How to control the future

[Sinornithosaurus]

From a popular science magazine:

Spoiler

Show

[Microraptor]

I tried it, it doesn't work

[Gilberreke]

Reminded me of Brave New World.

[BlackCat]

As a tralfamadorian, I can confirm this does not work.

[BinoAl]

What's fun are the ones where you don't get why they won't work immediately:

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

The weight of the water would keep the valve closed with more force than the balls would pull up with, no matter how many balls or how much water :)

[Sarudak]

But since water is diamagnetic what if you created a sufficiently powerful magnetic field that prevented the water from escaping but didn't affect the balls at all??? :O

[jkievlan]

Not to one-up you Al, but the simplest answer is simply: conservation of energy :) Any time you see a perpetual motion machine design, you can be certain that somewhere energy is being lost that you aren't accounting for. It will either (1) do no work, or (2) slow down and stop. The caveat is, you could make one if you could invent a way to create energy from nothing...but you aren't going to do that by inventing some clever mechanical design.

[jkievlan]

But since water is diamagnetic what if you created a sufficiently powerful magnetic field that prevented the water from escaping but didn't affect the balls at all??? :O

The energy lost in that case would be the energy required to maintain the magnetic field. Static magnets (say, from iron containing magnetically aligned molecules) will degrade due to molecules gradually shifting out of position as they encounter opposing magnetic fields.

[BinoAl]

Not to one-up you Al, but the simplest answer is simply: conservation of energy :) Any time you see a perpetual motion machine design, you can be certain that somewhere energy is being lost that you aren't accounting for. It will either (1) do no work, or (2) slow down and stop. The caveat is, you could make one if you could invent a way to create energy from nothing...but you aren't going to do that by inventing some clever mechanical design.

Lol of course, but that's more of a general rule than the specific reasons why something won't work. Conservation of Energy is a less interesting answer than water pressure will always overcome the buoyancy of the balls :)

[Ribky]

As a tralfamadorian, I can confirm this does not work.

BAM! Noir with the Vonnegut reference.

[EtherealWrath]

Unless I missed something, conservation of energy simultaneously proves perpetual motion and disproves any method of exploiting it.
In fact I'd probably go as far as to say our very lives and existence is build on perpetual motion

Energy can be neither created or destroyed, so perpetual motion will only work in a closed system.
By example- our planet orbiting the sun. Its effectively a closed system, and will run indefinitely without slowing down/losing energy.
(ok, things might go a little wrong when the sun dies- use one of the outer planets if you wish to be that pedantic)

Likewise if we were to 'exploit' some of this energy; it'll slow our planet's speed will drop the orbit.
(eventually getting a little too hot for comfort)
You can never exploit a perpetual system as that opens the loop- A equal amount of energy must be put back in to close said loop and make the motion perpetual again.

(though you can exploit the mechanics of a loop- a satellite won't need any extra energy to stay in orbit once its up there)

[jkievlan]

Unless I missed something, conservation of energy simultaneously proves perpetual motion and disproves any method of exploiting it.
In fact I'd probably go as far as to say our very lives and existence is build on perpetual motion

Firstly, there is a slight, but hugely significant, difference between perpetual motion and a perpetual motion machine (the latter being the topic of discussion). To wit: a perpetual motion machine must do work, which would violate conservation of energy.

Secondly, even perpetual motion sans work does not exist in reality, though it's theoretically possible. There is such a thing as very long-lasting motion (such as the orbit of planets around a star) but not perpetual motion. Why? Because perpetual motion is possible only in a perfectly closed system, which does not exist, except for one exception:

The universe as a whole is in theory a perfectly closed system, so perhaps parts of it will be in motion forever. This spins me off into some fascinating speculations about the meaning of "heat death" and whether the energy of the universe will ultimately condense into matter, or otherwise where it will go at the end of the universe...excuse me while I go develop the defining theory about the final fate of the universe...

EDIT: To clarify what I said about about "perfectly closed systems," no, a satellite will not stay in orbit forever. Its orbit will slowly decay due to friction from, e.g., the solar wind. Nor can you really call that "practically" perpetual motion, since the very definition of perpetual motion is that it is perpetual, that is, forever. I could slide a puck across the ice and it would keep moving for a good long time, and call that "practically" perpetual motion...but you wouldn't really buy that, would you? It's not perpetual, it's just really long motion.

[ExpHP]

Firstly, there is a slight, but hugely significant, difference between perpetual motion and a perpetual motion machine (the latter being the topic of discussion).

Okay, I just literally spent the last half hour trying to find the best way to say pretty much exactly this in a paragraph or so, and you managed to say it in one sentence. I take my hat off you, sir!

[Foxy Boxes]

Here's one: If time and space are the same thing (space-time) and we move through time (1 second/second) like we do space, why can't we simply *stop* moving through time like we can space?

[0player]

Here's one: If time and space are the same thing (space-time) and we move through time (1 second/second) like we do space, why can't we simply *stop* moving through time like we can space?

Haha. What if I told you we're always moving with the same speed in spacetime, but not 1 second per second in time?
The speed is natural to measure against local time -- that's what your wristwatch show when you travel. Then, the equation holds:
the speed of moving through global time is cosh(phi), and the speed of moving through global space is c * sinh(phi), where phi is an arbitrary number and c is the speed constant. In hyperbolic geometry, this means that you're always moving with the speed of light in vacuum, but are able to turn sideways. When you're standing (your space-speed is zero), you are moving strictly in time, one second per second. When you stir away from the future, you begin to move in space, but also begin to move faster in time (because in hyperbolic geometry, Pythagorean theorem would be a^2 - b^2 = c^2). Unfortunately, if you're able to stay still in space, this means you cannot go faster than c in space for an outside observer. Some argue about existence of objects -- named tachyons -- that are able to stand still in time (and thus, have infinite speed for an outside observer), but are not able to slow down enough; they cannot stand still in space, just as we cannot stand still in time. Even if they exist, it seems that our realities have no influence on each other.

[TheGatesofLogic]

Here's one: If time and space are the same thing (space-time) and we move through time (1 second/second) like we do space, why can't we simply *stop* moving through time like we can space?

your first assumption is wrong, and your question defies actual understanding of the basics of space-time. The fact of the matter is that the future is absolute, and the past is absolute as well. The present, however, is a relative concept different for observers in relative motion, which is where your fallacy stems from. Time can, in fact, be sped up REALLY fast (limited at infinity actually), but it cannot be slowed down for an active observer to any significant amount.

[Foxy Boxes]

your first assumption is wrong, and your question defies actual understanding of the basics of space-time.

Interesting you should say that since your response "defies actual understanding of the basics of space-time". Namely,

The fact of the matter is that the future is absolute, and the past is absolute as well.

Which is a fallacy because the future *cannot* be absolute. To be so would require there be one fixed timeline for all of eternity from which nothing can deviate. Which, for reasons to advanced for me to accurately remember, is not the case.

[TheGatesofLogic]

I think you fail to understand what i mean by "absolute time"

The rate of change of time is different for any two observers at a relative velocity to one another that is not 0. That only applies however, when considering "present time." What i meant by saying, "the past and future is absolute", is NOT that there is only a single fixed undeviating timelin, but rather that when considering time in a future tense or the past tense the rate of change of time is unnecessary for such stuations, but since when considering the present, and because the present is not a static time, but rather a moving point on a timeline we must consider the relativity of different observers based on their mass, velocity, and gravitational influence (i won't get into that right now). So what was meant by "absolute times" is that there is an "absolute moment" where time is considered stationary when considering any one moment of timein either the past or the present, however when considering these "moments" in the present tense we must understand that the relative curvature of spacetime and the momentum of any 2 observing objects influences the rate of change of time to be more than 0 (where 0 is stationary) and that rate is actual DIFFERENT for those two separate observers when their relative location in curved spacetime and their relative velocities do not exactly equal one another.

Thus, what i mentioned had absolutely NOTHING to do with fixed non-deviating timelines.

On a different note: I have recently been working towards recieving a grant to start a peer-review on a incredible new piece of theoretical propulsion technology, and as of 10 minutes ago I recEIved the go ahead! This device has the potential to be a waste of half a million dollars in grant money, OR be the key to human solar exploration. (still need a couple hundred years before ANYTHING interstellar will be possible, but hey It's a big step in the right direction) Here's the links to the various bits of information floating around about it:

http://www.emdrive.com/
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf
http://emdrive.com/principle.html

[Gilberreke]

Which is a fallacy because the future *cannot* be absolute. To be so would require there be one fixed timeline for all of eternity from which nothing can deviate. Which, for reasons to advanced for me to accurately remember, is not the case.

The future IS absolute. It's all just particles bumping around according to physical laws. Due to quantum uncertainty and other concepts, it's impossible to predict the future, but it's absolute and set in stone.

For all intents and purposes, it seems random to us, so we have concepts like free choice, but that's not how it actually works under the hood.

Stuff gets a bit more interesting once you figure in time travel, but suffice to say the future is still absolute after figuring in time travel.

[TheGatesofLogic]

Which is a fallacy because the future *cannot* be absolute. To be so would require there be one fixed timeline for all of eternity from which nothing can deviate. Which, for reasons to advanced for me to accurately remember, is not the case.

The future IS absolute. It's all just particles bumping around according to physical laws. Due to quantum uncertainty and other concepts, it's impossible to predict the future, but it's absolute and set in stone.

For all intents and purposes, it seems random to us, so we have concepts like free choice, but that's not how it actually works under the hood.

Stuff gets a bit more interesting once you figure in time travel, but suffice to say the future is still absolute after figuring in time travel.

errrm.... that's not exactly true... Quantum uncertainty doesn't tell us we can't predict the future, it tells us that there are infinite possibilities, some more likely than others. For all intents and purposes quantum uncertainty basically just hands us infinity and says "look this is what COULD happen, Good Luck! What actually happens could be argued an infinite number of ways. I see where you're going with that, but it degenerates into an infinite number of quasistatic systems that form a net result of nothing ever happening. If that were the case, then we could accurately predict anything on a macroscopic level regardless of the microscopic structure, but, using magnetic domains as an example, that is experimentally not the case. Technically, a future that is set in stone is arguable, but it cannot be proven to be true. Personally, i believe that neither the future OR the past are set in stone, but that is a whole different story revolving around my own philosophical and spiritual beliefs involving a mix of Kabbalistic meditation and Buddhist spiritualistic agendas which i would gladly go into more in-depth another time, but is rather off topic at the moment. (though "technically" it is only off-topic in half of all the existant moments throughout all of the mathematical universes :P)

[ExpHP]

See, this is why I love the many-worlds interpretation. The future is set in stone, so long as you're talking about the future of the totality of all universes.

Everything will happen. Guaranteed.™

[Gilberreke]

See, this is why I love the many-worlds interpretation. The future is set in stone, so long as you're talking about the future of the totality of all universes.

Everything will happen. Guaranteed.™

In the many worlds interpretation, it's actually easier to formulate what I meant :). It goes as follows:

Everything will happen, but one "actor" (for example, you) will travel to exactly one of those futures and the one you're going towards is *probably* set in stone, but as said before, it's impossible to predict.

What Gates said is absolutely correct, all I did is summarize the whole complex issue as "for all intents and purposes, and with what we know know, it's probably impossible to predict anything", coupled with a "there's a strong case for assuming that everything is set in stone".

I can't be arsed to fully explain this view as it's a pretty complex sum of different scientific and mathematical models. As always, feel free to disagree :)

[BlackCat]

Without having any of the fancy degrees that you guys have in whatever, I think of it like this: We are influenced by three things, outside variables (x), ourselves (y), and past experiences (z), and our decisions based on x will always be the same based on our combined y and z, but x would have always been the same based on its y and z, so for any one human to have made a different decision another human would have had to make a different one, so eventually it would require some x that experienced a future z, therefor having a different z than everyone else, and being able to have a y that will not be purely influenced by just x and z in the present and past, but in the future, this allowing them to make different decisions knowing what would happen as a result.

It's hard to translate a lot of this stuff into english because language is so limited, but this is about as good of a job as I feel I can do.

I tend to relate most to the ideas proposed in slaughterhouse-5, the tralfamadorians had the right idea.

Edit: Looking back at what I wrote it's far more complicated than just that, but you should be able to get the general concept.

Edit 2: Ok so I realize now that I forgot to say that even if someone did exist who experienced a future z, even then they would make the same decisions based on their x and y but they could change how things MIGHT have gone, and it would still all be moot point (probably).

[icynewyear]

But Noir! Most of my z didn't really happen and a fair bit of my x are really misfiring y! What do?

[BlackCat]

icy pls don't throw