Physics of the Mysterious-Hackers from the future may be altering the present I found this one on one of my favourite forums. The notes below this particular piece on time travel & hackers explains more about the author of the website, a theoretical/mathematical physicist. Giahn Time travel & hackers from the future Hackers from the future may be altering the present We need now to return to our question: if communications from the future are possible, why don't we receive these broadcasts on a daily basis? If our minds can serve as receivers, then why aren't we all aware of the transmissions? I think that the answer has to do with multiple realities and branching universes, and perhaps any civilization which would receive messages from the future on a daily basis has ceased to exist because communication through time is a very dangerous game. You produce paradoxes and these paradoxes remove the paradoxical universes from the repository of possible universes; if you create a universe with paradoxes, it destroys itself either completely or partially. Perhaps just intelligence is removed from this universe because it is intelligence that creates paradox. Perhaps we are very fortunate that even if we can receive some of these messages from the future, we still continue to exist. Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a "bad choice" or "calamity" for one, could be seen to be a "good event" or "benefit" to someone else! So, the next step would be that "hackers" would begin to break into the systems and send false communications into the past to deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to produce benefits for themselves or others. Then, the first individual would see that false information has been sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an "imposter" and how to tell that it was false. Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to send false information (that was really true) that false information (that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the issue. This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly the same as if there were NO communication into the past! There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world. Time travel and hackers from the future Physics of the Mysterious For other pages where time travel is discussed use the search engine of our site and follow the links. Look for "time loops", "time machine" and "time travel". I. Introduction I am going to talk about Time Travel. But, before I get to that most mysterious of subjects, there is some groundwork that must be dealt with first. This will be a series of notes that will appear at this place on the Web, one section at a time. I will add new stuff as often as I can, so that, little by little, there will be more and more until we get into the fun part, so please be patient. It is not a subject that can be rushed. The point is that I have little time. I have my work, I have my research, and also I am looking for avenues that will enable me to change from research in "recognized areas" to the "leading edge new problems" - and this involves seeking out those who are willing to finance the work necessary to develop completely new science and technologies. Thus, I simply cannot devote to these pages as much time as I would otherwise like. Nevertheless I feel it as a kind of an imperative, or duty, to work on this project - even if the tempo of new material arriving on the net will be slow and unequal.... The purpose of writing these notes and making them available through the Web is twofold: 1) I want to provide the non-expert Reader with first- hand information about the present state and possible future development of theoretical physics - mainly in relation to the material provided in the Cassiopaean sessions , but also to make comments on information from other "mysterious" sources - all through the ages. 2) I want to get as much feed-back as possible concerning all kinds of problems and questions discussed in these notes. I will appreciate all kinds of information, sharing of ideas or just receiving questions concerning topics that are not sufficiently (or not at all) discussed here. A little about myself: I am a theoretical/mathematical physicist. For those interested in credentials - my data , curriculum vitae and list of publications are available through the Internet, at this website and others. This being said I owe you, dear Reader, a warning and an explanation. I am considered to be AN EXPERT, but many of my views are not shared by other experts. I believe that my mind is more open than the minds of many of my colleagues. On the other hand, some of these colleagues believe that my mind is TOO open. So I have to hide from them many of my beliefs and not speak to them about a lot of things that I know. In this way I can publish papers in mainstream journals, speak at conferences, organize conferences and have a pretty good reputation. But to preserve this reputation I need to be very careful - just making a hint here and there that what I do publish is not all that I would like to tell.... I think I really need to tell you these things so that you will NOT get an erroneous idea that all physicists are of the same opinion. They are not. University physics is pretty conservative - which is not a bad attitude at all. We do need to be conservative - this distinguishes science from poetry and daydreaming. But, being too conservative has, in the past, been a great barrier and hindrance to scientific revolutions. If being conservative and "scientific" was the only correct approach, then we would have solved all the mysteries of our existence in the past several hundred years of the "age of science!" The truth is: we are only at the beginning. But, perhaps I AM too open minded.... Perhaps my colleagues are right in being skeptical about anything that is not "established science." I try to keep an open mind about THAT, as well! What I want do on these pages is be open-minded and yet conservative. That is, all I write here will be presented in a moderate and conservative mode. Moreover, as you can see for yourself on my other web pages, I am of the opinion that physics must be always based on mathematics - the only reliable tool and a truly universal language. Without math we can talk about many things - but we are just TALKING. It is not yet science! And even if I believe that the domain of physics needs to be essentially extended, that it has to connect with - or even embrace - biology and psychology - that it has to become much less "physical" - it does not mean it needs to become less precise! But still, no amount of math can take the place of the right inspiration. The study of physics consists in peeling away the layers of the outside appearances of things to reveal their hidden nature and meaning, and very often this inner nature is so deep and hidden that only mathematics can describe it. But, if there is no inspiration as to what might be the objective of the search, the peeling away process might end up being rather like an onion - when the layers are all gone, there is no longer anything there! The new physics needs to be based on math - to an even greater degree than the old physics. It will be a new math, sure, but it will a rigorous math - a math of equations and algorithms and probabilities - a nonlinear math of complex structures and of transitions between these structures. The math of today is difficult and abstract, and the math of tomorrow might be yet more difficult to grasp, even if our computers will be able to do more and more of the abstract work for us. On the other hand, the new math may be incredibly simple and elegant - this could be the reason it has eluded the understanding of physicists today - that the most abstract of ideas are concealed behind a veil of utter, simple logic. This is why professional training is so important: it gives us tools, it teaches us the rigor of abstract thinking, it teaches us the logic of proving assertions, and it shows us the limits and uncertainties of mathematics itself. As we know from Bertrand Russell and Kurt Goedel: math has its paradoxes too! 2. Physics today. Let me, first of all, share with you my views on the state of physics today. More on this subject can be found in my lecture Bioelectronics As Seen by a Theoretical Physicist. Even though this lecture was given at a bioelectronics symposium more than ten years ago, nothing really has changed since that time, and part of the predictions given there have already come true, so I am only repeating here much of what I said then. (I plan to post this entire lecture as soon as the translation is complete.) Physics is what physicists do. And physicists do what they are paid to do. This is one of the reasons why so many of the brightest minds work on a short-time-scale reward basis, doing what is fashionable at a given time. This is the main reason why there is no progress at all in the fundamental areas. The clash between Einstein's relativity theories - which describe classical gravity at macro-scales, and Bohr- Dirac-Heisenberg-Schroedinger quantum theories, providing phenomenology of micro-phenomena, - this clash is today even more dark and scary than it was seventy years ago. There is no real progress. Quantum Theory is supposed to be the greatest invention in science since the beginning of the study of deeper realities. The greatest success of Quantum Theory is considered to be Quantum Field Theory, such as the theory of a quantized electromagnetic field (photons) in interaction with quantized charged matter (electrons). The problem is, this theory is mathematically inconsistent. It involves wishful thinking rather than rigorous science! The only quantum field theories (in four dimensional space-time) that ARE free of contradictions, are so-called trivial ones; that is theories that describe particles that do not interact at all. These theories are mathematical exercises involving particles that are "dead," that will never form atoms. It seems to be that a universe that is governed by quantum field theories that are free of contradictions would be a dead universe, a universe of no interaction. One can build a non-trivial quantum field theory, which may even describe something real or interesting, but then it would necessarily contradict Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity; it would be a non- relativistic one. This is the dilemma. If you want to have both Quantum Field Theory AND Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then you've got a problem. Thus, nontrivial relativistic quantum field theories in four space- time dimensions are divergent - they lead to infinities, and are mathematically inconsistent. Searching for the cure in fancy formal math (supersymmetry, superstrings, quantum groups) just does not work. New - fundamentally new - ideas are needed. Quantum theory is not understood at all - everyone is trying to "cook" by "changing" the recipes to suit the ingredients they have on hand, and this very often results in "Rock Soup." Part of the present-day problem is that Niels Bohr succeeded in molding the minds of so many theoretical physicists into the "no need to understand" mode and this has done a great disservice to the science, the new generations of scientists, and most of all, to humanity. In this day and time, it could be said, that we more desperately need to understand the Order of the Universe than ever before! Yet there is hope. There are areas, even in the "recognized physics" where NEW is still possible. And, it is possible because more and more physicists understand how little they understand about quantum theory. Physicists are realizing, little by little, that even in such established areas as macroscopic electrodynamics there are problems that need major new rethinking: railguns, exploding wire arcs, sonoluminescence, present us with problems that are not easily answered within the standard paradigm and need, perhaps, a major re- thinking of the foundations. Some of the problems are that we do not really understand the physics of conductivity and superconductivity. We realize that macroscopic quantum effects are more common than we ever thought. Sure, it is evident to everyone who goes to Circuit City that technology is progressing pretty fast in these areas; but the same cannot be said about our understanding! What about gravitational physics? Many of the important questions are still unanswered. The old Mach principle is still a subject of serious debate and we do not know what to do with singularities like black holes. They badly need quantum physics, but, once again, quantum physics becomes inconsistent when married with gravity. So we really do not know where we are. We do not know if gravity is a fundamental force or, perhaps, it is a collective and composite phenomenon. Some physicists want to explain electromagnetism in terms of gravity. Others want to derive gravity from electromagnetism. There is a lot of talk about antigravity or gravity shielding at the most fundamental levels and perhaps "antigravity" or gravity shielding is a real effect? No one can agree, and little progress is being made except to disagree. You would be amazed at the battles that rage in the ivory towers of academia! We do not even know (at least not from textbooks or physics journals) if antimatter is attracted or repelled by matter. Perhaps tachyons - particles travelling faster than light - do exist? Perhaps space-time can have causal loops and telephoning into the past is possible? Perhaps quantum tunneling phenomena involves sending information faster than light? Perhaps magnetic monopoles exist and play an important role in biological systems? Or, perhaps, the fifth dimension is more than just a mathematical device of providing a unified description of gravity and electromagnetism? Who knows? All these topics ARE discussed in professional journals, but with no conclusion, no agreement, no cigar. Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but "papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living, must produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each other; colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students who quote their masters, after which they become masters, quoting each other, and producing graduate students who quote them, in an endless cycle of life in the aforementioned ivory towers. And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is true in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results are really bad: there has been no apparent progress in our understanding of Nature for seventy long years.... And nature REALLY needs to be understood, because things are getting a little out of hand out there in the "real" world. Well, perhaps it is not THAT bad!