this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
55 points (81.6% liked)
science
18371 readers
141 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is bullshit.
Says the random person on the internet in response to the quantum physics professor who says otherwise.
I take it you did not read the article.
I did, actually. So, what makes it “bullshit?”
Dude.
First off, it's purely a hypothetical model. You can plop in negative time to equations and have them make sense, this doesn't mean that negative time is possible.
However disregarding that. The abstract of the study:
So the study the article is based on concludes that time-travel paradoxes are impossible. Thus you can not kill your own grandfather because it'd create a paradox. What they're saying is that you could be in a CTC (closed time-like curve) where in which time goes back and forth from your grandparents to you and back again, but the time going back would reduced entropy ie reverse things.
So you couldn't "go back" because that'd mean your entropy ie your arrow of time, was still pointing forwards and not backwards.
This isn't a case of some random Lemming against a professor saying otherwise. It's Lemmings telling you you've bought into pop-science sensationalism.
The article does actually communicate what I explained there, but really almost hides it with the language, so I'm not surprised your either didn't read it, missed it, or didn't internalise it:
Ie nothing here is breaking the Novikov self-consistency principle
And you’re the arbiter of what constitutes “popsci bullshit” rather than the quantum physics professor? Such hubris.
In my experience, people with rational reasons for rejecting claims can articulate said reasons, rather than simply calling them bullshit and telling other people to fuck off. I’m not convinced of the article’s claims, but I’m also not convinced you know what you’re talking about either. The difference is that the article admits its claims are speculative and hypothetical, while you’re just slinging insults.
It read to me like they provided a reason for denying causality though: that the associative breakdown in entropic state suggests causality can be violated. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate that claim, but if you do, why don’t you just explain to me why it’s wrong? Or is that demanding too much of a random person on the internet?
That’s good, because I’m pretty sick of you too. What an arrogant POS.