Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Non linear temporal exploration

  1. Oct 21, 2003 #1
    All of the "theories" on time travel that I have seen in this forum are sadly lacking any originality.

    The very first lesson of time travel is that time is field dependant. Time outside our universe flows at a different rate than time within our universe does.

    Next, the big picture. As our universe expands, so does the change in it's temporal constant. In other words, the rate of flow of the time stream today is different than it was five billion years ago, and is different than it will be five billion years from now.

    Next, when considering the possibility of time travel, the potential traveler must not only consider temporal coordinates, but spacial coordinates as well. For unlike the Sci-Fi version of time travel, where the entire universe would have to go backwards in time. A single subset of the universe will not affect the whole, therefore while a time traveler may change his temporal profile and appear in the past or future (relatively speaking) the rest of the universe has/or will move move onward. So not allowing for the combined motions of the universe might find the traveler inphasing into something solid or simply floating in space.

    Next, the ludicrous time paradox's (nothin' funnier.) The hubris that the universe would care if the time line as altered is staggeringly hillarious. First, for someone to go backwards in the temporal stream and create a causality effect that would affect them later, thereby preventing them from initiating the causality effect in the first place shows a gross lack understanding in temporal mechanics. For this to happen, the temporal stream for the entire universe would have to be looped back in on itself creating a bigger mess than "What if I shot my grandpa?" would ever make. By the way, in case you were wondering, for the time traveler it dosen't matter if the timeline is changed, since indirect personal causality no longer applies after leaving the time stream.
    Which also brings me to another one of my favorites, "Time travel can't be possible or else we would have been visited by travelers." Since changes in the timeline don't affect the traveler indirectly, they become free agents to change whatever they want in the localized temporal stream, and you would never know it. They could be all around you, and since they have no great fear of causality, a time traveler could be a co-worker, a student, a neighbor, someone walking down the street, in fact a time traveler could be anywhere doing anything and again you would never know it.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2003 #2
    This is quite interesting. That said, you state these as if they were agreed upon facts or something that's easily looked up at the library, under temporal mechanics. Many of the things you state, as if they were hard fact, are not agreed upon. In other words you are making statements that, as far as I know, have no substantial supporting evidence.

    You say that a person traveling back in time is no longer under the causality rules that lead to the time travel in the first place. This isn't, by any stretch, universally accepted, by those that have done a lot of thought on the subject (e.g. S. Hawkings).

    I do consider what you say both thought provoking and a plausible way that the mechanics of time could/may work, but that doesn't mean it does.

  4. Oct 22, 2003 #3
    Radagast, Thank you for noticing that my message doesn't fall into the mainstream of current theoretical physics. The reason for that is simple. There are two types of theoriticians, those who have insight into the problem, and those who can only guess at possibilities.

    Have you ever tried to solve a code cipher or cryptogram with a group of people? You start off with what on the surface appears to be a chaotic collection of meaningless symbols. But with due diligence patterns start to emerge and develop into finite pieces of information. When all of those pieces are put together correctly, a meaningful solution based upon the whole is extracted from what at first appeared to be chaos.
    Now having achieved the correct solution, you look back at your fellow problem solvers and notice that they are having difficulty. Knowing the answer, you can see clearly where and why they are having problems.

    So Radagast, what would you do in this hypothetical situation?

    A) Leave them alone to struggle in the dark.
    B) Give them meaningful hints, to help them on their way -OR-
    C) Blurt out the complete answer, so that they learn nothing and merely ape intellegence.

    Where current theoretical physics is today, I was a few decades ago.
  5. Oct 22, 2003 #4
    I have no problems with what you proposed, only the apparent presentation as if it were agreed upon fact. If it's fact, then evidence needs to be referenced, or logical trains of thought delineated to show that it's the only possible solution.
  6. Oct 22, 2003 #5
    What is time?
    Is TT possible?
    Reverse t axis?

    You should check out my lil' thread 'a year' , on the TT forum, communites@anomalies.net


    Before anyone trys to make a TM they should know the rules.

    The Law of Time

    Time remains constant unless there is a change in energy; any change will be inverse to the change in energy,equivalent to the quantum of energy and inverse to the mass of the clock.

  7. Oct 23, 2003 #6
    Radagast, I understand your dilemma, for me this stuff is rather obvious but for you perhaps not so much so.
    Where to begin? I guess at the beginning of course! So, let me whip out the crayons and construction paper and try to make a logical case for my existance.

    The very first and formost rule of all physics is that it's all about the ENERGY. The original protoplasmic ball from which sprang forth EVERYTHING around us. Every atom, every other type of energy source, the contained spacial continuum, relative time, literally everything is based upon that original energy source.

    If we are agreed, then move on. If not, then why?

    Next, The "Big Bang" is a sweet colloquialism that describes the beginning of the universe in a massive explosion. This requires an open spacial continnum to occur as described. But since we are in a closed continuum, "The Awesome Percolation" is more exact (personally I don't think it has the same marketing impact,) but the concept of a fixed point of beginning and an expanding universe is the key point. (knowing what I know now, I truly believe that if Einstien had known about the "Big Bang" concept in the beginning, he would have solved Grand Unification)

    If we are agreed, then move on. If not, then why?

    Next, What is space and gravity? Space/Time, to put it as simple as possible, is nothing more than a field effect of energy, and gravity is nothing more than a localized compression of space/time. Therefore, gravity is the pushing of space/time on an object relative to it's contained energy.

    If we are agreed, then move on. If not, then why?

    Next, cosmologically speaking, it is an agreed upon concept that gravity decreases in strength as distance increases, and it is also an agreed upon concept that the rate at which time flows is affected by the relative conditions in space/time. Reference: Hawking; time, space, black holes. So if you have been paying attention, you may have realized by now that in the beginning of the universe the force of gravity was at its strongest and as the universe expands the force of gravity continues to weaken. Conversely the flow rate of time in the early universe was much slower than it is now (relative to an outside observer) and continues to increase as the universe expands.

    If we are agreed, then move on. If not, then why?

    Let's stop here for now, and see your reaction to the above statements. Keep in mind that this is just a part of the whole solution to achieving time/space travel.
  8. Oct 24, 2003 #7
    Time Travel

    Mr. E Man,

    You seem like a pretty smart fellow. What you said about the non-linear nature of time, does seem more natural, and perhaps intuitive. I don't have enough room to put my idea on the page below, so I will only post a small portion of the paper. I will leave it up for a day or two, and then remove, because it just takes up too much room. If you are interested in what you read, I can post the rest up in a series of posts. It is a very small part of 'Point Hypothesis.' If you would, take a look at what is written below and tell me what you think.

    Edwin G. Schasteen

    Research Paper

    Contraction of Three Dimensional Isomorphic Rigid

    The following is a mathematical conception for
    extensions of General Relativity to the contraction of
    isomorphic 3-dimensional rigid structures in terms of
    a 2-dimensional isotropic field. The isotropic field's
    analog is the contraction of a fourth spatial
    dimension into a fourth temporal dimension culminating
    on the 2-dimensional surface of a light field
    propagating outward in three spatial dimensions from a
    single point. Inversely, the expansion of structures
    contained within 2-dimensional isotropic fields into
    4-dimensional rigid structures are described in terms
    of a 3-dimensional non-Euclidean geometry that results
    in a one to one relation between structures within the
    isotropic field and structures outside the field.

    First, this paper will discuss some basic terminology
    that may differ from the standard form. Therefore, the
    first portion of the paper introduces two analogies in
    order to give the readers of this paper a basic visual
    comprehension of the abstract concepts being

    A point by definition has zero cross section and is
    zero dimensional. The phrase used in this paper to
    mathematically describe an infinitely short segment of
    a line, is line segment. A line segment has an
    arbitrary unit length that is 1/infinite the length of
    any line on a Cartesian plane. Squares are measured in
    terms of area segments. The area of an infinitely
    small square segment in a Cartesian plane is
    (1/infinity)^2. Now (1/infinity)^2*(infinity^2) is
    equal to one square with an area of 1 arbitrary unit.

    Now a line segment with a length 1/infinity might be
    considered greater then zero in size, although this is
    somewhat of a misnomer. The asymmetries discussed in
    this paper do not describe quantity; but instead,
    describe contraction in terms of ratio relations
    between structures and substructures contained within
    fields. Furthermore, all structures within the fields
    have a constant value in terms of the sequences
    contained within the specific geometries and densities

    fields described in this model; which makes it
    difficult to identify the mathematical mechanisms
    responsible for the variance in isograms within this
    particular model. However, close inspection of the
    transcription of three dimensional volumes onto two
    dimensional surfaces (i.e. painting a portrait of a
    three dimensional landscape onto a two dimensional
    canvas) determines that a pair of variable isograms,
    when having a radial angular difference proportional
    to zero over their entire field expansions, is
    analogous to a pair of rail road tracks in three
    dimensions being transcribed onto a two dimensional
    surface. In such cases each line segment is, in fact,
    equal in length and the appearance of one line being
    shorter then the other line is nothing more then an
    illusion brought on by the contraction of the three
    dimensional landscape onto the two dimensional


    The 1's are the metal rail road tracks, and the x's
    are the wooden cross boards. The y's are bushes on the
    side of the tracks. Note the illusion that 5 x's
    compose the top farthest cross board on the horizon,
    and that the nearest railroad cross board is composed
    of 13 x's giving the illusion that the nearest cross
    board is longer then the farthest cross board when in
    all actuality, all the cross boards are of the same

    In this particular case, the infinitely short line
    within this sequence would be defined as the board’s
    cross section viewed at an infinite distance from a
    given location on the tracks.

    The points mentioned in this paper refer to the
    segment of a line or field that has no dimension. As
    it shall be demonstrated later in this paper, 0 need
    not remain a single point but may be extended as a
    field over an entire n-dimensional region underlying
    an n-dimensional structure contained within a layer of
    fields. These individual fields are defined in terms
    of their correlations between both the n-dimensional

    structures and substructures, and in terms of the
    points within the field that are assigned numerical
    This paper will also elaborate on the use of
    contracting Cartesian graphs to describe correlations
    of multiple relative reference frames. Before
    discussing The General Theory of Relativity, another
    analogy similar to the analogy given at the beginning
    of this paper shall be given below and will be used as
    a visual reference for the concepts being discussed in
    this paper.

    If one stands in the middle of a set of rail-road
    tracks, and stares off into the distance, one will see
    a pair of parallel metal beams extend toward the
    horizon (provided the rail road tracks are long and
    straight). One will, also, notice that the metal
    tracks have wooden crossbeams that lye in between, and
    perpendicular to, the iron tracks.

    These wooden boards appear to get shorter and shorter
    as one looks toward the distant horizon along the
    railroad tracks. Correspondingly, the iron beams
    appear to merge to a point, as though they would
    intersect, at the horizon. If one were to remain still
    on these tracks, one might retain a
    two-dimensional-portrait perspective of the railroad
    tracks, and beams.

    One might then perceive that the track’s cross boards
    do not extend off into the distance but, instead, are
    getting shorter and shorter while rising up toward
    some critical horizontal line in the two dimensional
    sky called the critical horizon. In this case, one
    would not perceive the tracks as being parallel and
    extending forward into a third dimension; but instead,
    would perceive the tracks as being two lines
    approaching a point of intersection at the critical
    horizon. Based on this perspective, one might
    formulate the hypothesis that the tracks are
    synonymous to a pair of parallel lines having a
    non-Euclidean geometry. After formulating this
    hypothesis, one would set up an experiment to
    determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. In order to
    confirm the hypothesis, one would have to measure the
    length of each board individually to confirm that they
    are all different lengths. To accomplish this, one
    would have to walk along the railroad tracks, place a
    ruler on each board, and measure each of board
    individually. Of course, if one did this, one would
    quickly realize the error of his or her hypothesis and
    make the correction.

    Now walking along the tracks implies movement in a
    third dimension, and movement along this third
    dimension is necessary in order to

    carry out the experiment. After all, one can not
    physically place a ruler on a board that is 10 miles
    away without first walking the 10 miles to get to the

    Every concept mentioned above contains properties of a
    three dimensional mathematical system contracted, in
    one dimension, into a two dimensional surface. Such
    mathematical systems are not so abstract; in fact,
    there exists such a physical system that contracts
    just in the manner described above.
    This system is depicted in “The General Theory of
    Relativity”, and is called Lorentz contraction. One
    component of Lorentz contraction, that the General
    Theory of Relativity describes, is the contraction of
    a three dimensional mass, and the space it occupies,
    along the direction of travel, into a two dimensional
    surface. Other components that are discussed are time
    dilation and the infinite increase in mass as the
    object approaches light speed; however, what this
    paper specifically focuses on is the concept of the
    contraction of systems having three spatial
    dimensions, into systems having two dimensions, while
    conserving the existence and form of the isomorphic
    rigid structure.
  9. Oct 24, 2003 #8
    Hi Edwin,

    I've looked at your initial installment, and I must admit to a certain curiosity as to where you are going with it.

    If you:

    1) have no problem with honest feedback
    2) can accept a little constructive nudging
    3) AND assure me that this is completely your own original idea


    I would be honered to look at the rest of your paper.
  10. Oct 28, 2003 #9
    So far, all sounds completely acceptable.

    As I've stated earlier, though, I only have a problem with the presentation of your views as hard fact. Even though the big bang theory is accepted as the most probable start to our universe, it still isn't presented as fact, from a scientific perspective.

    Please don't let this stop your presentation, though. I do find it fascinating and quite interesting. You seem to have gotten almost to the point where gravity starts to be overwhelmed by dark energy.
  11. Oct 30, 2003 #10

    I had hoped that you were following along quite nicely until you brought up the "Dark Energy" comment. Dark Energy is a mathematical construct developed by those who do not have a accurate understanding of space/time.

    Mathematics is a tool. No greater than a hammer, a scalpel, or a paintbrush. Mathematics is only as powerful as the understanding mind that drives it. That is why Relativity was so powerful, first came understanding, then came symbolic representation. Not the other way around.

    We live in a finite universe, quite literally everything within it is finite. Yet the term "Infinite" is cast about as casually as talking about the weather. Infinity is a mathematical construct with no real application that can be found in nature. A circle can be said to be an infinite shape. How many times can you go around a circle? Why an infinite number of times, of course! Perhaps, but if and only if the follwing conditions apply: 1) you have an infinite amount of time available to you, and 2) you have have an infinite motive source. The failure to find either of these within nature negates the above postulate.

    There are those who cast about the concept of the infinite compression of matter within a "Black Hole", forcing said matter into a quantum singularity, and perhaps opening up hyperspacial tunnels into alternate forms of reality and dimensions unheralded. This is the problem with mathematics, while I am sure that you may have been procreated by a fine set of upstanding parents, I am also just as sure that I can conclusively prove beyond a shadow of mathematical doubt that in fact you are the progeny of an unholy union betwixt a large stone found on the bottom of the Adriatic Sea and the naval lint of a two-headed Llama. Just because it can be symbolicly manipulated and expressed in mathematic terms, dosen't mean that it's true.

    My point is that before we can move onward with this little tutorial, it is important to seperate fiction from reality. If you don't have a firm grasp on the above concepts, then once we get into temporal mechanics, your brain will most likely implode, drizzle out of your ears and down your sides until finally collecting in the elastic banding of your trousers. We wouldn't want that to happen, since after all...A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waist.

    Also keep in mind that it took me roughly 12 years (and the lives of several noble brain cells)to crunch through the physics and work out one of the keystones to GUT in the above, and if that isn't enough motivatin' for you to look at the above precepts in a new light, then perhaps the fact that there are at least TWO Nobel prizes contained therein, will start your brain to wondering if maybe, just maybe, this guy actually knows what he's talking about.
  12. Oct 30, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Reading this thread now - down to "tutorial" however wryly meant, convinces me that this thread ia actually the exposition of a privately held theory that is acknowledged to disagree with professional physics. As such on these boards, it belongs in the board called Theory Development. So I am transfering it there.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Non linear temporal exploration
  1. Non linear dynamics (Replies: 1)