Time Traveller on Mobile Phone in 1920's

[NoKnowledge]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I read that it's not on the DVD.

The strangely dressed person is only on screen for a few moments in an extra found on the DVD of "The Circus," a 1928 silent film by Chaplin. She steps into frame outside Mann's Chinese Theater in Hollywood, where the film premiered, then the image dissolves away.

Full article :

Time traveler caught on film in 1928? Filmmaker claims find in Charlie Chaplin's 'The Circus' DVD

Originally Posted by Stephen

You are a few years out lol. It was the 1920s

What's a decade or so amongst time-travelling aliens from another dimension - acceptable margin of error...

[LondonRoad]

The lengths some people will go to to get a signal on Orange

Originally Posted by vanman

But if time were to be in dimensions. And the mobile phone frequencies happened to travel through the dimensions.
The time traveller would have got a connection.
As we are not in her/his dimension or the dimension, which he or she came from we will never know.

Ah, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, utilising the quantum decoherence mechanism; once again, causality violations would need to occur for this to be true, as travelling to the past would create a "branch" which would diverge from the time-travelling alien from another dimension's original time-line (instead of collapsing the standing wave (cf the Copenhagen Interpretation), there would be a quantum superposition) thus breaching the information transfer.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, utilising the quantum decoherence mechanism; once again, causality violations would need to occur for this to be true, as travelling to the past would create a "branch" which would diverge from the time-travelling alien from another dimension's original time-line (instead of collapsing the standing wave (cf the Copenhagen Interpretation), there would be a quantum superposition) thus breaching the information transfer.

But surely what you are saying is only based on the known knowledge that we have
Therefore the theory may be proven wrong in a future dimension. i refer you to the
String theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory which asserted that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space.

Levels of magnification:
1. Macroscopic level - Matter
2. Molecular level
3. Atomic level -- Protons, neutrons, and electrons
4. Subatomic level -- Electron
5. Subatomic level - Quarks
6. String level

An intriguing feature of string theory is that it involves the prediction of extra dimensions. The number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion,[dubious – discuss] but flat spacetime solutions do exist in the so-called "critical dimension". Cosmological solutions exist in a wider variety of dimensionalities, and these different dimensions—more precisely different values of the "effective central charge", a count of degrees of freedom which reduces to dimensionality in weakly curved regimes—are related by dynamical transitions.[14]
One such theory is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[15] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. The original string theories from the 1980s describe special cases of M-theory where the eleventh dimension is a very small circle or a line, and if these formulations are considered as fundamental, then string theory requires ten dimensions. But the theory also describes universes like ours, with four observable spacetime dimensions, as well as universes with up to 10 flat space dimensions, and also cases where the position in some of the dimensions is not described by a real number, but by a completely different type of mathematical quantity. So the notion of spacetime dimension is not fixed in string theory: it is best thought of as different in different circumstances.[1

In the universe as we experience it, we can directly affect only objects we can touch; thus, the world seems local.
Quantum mechanics, however, embraces action at a distance with a property called entanglement, in which two particles behave synchronously with no intermediary; it is nonlocal.
This nonlocal effect is not merely counterintuitive: it presents a serious problem to Einstein's special theory of relativity, thus shaking the foundations of physics.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by vanman

But surely what you are saying is only based on the known knowledge that we have

Exactly. it's a bit like discussing what today is really simple electronics, but back then was seen as impossible for the future.

I mean you only have to look at Star Trek (Shatner) to see how they imagined the future. it was just loads of flashing bulbs.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I mean you only have to look at Star Trek (Shatner) to see how they imagined the future. it was just loads of flashing bulbs.

Mind you they did have a nice motorola clamshell comms device with voice dialing!!!!

[pabscars]

Originally Posted by Stephen

its not a phone. Its a really old hearing aid. Seen this on so many sites.

I,d agree with that

http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/did/20thcent/index.htm

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What's a decade or so amongst time-travelling aliens from another dimension - acceptable margin of error...

Ask Doctor Who. He's frequently landed in the right place, but the wrong century.

Originally Posted by Hugh

But that would be a clear violation of causality - even if you tried to support this proposition by proposing quantum entanglement using the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics as the method of communication between the traveller in the past and the satellites in the future, the fact that causality is preserved in quantum mechanics is a rigorous result in modern quantum field theories, which makes that supposition non-viable.

I believe that Gary is following the Star Trek theory of time travel, where it *is* possible to transmit signals to different times. As evidenced (notably) in the episodes of Voyager and DS9 involving Star Fleet's Temporal Affairs department.

Regarding this clip, while I would *like* to believe it's true, the far more logical explanation is that someone ripped the DVD of the original movie, filmed the woman walking along in front of a blue or green screen holding something up to her ear, then used something like Adobe After Effects to both match the video to the film (so lighting, grain, focus etc match) and create a composite video showing the woman shown.

The fact that the person who "discovered' it presents his entire theory while standing in front of a poster advertising another film speaks volumes. Oh, and, Yes, he did direct the film on the poster.

Has a Belfast film-maker discovered evidence of time travel? asks the BBC this morning.

No, but he's discovered a foolproof way to get massive free publicity for his work. Good on him.

Originally Posted by vanman

But surely what you are saying is only based on the known knowledge that we have
Therefore the theory may be proven wrong in a future dimension. i refer you to the String theory

Do you mean a parallel dimension/world in the multiverse, a future branch of the multiverse, or a future branch of the of a parallel dimension/world in the multiverse?

Re String Theory, you do know that the theory has yet to make any quantitative experimental predictions? Perhaps the LHC may provide some substance (or not) to this.

Spoke to my elderly neighbour about this and showed him the clip this morning and he said something about his father having a music box the type that used a revolving disc with pins or something and that was about the same size as a modern mobile he said it had his and his wives fav tune on it maybe it is that simple.

Rizzy, you're on the mark - Occam's Razor.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re String Theory, you do know that the theory has yet to make any quantitative experimental predictions? Perhaps the LHC may provide some substance (or not) to this.

A theory is just that. it has no substance untill proven then its fact.

Not quite - a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon, or collection of phenomena, that fits the available evidence and has gained wide acceptance. It isn't a fact, in the scientific sense, although it may be convenient to treat it as one to allow further research to proceed.

Hence Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and intelligent design is a hypothesis, not a theory. But that's a topic for another thread.