Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

thewinnower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#71

Post by Chronic28 »

bentcorner wrote: post #28
madaxe_again wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are time travellers from a future, it isn't our future, and this isn't their past - otherwise causality doesn't work. Instead if you travel back in time you travel to a point, which immediately bifurcates into a new reality. I like to think that we're all time travellers, collectively collapsing the universe's wavefunction through will alone... And now I'm onto determinism so I'll shut up.

What's to say that we're not existing in a reality created by a time traveler? A new-reality model of time travel only affects the viewpoint of the time traveler.

Who cares if our present was altered by a time traveler. We can't tell.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#72

Post by ludwigvan »

dllthomas wrote: post #39
madaxe_again wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are time travellers from a future, it isn't our future, and this isn't their past - otherwise causality doesn't work. Instead if you travel back in time you travel to a point, which immediately bifurcates into a new reality. I like to think that we're all time travellers, collectively collapsing the universe's wavefunction through will alone... And now I'm onto determinism so I'll shut up.

Causality could be a generalization that breaks down in extreme cases, like Newtonian mechanics.

This is scary.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#73

Post by streptomycin »

arethuza wrote: post #20
jerf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on which model exactly time travel works on. Really, this is good science; it has a low probability of working, but the cost is very low too (literally a hobby-time expenditure), it asks a lot of interesting questions, and has a reasonable method for finding answers. It could also shine light on the question of how time travel works, if it does. Science should include a healthy portfolio of such experiment…

What makes you think that ITER has a low probability of success? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

This is troubling: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_...

It seems like the science is good and promising, but the bureaucracy may be too much to overcome.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#74

Post by im3w1l »

mcherm wrote: post #18
madaxe_again wrote: post #3

It could be worse. You could have published a paper on gravity shielding, and be shunned for the rest of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

There is, in my mind, a big difference between a scientist publishing a paper in which they investigate some outlandish science-fiction-like concept (such as time travel or anti-gravity) and find evidence AGAINST it, and one where they find evidence FOR it. The former is a reasonable result, and although expected the research provides evidence to support the hypothesis. The latter is an extraordinary result and wise…

I see nothing wrong with publishing ordinary evidence for extraordinary things. I mean, I still wouldn't beleieve the extraordinary thing, but it could still be useful.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#75

Post by goodcanadian »

Steuard wrote: post #50

The biggest issue that I see with publishing this work in a physics journal is that although time travel is certainly a concept in physics, the research involved here is not physics research. I'd describe it as sociological(?) research intended to shed light on a problem of interest to physics. That may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a real question of competence here: as a physicist, I don't feel especially…

And I'm not convinced that's publishable in any sort of competitive journal.

I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of your comment. However, I take issue with this last sentence. A novel technique is worth publishing even if it is only used in a pilot study of questionable value. Now, anyone can take the technique and expand it to a far greater number of search terms. They can also attempt address potential drawbacks of the technique (as you have done) in future studies.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#76

Post by SilasX »

mjn wrote: post #51
Steuard wrote: post #50

The biggest issue that I see with publishing this work in a physics journal is that although time travel is certainly a concept in physics, the research involved here is not physics research. I'd describe it as sociological(?) research intended to shed light on a problem of interest to physics. That may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a real question of competence here: as a physicist, I don't feel especially…

Yes, my first thought reading through this was surprise that he didn't try any non-physics journals. I think any number of journals devoted to a topic like network science, internet research, web science, etc., would have found the topic of the study more within their area of interest. They would also be able to provide better peer review of the methodological/modeling choices, which mostly aren't related to physics.

So then why didn't the editors suggest it for a more appropriate journal rather than call it unpublishable entirely?

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#77

Post by misnome »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #16
jostmey wrote: post #14

And if that paper had landed on my desk for review in a top journal, I would have rejected it too! Just because it has the top "Almetric score" means nothing other than it was popular in the social media circles. Where was the tangible scientific contribution in this manuscript? This paper did do a wonderful job of gaining attention, though.

I would have taken it as a work of philosophical exploration. We don't encourage enough of this work in peer reviewed venues, and so we deservedly get the crap in the popular press instead.

So, publish it in a journal of philosophy.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#78

Post by rbmoshe »

Steuard wrote: post #50

The biggest issue that I see with publishing this work in a physics journal is that although time travel is certainly a concept in physics, the research involved here is not physics research. I'd describe it as sociological(?) research intended to shed light on a problem of interest to physics. That may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a real question of competence here: as a physicist, I don't feel especially…

Can someone explain the different views of time? If someone were to time travel and make the mistake of doing a google search like that, then after they are caught, couldn't they go back and tell themselves not to do the search?

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#79

Post by jckt »

Steuard wrote: post #50

The biggest issue that I see with publishing this work in a physics journal is that although time travel is certainly a concept in physics, the research involved here is not physics research. I'd describe it as sociological(?) research intended to shed light on a problem of interest to physics. That may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a real question of competence here: as a physicist, I don't feel especially…

I agree. His attempts to get his type of paper being published in established physics journals are sort of explained in his last paragraph though. He thinks that there's "room in the world of publishing for science motivated primarily BY public interest, instead of IN THE public interest". Certainly there's no reason why such a journal to exist--free speech and all.

I'm not a physicist, but certainly saying that such a journal does physics is a bit of a stretch? Ignoring the fact that he hopes such a journal could accept hard sci-fi (of which I am a fan), how could such a journal be maintained properly if it was driven "BY public interest, instead of IN THE public interest"? The general public is ignorant about science, especially deep science -- which is absolutely fine. Funding agencies (as I understand them) are here to help us decide what to do so that not all of us have to go through graduate school to get an idea about the state of science. Moreover, it sounds to me that he wants a more "democratic" process of science. Democracy makes sense in politics -- we vote on politicians because they have the power to change our lives. But scientists, especially physicists, are powerless to change Mother Nature. Regardless of who we choose, as long as the physics is done half-decently, we're going to get to more or less identical answers.

Re: What Happened When We Tried to Publish a Real Paper Investigating Time Travel

#80

Post by themgt »

rthomas6 wrote: post #6
madaxe_again wrote: post #3

It could be worse. You could have published a paper on gravity shielding, and be shunned for the rest of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

As unlikely as these findings are, has anyone actually replicated the experiment?

This might make for some interesting reading: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0958.pdf
Post reply on HN