Time Travel [Archive] - Physics Forums

Lord Flasheart

Feb17-04, 07:44 PM

There are many theoretical methods of time travel.

The first is simple: Just freeze yourself, and then thaw when the time is right. That could have problems, though. The cryogenics could mess up, and you might be stuck in liquid nitrogen for near eternity without waking.

Another method is very clever, but quite time consuming. You set off on a relativistic flight with a wormhole, and the time dilation causes you to "skip" elapsed time to a point where you stop. The wormhole has two connections: The one back in the past, and the one with you. You can stay in the future for as long as you wish, and you can enter the wormhole back to the past when you are ready. You may have to wait a few decades before you finish the timelike-trajectory.

There is one more method I know of: Closed timelike curves. Apparently when you got in a circle, you'll end up where you were a little while later. If you went fast enough, you'd be back at where you started before you went, so you would achieve a fraction of a step into the past. If you kept on doing so, you could apparently go thousands of years or more back to earlier events. Unfortunately, you would need cosmic string, and other exotic materials to achieve such a Back-to-the-Future-esque flight.

The latter two methods were described in Stephen Baxter's novel, Ring. Methinks a grand novel, and you should read it sometime, along with the others. Have a long life and prosper well.

\\//,

elibol

Feb18-04, 02:49 AM

thnx flashheart =]

for those of you who said that it is only possible to travel to the future, why is it obsurd to travel to the past? and have you read hawkings lecture on space and time warp?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html

i think what he's saying here is that its possible to go back in time in a similar method that flasheart said...

thnx guys, your opinions mean alot to me, and give me better prespective on whats realistic and what isnt...

russ_watters

Feb18-04, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by elibol
for those of you who said that it is only possible to travel to the future, why is it obsurd to travel to the past? and have you read hawkings lecture on space and time warp? The arrow of time is linear and flows in one direction only for a number of reasons. Depending on how you see it, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a reason or a manifestation of that. think what he's saying here is that its possible to go back in time in a similar method that flasheart said... He doesn't mention it and warping space is not the same as warping time.

AWolf

Feb18-04, 11:09 AM

If time travel were possible in the distant future, then the chances are we would already know about it.
There would certainly be at least one individual with a wicked sense of humour who would have influenced our history in some small way.

A dinosaur dug up and found to be wearing a Rolex (taken from a book I read once) or a Roman soldier with a bag full of 20th century coins.

I cannot believe for one moment that if time travel was possible, that there would not be some indication of it. That it would be so restricted or policed to never let idiots leave things behind.

Unless, it's a conspiracy and our governments already know of its existance......

elibol

Feb18-04, 04:23 PM

ok, well one more thing, there is this thing i read->

http://freespace.virgin.net/steve.preston/Time.html

i donno, it seemed pretty persuasive to my neutral mind set on the matter.

it speaks alot of einsteins theory on relativity, but i really didnt understand much of the math, or much of the connections they made, leaving me helpless in attempts to analyze the matter...

if anyone has run across anything like this themselves, or if they have taken the time to read a little bit of the link i produced, i would like there views on it...

i mean, until there is some evidence of it (which i have come across, if you search for 'john titor' on google) i really have no other choice but to get on with my life... since i dont posses the knowledge to figure it out myself... i am determined to understand the nature of time better though from your replies...

and, if time travel to the future is only possible, is there anyway to go back? or is that dependant on your method of time travel?

if there is it 'seems' to me this method could be manipulated to travel to the past...

i am guessing not since there is no scientific evidence supporting time travel to the past...

thnx guys.

1love to the peeps on this forum -_-;;

elibol

Feb18-04, 04:29 PM

also, besides a brief history of time, are there any books you guys could recommend for a good start on a better understanding of time, space-time, and good detailed information on space-time relationships with a minimal amount of mathematics?

and maybe a tutorial on how the Minkowski Diagram functions?

also maybe something that would enable me to understand the mathematics in books based on space-time? (this is for if there is no book that could possibly fully explain to me the nature of space-time without mathematics)

a book that when im finished reading i will say to myself 'hmm, this makes sense' ?

thnx thnx thnx

AWolf

Feb18-04, 06:14 PM

Here's a link to some stuff that may be of use.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html

One aspect of time travel that should not be overlooked is the amount of energy in the Universe.
If you travel back in time from now, when you go to, that point in time will exceed the total energy in the Universe by the amount of energy you contain. This may cause a few problems.

It may be that if time travel is possible, you can only go into the future, and return. And in doing so ensure that you maintain the total energy.
You would have to isolate your energy now and ensure it doesn't alter, even by one photon, until you arrive at your destination time. This would mean that your own time line would have been frozen at your point of departure.
The result being that you could go into the future, but nothing of you would exist in that future, so the future you see wouldn't be reality.
When you return, you cannot be sure that anything that you experienced will actually happen, because your time line will be restarted which will alter some part of the future.

Hope that's clear.

elibol

Feb18-04, 10:52 PM

hmm, very convincing man! this makes sense to me thnx...

hmm... but if your original timeline freezes doesnt that insure that there will be no energy imbalance when you return?

besides this, wouldn't you radiate energy while in the future? and wouldnt this radiated energy cause the disturbence in your own timeline when you return (like a lower count that what was, and you think there could be some overlooked law of time travel that regulates this energy mismatch somehow that we dont now of because time travel has never been attempted?)? if this is the case, why bother with the future energy isolation seeing as you will be altering the energy balance in your timeline when u return anyways? or would the mechanism you have have to funnel the energy back to your timeline somehow?

thnx 4 link and reply -_-;;

AWolf

Feb19-04, 04:05 AM

When you reached the future you would start to radiate energy, you would also be absorbing energy as well.
When you are ready to return to your own time, or any point in between, you would need require a special device, the Localised AWolf Time Travel Equilizer ( LATTE for short ) This device would force you to loose or gain enegy to match the amount you arrived with, thus maintaining the balance.

russ_watters

Feb19-04, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by elibol
i mean, until there is some evidence of it (which i have come across, if you search for 'john titor' on google) FYI, John Titor is either a hoaxster or is mentally ill. I haven't read enough about him to know which.

elibol

Feb19-04, 01:13 PM

aaaaaaaaaa that was uncalled for. but i guess i see your point awolf...

but i think it is the lack of knowledge we BOTH have on the matter that it turned into a mockery...

i was on your level, but apparenty you were full of it to begin with =]

and arent we being a tad narrow minded russ?

doubt has always been a method to suck humans into a believe, but the consideration shouldnt be ignored completely. if you had read more and given more info instead of stating he is mentally ill and what not then i would have respected your opinion without writing this.

dont get me wrong, i still respect your opinion regardless of your lack of interest and research on the guy...

the way i see it you have looked at the cover and judged...

but apparently he has made a prediction that there will be a civil war in the USA between the dates of 2005 and 2008.

if it is a hoax, the possibility of a civil war breaking out is still possible, regardless of his prediction.

one simple reason: the 'bombings' of the world trade centers and everything that has come from that...

AWolf

Feb19-04, 01:49 PM

Elibol, this is all pure speculation as there is no proof that time travel is possible.
The reverse is also true, nobody can provide proof that it isn't.

Anything is possible until proven otherwise, and even then it may still be possible.

An interesting quote I read recently on http://groups.msn.com/TheoreticalPhysicsCosmologyandotherSciences spoke about UFOs and that they travel in time rather than space. The quote was from a guy called Sherman

'they' don't travel through time but rather "around it".

This adds another dimension (no punn intended) to time travel.

elibol

Feb19-04, 02:41 PM

well, i can certainly say i like this reply better than the other one... i am not trying to prove anything to anyone with no evidence or scientific observation man...

but when my curiousity and interest in something is mocked... i feel pretty violated... thnx for the info, this is very interesting as well...

yo, where in this link is that quote?

now that i think of it, around time? i mean, i dont even really have a visual depiction of what traveling thru time would look like, and around is just a term relevant to space...

that doesnt flow yo...

imma take this to the philosophie forum -_-

i think it has evolved out of the context of being realistic at this point...

Pergatory

Feb19-04, 04:21 PM

Time travel would likely be instantaneous from your perspective, since you're not actually moving in any dimension except time. Speaking of which, I've seen a lot of comparisons of time to space. IE, if we can move both forward and backward in space, why can't we do the same in time? It's been explained to me on another thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14251) that time is not a spacial dimension.

In regards to going 'around' time, I believe the reference is similar to the standard two-points-on-a-piece-of-paper example for describing how a wormhole might work. If you haven't heard of it before, it goes like this:
Consider two dots on a piece of paper. What is the shortest possible distance between these two points? The answer seems simple, a straight line, right? Wrong. The shortest distance is to fold the piece of paper so that the two points touch. The distance is now zero, and you can travel there without moving! The question is, how to bend spacetime such that two desired points connect. Stephen Hawking seems to have a lot to say on this subject... I suggest finding some of his literature if you're really interested in the wormhole idea.

In regards to:
There is one more method I know of: Closed timelike curves. Apparently when you got in a circle, you'll end up where you were a little while later. If you went fast enough, you'd be back at where you started before you went, so you would achieve a fraction of a step into the past. If you kept on doing so, you could apparently go thousands of years or more back to earlier events. Unfortunately, you would need cosmic string, and other exotic materials to achieve such a Back-to-the-Future-esque flight.
In order to go fast enough that you arrive just as you depart, you would have to be travelling at an infinite velocity. In other words, you don't travel you just are. As if that doesn't seem difficult enough, in order to arrive before you depart, you'd have to go faster. In other words, this theory assumes it's possible to go faster than infinite velocity.

Finally, one last note. In regards to:
I cannot believe for one moment that if time travel was possible, that there would not be some indication of it. That it would be so restricted or policed to never let idiots leave things behind.
Hmm... hope I don't offend anyone but... how about that Bible? Or perhaps... Stonehenge? Similar such features may turn out to be exactly those kind of 'traces,' but we'd never suspect it because we're so used to hearing about them.

Lord Flasheart

Feb19-04, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Pergatory
In order to go fast enough that you arrive just as you depart, you would have to be travelling at an infinite velocity. In other words, you don't travel you just are. As if that doesn't seem difficult enough, in order to arrive before you depart, you'd have to go faster. In other words, this theory assumes it's possible to go faster than infinite velocity.

The originator of the time-travel method resolved the problems of infinite velocity by giving the timefarer hyperdrive, for both interstellar travel and complex trajectories. Remember, faster-than-light travel is spacelike, not timelike. If one went in a circling spacelike trajectory, he could construct closed timelike curves, with the abnormal effect of going back through time.

Anyway, this system is impossible with our current technology. I mean, where in the universe are you going to find cosmic string? I guess I'll leave that for astronomers to answer.

AWolf

Feb19-04, 04:56 PM

Elibol,
my apologies if my attempt at humour didn't go down very well.

Curiosity is what makes us what we are, without it we wouldn't have even got to the stone age.

Here's the link to the quote (http://groups.msn.com/TheoreticalPhysicsCosmologyandotherSciences/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=522&LastModified=4675460193072946194). It's somewhere near the bottom.

but i think it is the lack of knowledge we BOTH have on the matter that it turned into a mockery...

By asking questions and proposing any solution or method to time travel puts you right at the forefront. Nobody has a working or workable solution - not the last time I looked.
It was not intended to be a mockery, and I still think the thread is valid.
You made a very valid point, that if the total energy is to be concerved, then it must work both ways. It proves that you thought the problem through. If only everybody was the same.

Hmm... hope I don't offend anyone but... how about that Bible? Or perhaps... Stonehenge? Similar such features may turn out to be exactly those kind of 'traces,' but we'd never suspect it because we're so used to hearing about them.
Too subtle, ite would have to be something far more obvious.

A better example would have been the city gates in Alexandria. Built on the orders of Alexanda The Great, they were hydrolic with a pressure plate mechanism - now that was cute, but not an indication of time travellers.

elibol

Feb19-04, 11:39 PM

awolf, apologie excepted man. no hard feelings...

flashheart, what is cosmic string?

pergatory, that folding the paper thing really cleared some visualization issues for me... thanks man =]

and also, in order to achieve near light speeds or beyond, would you need to be in orbit of something? or would you like just go thru space in a straight line?

like a spacecraft build to orbit around mars, or some other planet with near to none atmosphere...

do black holes have anything to do with time travel?

and also, if someone could produce a link for me on black holes that'd be the bomb digety.. thanks...

AWolf

Feb20-04, 04:52 AM

elibol,
I posted a link earlier in this thread. It's got some good explanations and animations about Black Holes.
Here's the link (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html)
A Black Hole is just an extremely dense object. The closer you get to the centre, the more compressed matter becomes. There's no reason why a Black Hole would punch a hole through SpaceTime, as some have theorised.

In regards to going 'around' time, I believe the reference is similar to the standard two-points-on-a-piece-of-paper example for describing how a wormhole might work.
The problem with warping space is that you are merely reducing the distance between 2 points, there's nothing that will cause time to reverse.

Time is a bit like an elevator in a tall building that always goes up.
If you were to reduce the distance between floors, the elevator would still go up, you would just reduce the time taken to get to a higher floor. Likewise, if you changed the speed of the lift, you would take a different amount of time to reach another floor, but the floor would always above the one you're on.

To be able to time travel, you need to get off the elevator. This is the bit about going around time.
You need to find another elevator that is going down and use that.

However you manipulated our SpaceTime, you would still be on the same elevator going up.

elibol

Feb20-04, 05:37 AM

oh, yea man i added that link to my fav's =] i didnt know it had stuff on blackholes.. sweet

umm

when i think of it in that sense it is pretty impossible to travel back in time... i like the metaphor but i can think of ways around it still, but i get the point =]

still though, traveling to the future doesnt seem too unlikely thru the wormhole method though right?

and they say your mass will just keep growing the closer you get to the speed of light, and eventually your mass becomes infinite...

wouldnt you... die?

it seems like you would be a giant or something, but how? like isnt this mutating you?

i am learning so much =]

AWolf

Feb20-04, 06:24 AM

The idea of a wormhole is that it will be a shortcut between 2 points in the universe.
It would not provide a method of time travel, just distance.

As for travelling at the speed of light, or even faster than light, well the jury is still out on that one.

My own belief is that the maximum velocity an object can travel will be just short of the speed of light - about 93% or 173,000 miles per second.
I would be interested to know if any particle accelerators have gone beyond this - thus disproving my theory.

The reason for this is that if we assume that the speed of light is the maximum speed in the universe - through normal space. Then all the electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus at the speed of light will also be restricted to this maximum velocity. As you accelerate their orbits become laterally extended (Lorentz's transforms).
At a velocity close to the speed of light the electrons will be travelling further in a forward direction than laterally to a point where their orbits would become unstable.
If I'm correct then your mass would increase by a factor of about 3 before you would loose atomic structural integrity and merely bits would start falling off.

This does put a bit of a dampener on travelling to the future, because, as time dilation is in the same proportion to relativistic mass, you would only be able to slow time by a factor of about 3 - to travel 300 years into the future would take you 100 years.

Not really worth the effort.

Pergatory

Feb20-04, 11:59 AM

You're right about the wormholes, I hadn't fully thought that one through. However, I was pretty sure there was a method by which they could be used to travel through time. I believe maybe that was two wormholes with singularity endpoints, because of the warping of spacetime around the gravity of the singularity. I think that's the same theory the famous Mr. Titor claimed to make use of.

Anyway, as far as available options for travelling to the future, let's not forget stasis (e.g. cryogenics). It will always be an available method and although it may not take you directly to the future, it will allow you to be unaware that time is passing until 'the future' arrives. Just don't forget to arrange for someone to let you out! ;) Otherwise you could find yourself travelling much further than you intended, or even being lost forever.

AWolf, in regards to your postulated maximum speed, that's an interesting viewpoint that I hadn't heard before. However, the whole idea that the speed of light is the maximum speed never made much sense to me. It seems to be a very lenient rule. For example, have you heard of the experiment where they passed a beam of light through a certain substance (I forget what it was) and essentially the beam left the substance before it entered! In other words, it was going faster than light. However, they later discovered that it was not actually speeding up, but the "peak" of the beam's pulse was moved farther forward to look more like a burst than a pulse, while the whole of the beam remained unaffected. This means that some of the photons in the beam must have been moving faster than light in order to cause this shift.

Another quarrel I have with the idea that the speed of light is the maximum speed is that speed is relative. In other words, relative to some distant galaxy, we are probably travelling greater than the speed of light right now. Speed is a human idea, there's no reason for physics to limit our speed except by providing friction.

TeV

Feb20-04, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by elibol
I am curious to see what your opinions are on the odds of Time Travel accually being achieved...

under what circumstances do you think it would be possible?

And those of you who do believe it will be possible in the future, how much longer until it is possible?

a)We travel in time all the time .In future all the time.It can be accelerated more simple than something like return back in hystory.For instance by gravity waves or getting in and out of orbit of the system of black holes.
b)Back in time?Nooo..I don't belive it will ever be possible.Simple reason is arrow of time and Causality for massive objects.
Pandan like Pauli's principle.Something must preserve this not to happen in the sense we imagine it.

AWolf

Feb20-04, 04:49 PM

Another quarrel I have with the idea that the speed of light is the maximum speed is that speed is relative. In other words, relative to some distant galaxy, we are probably travelling greater than the speed of light right now.

Even the light emitted from an object travelling at a very high velocity, does not exceed the speed of light either relatively or actually - sounds strange, I know.

Time dilation on the object will slow time in proportion to the velocity. The velocity of light relative to the object will appear to be the speed of light due to the time dilation.
A stationary observer will see the light emitted from the object at the speed of light with the object travelling at a slower speed behind it.

Our own Velocity
Our Time, and our Mass, is Relative due to us currently traveling through the Universe at approximately 1% the speed of light.
It is Relative to some stationary point in the universe where there is no graviational forces - Universal Standard Time (UST).
Due to our velocity and position in a gravitational field, we run slightly slower than UST.

AWolf

Feb20-04, 05:04 PM

the experiment where they passed a beam of light through a certain substance (I forget what it was) and essentially the beam left the substance before it entered!
I read something about this, that it wasn't actually the photons that arrived at the target, but their identity.

Maybe it was something similar to what happens when a voltage is passed down a wire. The voltage travels at the speed of light with the result of an electron popping out the end, but the electrons themselves travel far slower.

elibol

Feb20-04, 07:30 PM

so you would prolly be dead by the time u got there..., that would be cool... well, can you slow time down, so your timeline went beyond you?

tanus5

Feb20-04, 08:10 PM

Hello,

I believe that reverse time travel may be possible. I posted a theory about its possibility in another forum and was unable to get any contradictions or support for my theory.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13214

The theory was based on a particle view of the universe, but now I'm starting to believe that the physical universe may be made up of standing waves. Combining my previous theory with a standing wave model, to travel backwards in time you would only need to stand in the path of the waves traveling backwards in time. These waves would have to be of the correct frequency to interact with the waves that make up your body in such a way as to create movement backwards in time.

A simple model would be two high powered electro-magnets placed some distance appart. One would be activated at the time of departure, and the other would be activated at the time of arrival. The magnetic pull will need to be great enough to break the force which prevents particles from changing their direction of movement through time (time-velocity). It would need to be pre-determined which waves were traveling forwards in time, and which waves would be traveling backwards in time. If you were in the "future" and steped into the waves traveling forwards in time you would simply be bombarded by [particles<->standing waves] and not actually travel anywhere. On the other hand if you were to stand in the path of waves traveling backwards in time they should carry you backwards in time.

The major problem with such a portal is that it could only be used in a sequence of "receive"<-"send" "receive"<="send" , any attempt to receive at a mid point would intercept the particles traveling backwards through time and any attempt to send at a mid point may work, but would most likely cause interference with future sends meant to reach the initial "receive" charge. Such intereference would likely kill a time-traveler, or they would simply arrive at the "forward" end of the electro-magnets (which hopefully will be above ground in-case such an accident were to happen).

elibol

Feb21-04, 03:06 AM

thats nice man, but a couple of questions...

Originally posted by tanus5
The theory was based on a particle view of the universe, but now I'm starting to believe that the physical universe may be made up of standing waves. Combining my previous theory with a standing wave model, to travel backwards in time you would only need to stand in the path of the waves traveling backwards in time.

first you need to explain why you think the world is made up of waves... or which standing wave model you are using in this example+ what implementations of this model prove your theory correct.

so, how do u get the waves to start going backwards in time?
if/when this happened, wouldnt they just dissapear from your timeline? having no effect on you whatsoever? how do they know to carry you back in time with them?

Originally posted by tanus5
These waves would have to be of the correct frequency to interact with the waves that make up your body in such a way as to create movement backwards in time.

hmm, waves are not the only thing that make up my body, what would happen to my particles?

Originally posted by tanus5
A simple model would be two high powered electro-magnets placed some distance appart. One would be activated at the time of departure, and the other would be activated at the time of arrival. The magnetic pull will need to be great enough to break the force which prevents particles from changing their direction of movement through time (time-velocity)..

electro-magnets wield the capability to change the direction of particles* movement through time? what prove of this is there?

and you've said particles... not waves... do electro magnets have any effect on waves?

Originally posted by tanus5
It would need to be pre-determined which waves were traveling forwards in time, and which waves would be traveling backwards in time..

what do you mean by this?

Originally posted by tanus5
If you were in the "future" and steped into the waves traveling forwards in time you would simply be bombarded by [particles<->standing waves] and not actually travel anywhere.

ok, technically like it was stated earlier, we are moving at a set velocity to the future, and i dont seem to be bombarded by anything... besides this, why would you be bombarded by these waves moving to the future?

Originally posted by tanus5
On the other hand if you were to stand in the path of waves traveling backwards in time they should carry you backwards in time..

these waves will carry me back in time? how exactly does that work?

thats about it, explain yourself =]

added afterwards:
all the stuff about how the universe spins and the necessity to overcome the speed in which the universe spins to go backwards in time seems a little far fetched to me. i am really uneducated but i think i am still capable of analysis regardless of my lack of knowledge...

wouldnt you be relative to the movement of the universe, just like every other movement in the universe? you cannot use traveling faster than however fast the universe spins, because i have not read anything that states this. when you go beyond the universe man, you dont know anything... if there is anything causing it to spin, than our definition of the universe must be changed, because we apparently live in a bigger universe than we formerly supposed...

though it is interesting to think if the universe does spin, if it had any implementations on gravity and the speed of c. maybe there is some linkage to be made huh?

stephen hawking speaks of theories on the universe being finite, but never ending at the same time. much like our planet is. we can walk the earth forever in one direction, however, earth as we know it now, is finite. his conclusion in this theory was that the universe could possibly be spherical as well, and would make the most sense... i couldnt think of it any other way. and i am being literal when i say that because it is impossible for me to imagine anything beyond my space-time.

you said:
"I immagine there would should be an anomaly traveling from one of the electromagnets to the other created by the electromagnetic field breaking the time barrier."

time barrier? huh? explain. and + the conclusions you came from this statement are really odd... i dont understand it.
you said:
"This would make the limit to backwards time travel equal to the time when the first portal was created."

now you may be on to something, that seems plausible, but your theory is full of holes man...

you said:
"One last comment about time travel. I have read many articles about time travel and there is one major feature most articles do not adjust for, our planet is rotating around the sun, and our sun is rotating around the galaxy, etc. . If time travel were possible some distance must also be traversed or else a time traveler, traveling forward in time, would end up floating in space where the earth was at the time they initiated the time traversal."

very interesting, but this only holds true to your theory of time-travel. you would have to work that factor into your device somehow if it were every to be possible now...

any sound attempt to travel thru time would surely not be from our own planet, most theories are associated with the speed of c, which i doubt can be achieved in our atmosphere full of things to slow us down, like air.

i could be wrong. =]

you said:
" If it is possible to traverse time using strong electromagnets, how would you get an object to travel along the electromagnetic field which is traversing time?"

very big problem indeed...

tanus5

Feb21-04, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by elibol

first you need to explain why you think the world is made up of waves... or which standing wave model you are using in this example+ what implementations of this model prove your theory correct.

Well, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel here. You can read about it at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm

so, how do u get the waves to start going backwards in time?
if/when this happened, wouldnt they just dissapear from your timeline? having no effect on you whatsoever? how do they know to carry you back in time with them?

Some good questions are raised here. In the wave model of the universe there would be some linear affect of waves through time which would affect matter close to the experiment. I've read of experiments where using superconductors and super-cooling some frequencies of electro-magnetic-radiation could be used to move matter that doesn't carry a charge.

hmm, waves are not the only thing that make up my body, what would happen to my particles?

Again, using the standing wave model of the universe, your body would only be made up of waves because all particles would be standing waves.

added afterwards:
all the stuff about how the universe spins and the necessity to overcome the speed in which the universe spins to go backwards in time seems a little far fetched to me.

When I say "spins" I'm talking about 4th dimensional spin. Time itself spinning, and the force created by this spin and the expansion of the universe. The proof that such forces must exist is evident by the fact that any spinning object will have an increaseed resistance to changes in the angular velocity of its axis. To show this in real life examine how a bicycle works. At rest a bicycle will tip over quickly, but in motion it will take more time to tip over. This is due to the forces created by the wheels spinning.

stephen hawking speaks of theories on the universe being finite, but never ending at the same time.

My theory about time itself spinning is based on a finite universe that is in series of expansion and contracting cycles which eventually create a loop. This theory of time spinning breaks down if for some reason the universe were to reach an "escape" velocity and never re-enter the contracting phaze of the cycle.

Pergatory

Feb23-04, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by tanus5
When I say "spins" I'm talking about 4th dimensional spin. Time itself spinning, and the force created by this spin and the expansion of the universe. The proof that such forces must exist is evident by the fact that any spinning object will have an increaseed resistance to changes in the angular velocity of its axis. To show this in real life examine how a bicycle works. At rest a bicycle will tip over quickly, but in motion it will take more time to tip over. This is due to the forces created by the wheels spinning.

My theory about time itself spinning is based on a finite universe that is in series of expansion and contracting cycles which eventually create a loop. This theory of time spinning breaks down if for some reason the universe were to reach an "escape" velocity and never re-enter the contracting phaze of the cycle.

Doesn't spin require two dimensions? Also, I don't understand your link between the spin of time and the gyroscopic effect of spinning objects within the spacial dimensions. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Interesting stuff.

tanus5

Feb23-04, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Pergatory
Doesn't spin require two dimensions? Also, I don't understand your link between the spin of time and the gyroscopic effect of spinning objects within the spacial dimensions. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Interesting stuff.

Time would be spinning around a centralized point such that time as we know it would be an angle such that we could state in two dimensions a ray from any point in time to the point exactly 1/2 of a complete cycle of the universe away would be one dimension, and 1/4 of a complete cycle before and after the selected point would be the other dimension. The other gyroscopic force would be from the expansion and contraction of the universe. This is the part I expected a scientific dispute to and to be the greater of the forces needed to be overcome. The affects seen in the EPR experiement shows that all particles may in some way be connected to each other. If you had a wheel and some type of compression device moving rapidly from the center outwards and back again wouldn't that create a gyroscopic force?

Now that I think about gyroscopic forces and knowing that the universe is in motion with no known outside friction source it is fairly reasonable to assume our universe is spinning in that when the universe contracts it would spin faster, and when it expands it would spin slower. If this is the case than there would be an inverse relationship between the expansion of the universe and the amount of force required to break the time barrier.

MentalManager

Feb29-04, 08:03 AM

My opinion. We face time travel every day. Sleeping is the easiest consepts of time travel. We go to sleep, time goes by, we dont notice it, we wake, new day has begun.

So if you wanna travel time you should put yourself to sleep. At this point we dont have technology to put to sleep for hundreds of years, but when we achive it, we achive time travelling.

Well there is the theory of twins...but this is just too far from us.

Thats my opinion. Sorry for my bad english

Tigron-X

Mar2-04, 09:44 PM

Time travel isn't possible but an illusion of it is because there is no such thing as a true paradox; only anomalies that we do not yet understand.

That said, time travel isn't possible because time isn't a real dynamic of existence. It is only a numeric value we assign to events so that we can have awareness and a frame of mind as we measure events for whatever reason or purpose. An event that happened is done and "reversing", as people say, an event is actually creating new events no matter how anyone folds space, speeds through space, inverts space, or whatever.

Such travel would allow a traveler to experience a domain that might resemble past experiences and the traveler can believe whether he/she is in the past by comparing the new experience to certain frames of mind in memory. He/she might believe that one is in the future if he/she begins to have new experiences when all along that person is only becoming more aware of existence as he/she travels through infinity where probability becomes only self relevent as the mind assesses the new event, even if it is an anomaly that leads you to a point in space that is reflective of one minute ago and you're ten steps behind what appears to be you. The future of one cannot be the past of the other because presently, it's only another event in existence that is seperately experienced; relativly speaking and on a whole because time isn't real. It is only a tool that provides awareness and frame of mind.

AWolf

Mar3-04, 06:30 AM

Defining Time as the fourth dimension, creates a lot of confusion.
One current definition of our Universe is having 3+1 dimensions.
This is 3 real dimensions and 1 virtual dimension.

Our perception of Time allows us to talk about past,present and future as if they were directions.

The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist.

The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension.

If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point.
You could move forward 10 minutes, the question is would there be any body there.
If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you.
So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ?

russ_watters

Mar3-04, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist. The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension. Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point. You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point. If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you. Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths. So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ? [looks around] No.

AWolf

Mar3-04, 10:51 AM

The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.But does it exist as a dimension ?
would you be alone ?
[looks around] No.
They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them.

I know this isn't the book review forum, but Stephen King's book The Langoliers had a similar thread where at the end, the passengers catch up with normal time and other people start appearing.

Tigron-X

Mar3-04, 11:48 AM

You would be alone if you isolated yourself just like right now I'm alone at home and I will be 10 minutes later. I know no one is coming here until later on, and I can further isolate myself by not answering the door or picking up the phone or not talking to anyone online. I can project myself in the future through imagination based on relative known properties of nature, and I can do the same thing with the past. Western movies do it all the time and so do Sci-fi movies, but that's as far as "time" travel goes. The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant. I can go on forever with this. Relatively speaking,I can also go on forever as long as my relative gravity remains constant, but gravity doesn't actually remain constant; only the force that binds dimensional properties during a given relative moment remain constant and only during that quantum instant. Why else can you be live on tv while 10 minutes away from your house that has you on the tv and still all be in the same dimension with you and everyone thousands of miles away in different dimensions?

Someone already basically said it in here, but I don't think they really understood what they said or how to compile it into a frame of mind that is relative to his existence and our existence. Anyhow, the question is to show you how the illusion of time travel would work. You might think you're there, you might feel you're there, and you will be there, except it's a future of a past event that has not yet happened relative to you and it will remain within the parameters of the gravitational existence you would be encountering unless once again the relative gravitational constant is manipulated to a new desired result which can be done in many mathematical ways by applying the correct force which at some point in infinity must balance out to return you to your relative gravitional equilibrium to have your same relative form and same frame of mind or else you return to infinity in its many finite forms. Some might be similar forms, but genetically mutated. You might find yourself as a monkey, but how would you know if you couldn't conceive the notions of logic like you can now? That's just one of the many things that can happen while traveling space in such a manner.

There's a reason for the way things are. There's a congressional order to physical structures in its infinite combinations which is understood by using applicable laws of physics. We use and manipulate them everyday since we first discovered how to make fire. See, we can't change that order, but we can prolong it. :D It's a balanced equation away. You can go back through time and kill yourself a billion times over and laugh at it tomorrow as long as something doesn't happen to your relative equilibrium.

AWolf

Mar3-04, 03:37 PM

We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.
Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?

pallidin

Mar3-04, 04:13 PM

Interesting reading, to be sure.

Question: Since the "future" only exists as non-actualized reality, how then, could it be possible to "travel", "observe" or otherwise relate directly with it?

John has a time machine. He activates on July 4th, 2004 and "time travels" to the White House Oval Office on Dec 1, 2004 and observes the events.
Jill also has a time machine. She departs to the same location and time, but earlier, say May 4th, 2004, and similarly observes the events.
Back in their own real time, John and Jill get together on July 5th, compare notes and find the events to be identical in observation.
Dec. 1, 2004 comes around, and John and Jill are pleased to find their observations to be accurate.
Conclusion: Under this circumstance, future events are now proven to be pre-determined.

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

AWolf

Mar3-04, 04:31 PM

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?
What you would see is one version of events, because having observed them, you would have changed them.
Until John and Jill visited the Oval Office in the future, nobody knew who was President. Maybe they decided that their guy got in anyway, so decided not to vote. Their two non-votes could change the result, hence there could be a different future.
Maybe this comes down to Time-Lines. There are infinite possible futures, and if you kept making the same journey you would never see the same future.

By the way, you couldn't ask John and Jill who did win, I may want to put a bet on.

Pergatory

Mar3-04, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."

You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point.

Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths.

[looks around] No.

A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.

I don't believe he was arguing that time did not occur, rather that it was a representation invented by humans. In other words, time is constant, you can't move around within it. It's not a dimension because it defines dimensions; a single entity (particle?) can only occupy one location in a dimension at a given time. (Current experiments have created the illusion that in some cases this is not true, but I'm willing to bet we will soon discover that it is always true.) Therefore, time cannot be a dimension, because just as you said, matter would then be able to exist in multiple positions throughout the dimension simultaneously, because time would change as the position in the time dimension changed. Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy. You can, however, alter your perception of time as to how fast is passes. I know I'm drawing several assumptions here, but it sounds like everyone agrees that altering perception of time is the only definite method for 'time travel.' (If it could even be considered that.)

russ_watters

Mar4-04, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them. EVERY person already travels through their own personal timeline independent of everyone else's based on their altitude and speed. Looking through a telescope provides a glimpse into the past. The sort of time travel you describe already exists and does not work the way you are describing it.So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined? No. The scenario you describe does not conform with reality. Again, we are traveling through time right now. Watch your clock. That's time travel and its the only type of time travel that exists. A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.No. A molecule is not a point. It takes up a finite amount of space.Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy. That does not follow logically.

AWolf

Mar4-04, 03:40 AM

Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

Tigron-X

Mar4-04, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?
You mean light delusion? :P

I think you need to explain what you're asking a little more further because time dilation deals with many principles, such as the principles of diffraction or reflection, of course in reference to and/or concerning light, and if you even take into account different intensities of light, then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it and finite it to a relative median such as seen from the perspective of Earth when looking at a star or on Earth when looking into water. In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

Anyhow, before I go any further with that, the true absence of gravity isn't possible, however a change in gravitational force on a certain object by a certain other object is possible. That force itself can even be at such an infinite value that it becomes finite by "ripping" space, so to speak; hence black holes and how they contain and absorb in all light and objects. I like to call them space pockets. Anyhow, in retrospect to Earth and our current technology, we push off from Earth's gravitational field and break through it in order to reach a certain balanced median that makes Earth's gravitational affect on our spaceships to approach zero. Of course, as long as Earth exists, then that gravitational force will remain present in space, and our astronauts have a home to come back to. Well, assuming they don't disburce into light as there bodies ignite into flames during that process because of some miscalculation of their relative equlibrium in comparison to Earth's equilibrium as they return. Scary way to travel space and through its many medians.

So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Thanks,

Tigron-X

AWolf

Mar4-04, 07:40 AM

The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.
So you are saying that Gravity is the Fourth dimension and Time is proportional to Gravity.
We determine time based on our proximately to a gravity well (our planet/solar system/galaxy) and our velocity relative to universal dead stop.

If it's true that Gravity is the cause of warping SpaceTime, then how can one dimension influence another. This would have to imply that the 3 primary dimensions are caused by gravity.
If matter exists in 3 dimensions, and gravity is proportional to mass, then how can the effect because the cause ?
So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Special Relativity deals with the velocity of an object in the absence of gravity. At any velocity an object's mass will increase in proportion to the velocity and time will also dilate at the same rate.
There is no mention of the Relativistic Mass producing any increase in gravitational force.
So, according to SR, Time is not Gravity.

then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it
In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

You are saying that Light under goes acceleration, which would imply that the Speed of Light is not constant.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar4-04, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

I think to be capable to observe all of n-dimensioms , it is necessary to be in (n+1)–dimension.
My point about Time Cycles is here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1054

AWolf

Mar4-04, 09:07 AM

Michael,

your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

What I proposed was more fundemental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.

With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.

If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?

If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

Antonio Lao

Mar4-04, 09:50 AM

elibol,

Did someone already mentioned?? that it's not enough to be able to just travel forward or backward in time. We also need to travel forward or backward in space. These two degrees of freedom must be coordinated properly.

If we just travel forward in time, we will reach a place where the universe has not reached it yet during its expansion. So basically we travel outside the universe which is really impossible (possible only if ending up in another parallel universe). But if we synchronized our space travel with the expansion then we can still reach a point inside the universe by going forward in time.

Antonio

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar4-04, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
Michael,
your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

From atom downwards too.
It means preservation of the frequency (energy) inherent at object ( a wave) too.

What I proposed was more fundemental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.

Energy and time is one thing.
We cannot experience the time of other object. We can observe changes of this object only.

With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.
Yes.
If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?
No.
If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

The alive lion and dead lion is a different things, though amount of atoms in them is identical.

AWolf

Mar4-04, 01:39 PM

Michael,

if your proposed time cycle exists outside of conventional time, ie varying time dilation on the same object, then it would appear to have very little to with time.

Are you not talking about the life cycle, because if it was time, then it would have to have some reference to how we determine the measurement of time.
Energy and time is one thing.
If everything in the universe consists of differing quantities of energy or to put it simpler the Universe is Energy, then how can Energy/Universe be Time ?
The energy in the Universe is constant, so that would make time constant, which we know it isn't.

Surely it is what happens to the energy that determines time.

Sariaht

Mar8-04, 10:44 AM

v/V

Speed of matter divided with volume.

Yes. You could call it time.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar9-04, 09:46 AM

We, as an inhabitants of 4-dimension world , can to observe 3-dimensional objects. We can travel in 3-d. To be capable to observe 4-dim. and to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege. It is so clear.

AWolf

Mar9-04, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege.

Who ?

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar9-04, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by AWolf
Who ?
Nostradame, for example.

neutroncount

Mar9-04, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Nostradame, for example.

You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar9-04, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by neutroncount
You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.
You are wrong. He has made predictions which were carried out.
He has predicted Napoleon, the first and the second world wars, a nuclear bomb, flu, AIDS. He has predicted destruction of two giants in the eagles’ country also.
Is it not convincing?

neutroncount

Mar10-04, 12:41 AM

Have you even READ any of those predictions? They are very ambiguous predictions. Something akin to "there will be trouble in a place called the middle of the earth". I could easily say that that was Iraq, or Afghanistan or the Palestinian Israeli war. Plus that last one wasn't even real. It was a hoax.

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Nostradamus&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm

He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.

klaw

Mar10-04, 02:36 AM

as a person ages they become more helpless, more childlike
in a sense traveling back in time

we travel to the past in our memories and to the future in our dreams

AWolf

Mar11-04, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by neutroncount
He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.
Blunt and to the point.

I'm not aware of anybody translating his visions into an event before that event actually took place with any accuracy.

His visions are always interpretted after the event, but then I'm sure we could all do that if were vague enough with our predictions in the first place.

underworld

Mar11-04, 05:41 PM

consider the following:

if you were able to "travel" backwards in "time" - would you really know it? in other words, not only is existence tightly coupled with your location in space, but also with your location in time (or "spacetime"). in fact, existence is very nearly defined by movement through spacetime by following the arrow of time.

but if you moved along time in the "other" direction, would your "consciousness" realize it? in other words, not only would the things external to you follow time in reverse, but you would as well. it's very difficult to imagine a scenario where your consciousness functions in reverse. and if it did, would you really be able to recognize it? the whole concept seems very strage and absurd, and certainly approaches a philosophical argument as much as a physical one.

Michael F. Dmitriyev

Mar14-04, 06:49 AM

Time travel and in other worlds travel a possible without a body as an observing point not involved in events. Such observations was made by John Lilly and many other researchers. Thus, wormhole is in our sub consciousness.

AWolf

Mar14-04, 12:41 PM

One of the main elements that is raised to oppose Time Travel is that the Universe contains a fixed amount of energy and in travelling in time this would be disturbed, implying that it is not possible.

The Universe has a finite amount of energy. Energy conservation says that it can neither be created nor destroyed.

Conservation of energy deals with closed systems, all the energy must be accounted for.
If you add some energy from outside the closed system, this does contravene the conservation of energy.

What difference would it make to us if another Galaxy gained a insignificant amount of energy ?

Assuming for a moment that all the components of the Universe are independant, ie they are not governed by the Universe, but through their interactions with other components define what the Universe is.

This would mean that any energy removed from the Universe will not cause an imbalance, destabilising the Universe, but rather the Universe, as a whole system, will be uneffected. The component from which the energy was removed would have slightly different properties, but in the overall scheme of things, the effect will be a reduction in mass/gravitational field.
The effect will be so small as to be insignificant.

Time Travel would effectively be taking energy from one closed system and adding it to another.
As far as the same energy not occupying the same space, the additional energy is just that, additional. It has been removed from one system and added to another - not a problem.

As for Time Lines. The only effect on a system can be from the energy contained in the system. If you remove some energy, it can no longer have any effect on the system it came from.

If you could travel to the future, you would have to wind time forward, but from outside. Whatever the future looked like, you could have no impact in it from the time you started your journey. You effectively ceased to exist from that moment until the moment you finished your journey.

Travelling backwards though time, you would have to wind time back. Your presence in the past will effect the future.

Could you effect the future to the extent that you didn't exist ?
No.
Once you take yourself outside the system, you could travel whenever you wanted. Your energy is no longer governed by the system you originated from.

ewoodlief

Mar15-04, 04:40 AM

Contemporary proponents of time travel make the erroneous assumption if B occurs after A then B is caused by A; or more specifically, time is caused by velocity/motion. I will elaborate: as the velocity of an object increases, time decreases to the point which when velocity becomes c time becomes zero. This observation has been experimentally proven and can therefore be regarded as true. But, when science enters the realm of unsubstantiated conjecture as proof, it becomes fatally flawed. People see patterns and so begin merely associating cause and effect. The advocates ask, “What if velocity is greater than c?” They answer, “Time must be negative!” It certainly fits into the speculative construct. But this notion fails to further analysis. Because of its length, I will skip over the rigorous proof and get right to the point.

Time is not caused directly by velocity alone. There is an intermediating variable, that is, the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities and this stronger gravitational field decreases time. It is in recognizing that velocity is limited by gravitational forces and that these forces hinder change from occurring in systems that one realizes that time is nothing more than an abstraction of observed change. So, if an object were to evade the effects of gravity, its velocity would no longer be limited to c (the speed of gravitational propagation.) Instead, one would find that time dilation suddenly “goes away”, or is at least dramatically reduced, when an object’s velocity is higher than c because the object is able to outrun its own propagating gravity. It turns out that for velocities greater than c, the rate of time experienced by that object is equaled to that felt by an object with zero relative motion to surrounding massive bodies. Obviously, this only holds true if the speed of gravitational propagation is, in fact, equaled to c. Unfortunately the validity of this claim toggles every year; thus, it should be considered, for now, a foundational assumption for this conclusion. Of course, how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown. And so, at present, the maximum speed limit of c is accepted.

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely. Because time is not a dimension through which one can travel, the illusion of backward motion could only be accomplished if one were to (1) pause the universe, (2) arrange all spatial materials and associated properties like location, direction of momentum, etc. that represents a snapshot of the desired time's universe, and (3) set everything in motion again. It sounds crazy because it is.

AWolf

Mar15-04, 05:45 AM

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely.
I agree. Time is our perception of sequence and duration, and sequence is always incremental.
Within our Universe, there are certain rules that appear to be rigid and would make time travel, as you put it, very, very unlikely.

I proposed that What if you could step outside of the rules of our Universe/system.
how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown.
By stepping outside of our system, you would effectively avoid the effects of gravity and all other rules.
Everything that currently restricts us, such as limiting velocities to the speed of light, would no longer be the case.
the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities
If time is directly related to gravity, then if gravity didn't exist, or could be avoided, then time would not exist.

This is not time being zero, but time being null.
When you stepped back into the system, the time would not be relative to when you were outside, because it can't be relative to null.
So maybe, just maybe, from outside you could pick a point in time to return to.....

ewoodlief

Mar15-04, 06:49 PM

Backward time travel is virtually impossible even if one were to "step out" of the universe. That is because even if one is outside of the universe, changes still occur on the inside. By realizing that time is not a dimension, one can begin to see why a time line is merely an accumulated recording of events that can only be traveled by, as klaw put it, "our memories ... [and] our dreams."

Furthermore, "universe" is accepted to mean all matter and energy as a whole. So trying to step out of the universe is like trying to come up with a number that is not between the ranges of negative infinity to positive infinity. Simply stated, if you were go beyond what is considered the boundaries of the universe you would still be inside of it because its definition is ever changing to encompass all matter and energy no matter its shape or configuration.

However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.

ewoodlief

Mar15-04, 07:05 PM

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the fourth dimension that many people suffer from. Obviously, the three spatial dimensions are a result of matter and energy being in a certain place. But most people tend to think that just as one can travel the first three dimensions, they can also move about the fourth and this is incorrect. The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc. occupying that point. So the full blown model is really x,y,z,t'[x,y,z] but to keep it simple it is just referred to as x,y,z,t.

Basically, if you were to step outside of the effects of universal forces you could travel unaffected by surrounding matter and energy and not affect that matter or energy yourself. But when you step back in at the same or a different x,y,z, the new t of that point would just be a result of the natural processes that took place there for however long you were away. The two primary reasons for wanting to avoid universal forces during travel is to remove the maximum speed limit of c, to be able to travel from one point to another quickly, and to travel without experiencing time dilation.

AWolf

Mar16-04, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by ewoodlief
However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.
That is what I mean.
To travel beyond the boundary of our Universe, if at all possible, would be quite a long journey.

You would have to step outside of the system while still being within the confines of the Universe.
It would not be enough merely to circumvent natural laws and forces. The laws and forces would have to be nullified.
Rather than get round them, they would have to be removed.

A close analogy would be something like a whirlpool.
If you jumped in a body of water, you would get wet. You would be subjected to the properties of the water.
If you now disturbed the water in such a way as to create a large whirlpool, you could now travel beneath what should be the surface of the water without getting wet.
A bit similar to a worm-hole, but without the worm - just the hole.

The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc.
In your model, the t dimension only ever has one active value : 1.
More accurately is should be zero, being that it is always the point of origin whenever the past or the future are referenced. This would imply, with time being zero, that there are only 3 dimensions.
Time is always now. You can change any of the other dimensional values, but not Time (within our universe/system).

Example. Bill and Ted travel in seperate craft at different speeds. At any point during their journey you can measure their relative distance, even calculate their relative time dilation, but the point at which you make the measurement would be now for both Bill and Ted.
At the end of their journey, when the two met up again, the time would be now.

ewoodlief

Mar16-04, 04:08 AM

The model for spacetime is not mine alone; it is the model generally accepted by contemporary physicists. In the model, t does not stand for time--unfortunately, that is what most people get confused about and where they go wrong--it stands for the rate of time (or change) observed in a system at the points x,y,z. Therefore it will not always be zero, and instead must always be greater than 0.

What you are referring to is that "now" equals zero on a time line where negative t is the past and positive t is the future and it is always now--this is correct, but it's not what I was clarifying.

AWolf

Mar16-04, 04:30 AM

it stands for the rate of time (or change) observed in a system at the points x,y,z. Therefore it will not always be zero, and instead must always be greater than 0.
But doesn't that put time on par with velocity, or better acceleration ?

I never did like the 4 dimensional model. I think the idea of a universe that has 3+1 dimensions is far better.
Where there are 3 spacial dimensions and one virtual dimension. The virtual one being time, and in stating that it is virtual means that it doesn't really exist, but is there to cater for our human perceptual needs.

ewoodlief

Mar16-04, 04:45 AM

It need not be only acceleration because gravitational propagation is finite, and so even when an object travels at constant velocity it is running into more of its own propagating gravity towards the direction of motion than in the direction away. It would seem that the rate of time (or change) experienced is a result of gravitational forces alone, but this is rather limited thinking. Perhaps there is another phenomenon that also hinders change in a system and if discovered would make our calculations that much more precise. It is kind of like the precision gained by adding in the effects of gravity to objects of relatively high velocities instead of relying on Newton's equations. A new, mitigating factor of time would make Einstein's equations even more precise. Of course, gravity could just be the first and final factor--time will tell.

The relation is time and gravity, not just time and velocity. This is because an object with velocity is experiencing an increase in gravitational forces (it's running into its own propagating gravity waves.) And, of course, another way for the rate of time in a system to change is for the system to be surrounded by a relatively strong gravitational field. Both methods for accelerating time are based on the force of gravity and its ability to more or less hinder change in a system.

Yes, I agree with you that time is only an abstraction, human or otherwise.