🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 5, 2:56 pm, Victor Porton <porton.vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:53 pm, Victor Porton <por...@narod.ru> wrote:
>
> > > I have the following rough idea:
>
> > > Suppose some kind of time machine exists (it may be e.g. two connected
> > > moving blackholes with wormhole between).
>
> > > Suppose somebody want to use it to travel in the past when he was a
> > > child and kill himself in the childhood.
>
> > > If he would do it it would violate basic principles.
>
> > > So something necessarily would disturb him to do it.
>
> > > It looks like that the force which would disturb him to do it shall be
> > > very clever. I suspect that this way we would deduce existence of God.
>
> > > Can we put it in rigorous mathematical formulas, such as requiring
> > > existence in physical reality a function which could solve any math
> > > problem on its input? (We may think about a mathematician borrowing a
> > > theorem from the future, so that there would be no man who proved the
> > > theorem first, or something similar to find such a solving function, I
> > > suspect.)
>
> > > Also I suspect that something similar may be deduced from existence of
> > > faster-than-light quantum teleportation (because it violated the
> > > principle of causality in the sense of Relativity Theory).
>
> > > So, can anybody formulate these physical theories in exact formulas
> > > (about a "solving any problems" physical function)?
>
> > First of all, it does no good to suppose something that violates known
> > laws of physics. If an event violates the laws of physics, then it
> > won't happen, and that's not because something clever stopped it.
>
> > Likewise, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine,
> > because that violates some laws of physics. This doesn't mean that
> > something clever has stepped in to keep a perpetual motion machine
> > from working.
>
> I am not a physicist. But I heard that two connected moving blackholes
> with wormhole between can act as time machine. I'm not sure whether
> this is true, but I suppose it may be true, based on opinion of some
> physicists.

I'm not sure where you've heard this. What is true is that there are
some conjectures about whether wormholes *might* permit this, but it
isn't clear whether the laws of physics permit it. I can assure you,
though, that the conjecture is not of the sort, "We believe that the
laws of physics permit it, but something ELSE is keeping it from
happening."

>
> Also: AFAIK, quantum teleportation is a known fact. Can we deduce some
> problem solving function from quantum teleportation? I just ask, I
> don't know.

Quantum teleportation is a poor word used in Popular Science articles
to describe something that physicists call quantum entanglement. This
is no less interesting, and I do suggest you look into it, but what is
already known is that there is no faster-than-light signaling that is
going on in quantum entanglement. Quantum mechanics is completely
compatible with special relativity, and has been shown to be so since
1928, when Paul Dirac specifically made a fully relativistic quantum
explanation for observed behavior.