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

The stopping clock

  1. May 14, 2008 #1

    Y00

    User Avatar

    We say you have a machine that could go back and forth in time. The machine works roughly like this: A few seconds before you press the button to travel a week forth in time it will save like an autosave. Of course time will go on as if you had pushed the button which you had. You will disappear and that´s a part of the time. You could say you jumped off a branch and will jump back on it smaller distance in front of your first jump. The branch will be affected by the jump but not your time in the air. You just jumped a week forth in time and you decide to go back in time to the "Autosave" earlier!

    And here´s the question: Will you go back and forth in time forever or will this end circle end!

    This is a matter of how you are viewing universe and the time and i would like to hear some different comments about this, or comments if I´ve written something wrong and such.
    Just a discussion about it!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 14, 2008 #2

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Welcome to PF, YOO.
    I think that this is overly speculative, so the thread will probably be either locked or moved to GD. Backward time travel is pretty much impossible; we all travel forward in time constantly. The question, therefore, is impossible to answer.
     
  4. May 14, 2008 #3

    Y00

    User Avatar

    Yes of course, it´s rather speculative but filosophy becomes physics. Hypothesis becomes theory. Philosophy has much to do with physics, maybe not the fact but rather the idea! If timetravel is impossible is hard to tell, and i certainly dont know this myself!

    What i see as the big question is if their really exist true chance.
    The earlier explanation was just set as an example
     
  5. May 14, 2008 #4

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, it doesn't. Philosophy is sometimes called "metaphysics" because it is outside of physics. Physics used to be called "natural philosophy" until it was agreed that it is not at all philosophy.

    Your question may be an interesting mind game, but the question itself is outside of the laws of physics. Therfore, there is no law of physics that will apply to anything that does not obey the laws. What will happen if you go back in time to the time where you jumped into the future? Heck, you decided to imagine this machine, so you can decide what happens!

    Or I too can simply make something up: as you press the button, the action of creating the "autosave" function maps out the position and momentum of each of the particles of your being (every proton, neutron, and electron). I'm stealing from Star Trek here as many will recognize.
    As you return to that point at which you left, you are reestablished with all your particles having the same position and momentum as they had when you jumped ahead. The Law of conservation of momentum (ooh, I contradict myself!) states that the particles must continue in the path they had been going in, therefore you will resume travelling forward in time from that point, and you will not be caught in an infinite loop.

    This is the stuff of science fiction, which (despite popular outcries) is MORE fiction than science.
     
  6. May 14, 2008 #5

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah, yes... the good ol' Heisenberg Compensators... :biggrin:
     
  7. May 14, 2008 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually, hypothesis becomes theory once observations are made and data collected.
     
  8. May 14, 2008 #7

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Reporter: "How do these Heisenberg compensators work?"
    Gene Rodenbery: "Very well."
     
  9. May 14, 2008 #8

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl:
     
  10. May 14, 2008 #9
    Is backward time travel a physical impossibility or is it an impossibility coz we cant thik of a way to go back?
    I mean, not being able to exceed c is a physical impossibility. There isnt anything like that for the speed of sound. But it was thought a half century earlier that it wasnt possible to break the sound barrier. There was'nt any physics prohibiting it, but everyone thought it was just not possible.
     
  11. May 14, 2008 #10

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think there is any principle we know of that explicitly rules out time travel in either direction.
     
  12. May 14, 2008 #11
    in that case why are discussions of this sort just written off as 'philosophy' or 'science fiction'?
     
  13. May 14, 2008 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That was based upon mechanical shortcomings of the era. No one knew how to make a machine that could survive the trans-sonic shockwave. By the same token, the first automobiles were considered deathtraps; if one exceeded 15 mph, it would break the passengers' necks.
    The light-speed barrier, on the other hand, is based upon relativity as pertains to the gain of relativistic mass at greater speeds. It can't be circumvented within our accessible universe.
     
  14. May 14, 2008 #13
    thanks danger, thats exactly what i meant. just dint put i so well.
     
  15. May 14, 2008 #14

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that is just my opinion based upon my limited knowledge of physics. There are some theorists and experimental physicists here who might have differing opinions.
     
  16. May 15, 2008 #15

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's the difference I try to make my students understand. There are somethings which are not possible due to a physical barrier, and other things that are not possible due to a technological barrier. One of these barriers is temporary.
     
  17. May 15, 2008 #16
    Of course, too, though, no one has broken the 'light-speed barrier' yet either, to find out whether that (relativity, the infinite gain of relativistic mass) is true, either. Its a 'Catch 22' in the theory.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  18. May 15, 2008 #17

    Y00

    User Avatar

    I understand your discussion about wether it´s possible to even travel in time, but as far as I know no-one has ever proved either one way or another!
    But as far as i know, the big problem of physic today is to combine all the branches of physics onetogether! In the good old days when a good old chap named Newton come up with classical mechanics everything worked just fine. But theorys are beginning to contradict eachother in all the branches of physics that exists!

    But now over to something different! It´s a simple question and i want to hear a bit about different views of the problem!

    Does true change really exist?
     
  19. May 15, 2008 #18

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    then you don't know very much about physics.


    Newton was the first to realize that there was a huge gaping hole in his theory of gravitation that led to a paradox he couldn't solve.

    And physics is still working on it, but what's the problem with that? Just because we do not yet know all the details, it does NOT mean that anything and everything is still possible. We know enough to recognize certain physical barriers that cannot be surmounted.
     
  20. May 15, 2008 #19

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Really? Cuz I'm in his camp. AFAIK, there's nothing that explicitly rules it out.
     
  21. May 15, 2008 #20
    ditto here.. i agree with dave and yoo on that..
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The stopping clock
  1. Clock in clock shop (Replies: 11)

  2. Just stopping in (Replies: 25)

  3. Countdown clocks? (Replies: 0)

  4. Mathy clocks (Replies: 1)

Loading...