Is Time Travel Possible Through Mental Projection?

[Noah]

Time is just a way of measuring the velocity of the motion of an object through the 3 real dimensions. In order to go into the future you would have to stop your particles for the desired amount of time (basically cryogenics). Your particles weren't present to have their effect on the future so the outcome would be slightly different than what it would have been. In order to go into the past you would have to reverse the past motion of all other particles in the universe (an exact reverse of physical law that affects everything but you). Going by that logic, I am lead to 'believe' that going into the past is literally impossible, but going into the future isn't very difficult at all. Now, if you are one that believes (I'm not saying I are or aren't) that the mind is immaterial then that still leaves the possibility for mental time travel. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[russ_watters]

Time is the 4th dimension. Why? We've defined it that way.

 

[Antonio Lao]

In all dreamscapes, the past and future are equally likely pictures. It seems that only during the minimum mental activities of sleep can one moves into the past or into the future. The dangers are recurrent nightmares that go around in circle, repeatedly.

 

[Noah]

Time is the 4th dimension. Why? We've defined it that way.

Length, width, and depth are real dimensions whether we define them or not. Time is a measurement associated with velocity and position. Time and velocity would still exist in 1 and 2 dimensional space.

 

[Noah]

In all dreamscapes, the past and future are equally likely pictures. It seems that only during the minimum mental activities of sleep can one moves into the past or into the future. The dangers are recurrent nightmares that go around in circle, repeatedly.

Remembering the past isn't what I really meant by mentally time traveling. I meant a conscious experience of time traveling. It's my personal belief through observation that dreams don't have any significance to consciousness. They are just a side effect of theta wave sleep. Interestingly enough, during theta wave sleep the brain matches the Schumann resonance.

 

[russ_watters]

Length, width, and depth are real dimensions whether we define them or not.

What if I choose polar coordinates?

 

[mee]

Length, width, and depth are real dimensions whether we define them or not. Time is a measurement associated with velocity and position. Time and velocity would still exist in 1 and 2 dimensional space.

How can velocity exist in one dimensional space? Ther would seem to be nowhere to go!

 

[AWolf]

How can velocity exist in one dimensional space? Ther would seem to be nowhere to go!

Velocity in 1 dimension space would be constant at the speed of light.

The photon has no mass, so it can be considered to be dimensionless.
A photon traveling in a straight line would be moving in a single dimension - forwards.
Any object larger than a photon would have mass so would require 3 dimensions.

Our perception of visual objects is through a multitude of photons all moving in their own single dimensional trajectory.

Time for a photon would the 2nd dimension.

 

[pelastration]

Velocity in 1 dimension space would be constant at the speed of light.

The photon has no mass, so it can be considered to be dimensionless.
A photon traveling in a straight line would be moving in a single dimension - forwards.
Any object larger than a photon would have mass so would require 3 dimensions.

Our perception of visual objects is through a multitude of photons all moving in their own single dimensional trajectory.

Time for a photon would the 2nd dimension.

Do you really believe that something (an object, a particle, etc) is not fully evolving in 3D? Thus only active in a flatland? Or even dimensionless? Hum.

 

[AWolf]

If a photon had mass, and dimensions, then relativity would make it extremely hazadous to stand in front of a flashlight - you wouldn't notice tghe photon's at rest mass, but its relativistic mass would leave a mark.

Before the Big Bang (assuming it happened) there was a singularity. All the energy of the universe contained in a dimensionless point.

All matter has dimensions, energy does not.

 

[Noah]

What if I choose polar coordinates?

Polar coordinates are a measurement of two dimensions (length/width - latitude/longitude). The surface of the Earth only has two dimensions. If we could easily travel through the inside of the Earth we would need to add a third dimension to our polar coordinates.

 

[Noah]

If a photon had mass, and dimensions, then relativity would make it extremely hazadous to stand in front of a flashlight - you wouldn't notice tghe photon's at rest mass, but its relativistic mass would leave a mark.

Before the Big Bang (assuming it happened) there was a singularity. All the energy of the universe contained in a dimensionless point.

All matter has dimensions, energy does not.

Voltage, amplitude, and wavelength. There's your three dimensions for energy.

 

[russ_watters]

Polar coordinates are a measurement of two dimensions (length/width - latitude/longitude). The surface of the Earth only has two dimensions. If we could easily travel through the inside of the Earth we would need to add a third dimension to our polar coordinates.

Yes, you can have 3d polar coordinates. My point though, was that polar coordinates are not length, width, and depth. But they still work.

 

[LURCH]

Yes, you can have 3d polar coordinates. My point though, was that polar coordinates are not length, width, and depth. But they still work.

But only because the third dimension is already known, right? If you give someone your location in lattitude and longitude, they still don't know where you are unless they know that altitude is assumed to be "ground level". This gives them their third coordinate.

Noah,
I pretty much agree with your original post. Most of the time I find it usefull to think of time as simply another word for space. Knowing that speed and direction are the same property seen from two different perspectives, and that speed is a time-like measurement, while direction is a space-like measurement, I can logically deduce that space and time are likewise the same property seen from two different perspectives (even if I can't allways grasp it intuitively).

 

[Noah]

Yes, you can have 3d polar coordinates. My point though, was that polar coordinates are not length, width, and depth. But they still work.

The polar coordinates are length and width. Look at a flat map of the world. The depth is still there but not measured because we live on the surface of the Earth. If we ever start living at the bottom of the sea, then we will add a depth to the polar coordinates.

 

[Noah]

Noah,
I pretty much agree with your original post. Most of the time I find it usefull to think of time as simply another word for space. Knowing that speed and direction are the same property seen from two different perspectives, and that speed is a time-like measurement, while direction is a space-like measurement, I can logically deduce that space and time are likewise the same property seen from two different perspectives (even if I can't allways grasp it intuitively).

Time is motion through space. Without motion, time does not exist.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I think, force is spacetime (combined 3-space and 1-time). This is what Einstein had already shown in his general theory of relativity. He said that the gravity force is the same as the curvature of spacetime.

 

[AWolf]

I think, force is spacetime (combined 3-space and 1-time). This is what Einstein had already shown in his general theory of relativity. He said that the gravity force is the same as the curvature of spacetime.

Einstein used the curvature of SpaceTime to explain the force of gravity - Gravity Well.

 

[ZelmersZoetrop]

Wow. OK, let's go over this. If I want to specify an event, I need 4 numbers: latitude, longitude, altitude, and time. Hence four dimensions. Or look at it this way: An object could hardly exist with width and length but no depth; there would literally be no distance between one side and the other! Nor could something exist with length, width, depth, but no duration. It would pop out of existence the same instant it popped into existence! Hence, four dimensions.

 

[KingNothing]

Of course time is the fourth dimension...by your logic, it exists no matter whether we define it or not.

 

[Noah]

Wow. OK, let's go over this. If I want to specify an event, I need 4 numbers: latitude, longitude, altitude, and time. Hence four dimensions. Or look at it this way: An object could hardly exist with width and length but no depth; there would literally be no distance between one side and the other! Nor could something exist with length, width, depth, but no duration. It would pop out of existence the same instant it popped into existence! Hence, four dimensions.

A point moving through any of the three dimensions experiences time because it is moving. Time does not exist without motion. If anything, time is a +1 dimension to any existing dimension. In other words, time is a property of a dimension to measure motion in that dimension (it takes time to get from point A to point B on a 1 dimensional line, but if the point doesn't move time doesn't exist for it).

An object doesn't (not just hardly) exist with width, length, and no depth. 1 and 2 dimensional objects are just abstract concepts.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Time is really the 3n+1 dimension. The 3n is cyclic of 3 space dimensions where n is a positive integer. But when n is a rational number, including fractions, then the 3n dimension of space becomes fractal (fractional dimension).

 

[ZelmersZoetrop]

Alright. I'll go over this in a slightly different way. The Minkowski metric tensor can be displayed as a 4X4 matrix. Hence, four dimensions. Doubting the existence of time as a dimension is doubting SR.

 

[jcsd]

Let's say I define a set to be made up of four members John, Paul, George and Eric. Doubting that time is a dimension of spacetime is like doubting that Eric is a memebr of this set: completely nonsensical, as Eric is a member of this set by defintion just like time is a dimension in spacetime by definiton. You can dispute the effectiveness of theories which use spacetime continuums if you like, but there's simply no room to argue whether or not time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, as it is by definition.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The other question to ask is why the dimension of time remains 1 dimensional while the space dimension changes.

SR and GR - space is 3 dim and time is 1 dim.
Superstring - space is 9 dim and time is 1 dim.
M-Theory - space is 10 dim and time is 1 dim.

Time is the 1-dim that makes spacetime 4-dim.
Time is the 1-dim that makes superstring 10-dim.
Time is the 1-dim that makes M-Theory 11-dim.

Time is really one dimensional. Its dimensionality will never change in any physical theory.

 

[ZelmersZoetrop]

By "could hardly exist," Noah, I meant not "could barely exist" but rather "could not conceivably exist." I should have made that clear in my post.

Time most certainly exists without motion. It is represented by a vertical world-line in a space-time diagram.

 

[bazucajoe10]

I agree that time is not the 4th dimension. I can see the 4th dimension using tetracubes and such but i need to find and equation to explain it. the closest thing i have is (2x + 1)^4 (4th dimension) = 16x^4 + 32x^3 + 24x^2 + 8x +
1. can anyone confirm this equation

 

[Chen]

Going into the future is indeed not very difficult at all. In fact, I am doing it right now... watch: One Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi.

 

[jcsd]

I agree that time is not the 4th dimension. I can see the 4th dimension using tetracubes and such but i need to find and equation to explain it. the closest thing i have is (2x + 1)^4 (4th dimension) = 16x^4 + 32x^3 + 24x^2 + 8x +
1. can anyone confirm this equation

As I said time most defintiely is a dimension of spacetime simply by definition. That said saying that time is/is not the fourth dimension is virtually meaningless; you have to define what time is the fourth dimension of.

I'm not sure what your're trying to communicate with you're equation, bu there's a simple equation that explains a 4-dimensional Euclidian space:

$$ds^2 = {dx_1}^2 + {dx_2}^2 + {dx_3}^2 + {dx_4}^2$$

The fourdimensional equivalent of a cube is called a tessseract.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Length, width, and depth are real dimensions whether we define them or not. Time is a measurement associated with velocity and position. Time and velocity would still exist in 1 and 2 dimensional space.

(n+1)-dim is the TIME for n-dim.
Michael.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The photon has no mass, so it can be considered to be dimensionless.

Specify, please, what photon you mean. . Some of them have definitely mass.

 

[sol2]

The other question to ask is why the dimension of time remains 1 dimensional while the space dimension changes.

SR and GR - space is 3 dim and time is 1 dim.
Superstring - space is 9 dim and time is 1 dim.
M-Theory - space is 10 dim and time is 1 dim.

Time is the 1-dim that makes spacetime 4-dim.
Time is the 1-dim that makes superstring 10-dim.
Time is the 1-dim that makes M-Theory 11-dim.

Time is really one dimensional. Its dimensionality will never change in any physical theory.

This has been a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=24988 for me in regards to time.

Without time in any of these scenario's, then all we have is frames of reference? If we do not include time, the dynamical nature of any of these "actions" could not be realized?

Would this be a be a fair assumption?

 

[AWolf]

Specify, please, what photon you mean. . Some of them have definitely mass.

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a relativistic mass to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a relativistic mass to a photon which depends upon its wavelength.

X-ray and Gamma both being "photon" aren’t massless.

 

[russ_watters]

X-ray and Gamma both being "photon" aren’t massless.

Note please, this part of AWolf's post:

The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is...

Whether your idea is right or wrong, it does not represent the accepted view in physics today.