Is it OBE or Time Travel?


One of the main issues for many physicists is that time-travel back in time is only theoretical, whereas going forward has been proven but what is time but a frame within at thought however real or unreal you may feel or think it is. Scientist know that there are a number of theoretical ways to go back in time, including ‘worm holes’, which is a tunnel connecting to points in space.  However, there are many drawbacks to going back in time not least because of the complications that could arise, such as altering the time-travellers future in a way that would mean he would have existed in the first place this is called a paradox. Other issues arising indicate the power needed to travel back in time equates to that of an exploding star, therefore the most feasible, yet still nearing impossible, a way to go back in time has been documented by Stephen Hawking – you would need to inflate a wormhole, Hawking explains, so it would be big enough for a person to travel through, but believes because of the paradox, travelling backwards through time is not possible.

However, Hawking does get excited about the possibility of moving forward in time hundreds of years, citing the locomotive example as the most feasible way to travel through time and space.  He explains that where they is large masses time is slower, so if we were to orbit a black hole time would essentially be halved here on earth.

It works like this. According to one interpretation of quantum physics ( btw there are several interpretations, and nobody knows which one, if any, is “right”), every time a quantum object, such as an electron, is faced with a choice, the world divides to allow it to take every possibility on offer. However within a OBE experience the same scientific motions are done with ease without damaging the body. In essence it is the mind that finds the wormhole within the conscious to allow one to go through another dimension via OBE/time travel.  Moving back scientifically: An electron may be faced with a wall containing two holes, so that it must go through one hole or the other. The Universe splits so that in one version of reality — one set of relative dimensions — it goes through the hole on the left, while in the other it goes through the hole on the right. Pushed to its limits, this interpretation says that the Universe is split into infinitely many copies of itself, variations on a basic theme, in which all possible outcomes of all possible “experiments” must happen somewhere in the “multi-universe”. Is it so hard to believe and accept because it may not be so readily proven at this very second?

How does this resolve the paradoxes? Like this. Suppose someone did go back in time to murder their aunt when she was a little girl. On this multiverse picture, they have slid back to a bifurcation point in history. After killing aunt, they move forward in time, but up a different branch of the multiverse. In this branch of reality, they were never born; but there is no paradox, because in he universe next door aunt is alive and well, so the murderer is born, and goes back in time to commit the foul deed!

It sounds like science fiction, but again science fiction writers have indeed been here before. Is it so hard to realise that everything is born by a thought-form, force or energy then imade up of particles and bound together  to form a mass that allows everything to become “real” in a given universe. This is why it is very complex to explain the how and realism within OBE.

As I wrote this article the more and more I realised I could go on and on with an indefinite diaglogue in trying to break down the similarities of which of the two between OBE and Time Travel were real or just a figment of one’s immagination. I cannot convince anyone what is real beyond what their own perception would allow them to believe and accept so I thought in closing I’d have “Morpheus”  do the explaining for me “How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you feel, taste smell or see than real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain”. 

Pages: 1 2

Leave a Comment