey inflatible flailing Universe! Wackey inflatible flailing Universe! Wackey inflatible flailing Universe!"

 

[USS Excelsior]

And plus if one creates a new universe to venture into, wouldn't the copy of the person doing that end up creating another universe to do the exact same thing, and so on forever and ever and ever.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And plus if one creates a new universe to venture into, wouldn't the copy of the person doing that end up creating another universe to do the exact same thing, and so on forever and ever and ever.

It's Zachary Smiths all the way down!

 

[Zachary Smith]

And plus if one creates a new universe to venture into, wouldn't the copy of the person doing that end up creating another universe to do the exact same thing, and so on forever and ever and ever.

This would certainly be true only if you interceded into the daughter universe at or later than the point in time in the history of THAT universe. If you entered the parallel universe at a point in the history or that reality PRIOR to your own, your presence would automatically redefine it as an alternate (and no LONGER parallel) universe. It would be entirely possible that your intrusion into the daughter universe might cause a ripple effect that would mean you might never be born there.

If you entered the daughter universe at a time LATER than the moment in our universe (ie went into the "future"), your parallel self would be gone already because HE would have left that universe in the "past", doing the exact same thing you are doing in the present. If he has traveled into the "future" of the parallel (or alternate) universe HE created, he might be there waiting for you to tell you what to expect on your journey.

What would be curious is if you synchronized the universes and passed through to the EXACT moment you left "our" universe--it would probably be like you never left at all. You'd enter an identical world at the exact instant you left our world and pick up exactly where you left off, without ever having encountered yourself because he would ALSO have left at the same instant you did to arrive there.

 

[USS Excelsior]

It's also possible to have 2 people travel into a child Universe such as 2 twins, and if they both entered before the child twins left, than there would be a pair of identical twins, and the child twins may be influenced to not leave at all. Of course the 2 original twins could enter the child universe after the child universe twins have left and they can live on in it from there.

Then there's the case of whether the 2 original twins enter the child Universe at different points in time even though they both left at the same time. One original twin could enter before the child twins have left, and the other original twin could appear after. So for the time being there would be triplets with 1 original twin and 2 child twins, and when the other original twin appears after the 2 child twins have left, then you would have the original twins in the child Universe but it would be more like a case of an older and younger sibling.

In another scenario, one original twin could leave and the other stay behind, and in the child Universe the child twin that leaves would be replaced by the original twin that arrives.

 

[Zachary Smith]

^^

Now you're just being silly.