Time Machine will not be invented

[lolerboler]

Hello people,

Time Machine will not be invented. We will never travel in time, not in future, not in past.

Why?

If time machine will be invented then why no one travel to us from the future and say "Hello"?
They fear that harm the past? Then let they send us some device from future for proof.

Nope, we never received any strange devices.

 

[Danger]

Welcome to PF, Lolerboler.
You are semi-correct that time travel can never occur. We all, in fact, are traveling forward in time constantly, with minor relativistic differences. Going forward faster than nature allows, and then coming back (as to seek out the next winning lottery number) is impossible, as is travel to the past.

 

[lolerboler]

yeap, u'r saying it with the reason of not getting speed of light or some else physics (DOUBT is possible), I'm saying it because of logic (NO DOUBTS).

 

[Janus]

yeap, u'r saying it with the reason of not getting speed of light or some else physics (DOUBT is possible), I'm saying it because of logic (NO DOUBTS).

Not that I'm saying that time travel will ever be possible, but your logic is flawed. It neglects the possibility of the class of time machine that restricts time travel to the range of time in which the machine itself already exists. In other words, the earliest point of time one could travel to would be the point in time when the first time machine was turned on.

 

[Danger]

u'r saying it with the reason of not getting speed of light or some else physics

Not at all. I'm saying it because it would be a violation of causality and quantum mechanics.

 

[lolerboler]

the earliest point of time one could travel to would be the point in time when the first time machine was turned on.

Understand you. U'r right. What we can say for sure, no one can stop WW1, WW2, 9/11 etc.

violation of causality and quantum mechanics

this is still physics, not logic =)
mine is failed by Janus

BTW, this time machine slogan should only be I'll deliver you to the past*
*limited past

 

[Brin]

Eh, this isn't really logic either, in fact, in terms of logic it's about as good as the logic of the science you're attacking (i.e. it's inductive, not deductive. Deductive could be said to have no doubt, but you'd need to prove mathematically for this to be deductive, or demonstrate that what we 'mean' when we say 'time', and 'travel' can't possibly correspond in the way we want by definition).

Also you're neglecting the multiple universes impression, where we might have multiple universes, and we can't travel backwards in our OWN timeline, but we can travel into the pasts of other universes like our own.

 

[Studiot]

The issue of time travels begs the question of continuity and what exactly is proposed to travel.

Continuity demands that we are no more a single point in time than we are in space.

So for instance consider when I move my foot in space.
At rest, one end of my foot starts at a certain location and finishes at a different one. The foot occupies all points in between (continuity).
If I now move my foot, I move all these points together, so they they arive in the same order.

The popular idea for time travel is equivalent to saying when my foot travels on point of it moves.

Painful.

 

[Brin]

The issue of time travels begs the question of continuity and what exactly is proposed to travel.

Continuity demands that we are no more a single point in time than we are in space.

So for instance consider when I move my foot in space.
At rest, one end of my foot starts at a certain location and finishes at a different one. The foot occupies all points in between (continuity).
If I now move my foot, I move all these points together, so they they arive in the same order.

The popular idea for time travel is equivalent to saying when my foot travels on point of it moves.

Painful.

This post confused me. I'll see if I can recreate the idea correctly: You seem to say that my foot, as a whole, is continuous through some range (i.e. it occupies some volume). We move this volume around like so *moves foot around*.

Then you say that the idea of time travel is equivalent to moving a ... single point of my foot? Huh? Like detaching some particle from my foot and moving that? Like I said: I'm confused.

Finally: http://begthequestion.info/

 

[Filip Larsen]

If time machine will be invented then why no one travel to us from the future and say "Hello"?

I understand what you are trying to say (tongue in cheek aside), but as a logical argument it won't hold. If we know (or assume) that "observing people from the future in the present implies that time travel will be invented" and "we do not observe people from the future in the preset" are true statements, then you cannot logically conclude that "time travel will not be invented". To do so is a fallacy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 

[mjacobsca]

Steven hawking recently conducted an interesting experiment on this matter. Unknown to anyone else, he left an instruction in his will to provide money for and advertisement for a time traveller conference to be held at a date, time and place that only he knew and was held only for months after editing his will. His instructions were to make the announcement as far reaching as possible and as long lasting as possible (published in historical references, scientific journals, biographies written about him, etc...). Future time travellers could come across this information and use it to attend the conference. Alas, Hawking showed up at the conference, but no one else did. Either:

- The instructions were destroyed and/or never made it to the future time traveller
- The instructions were unreadable to the future time traveller (maybe only aliens have figured it out)
- The future time traveller chose not to attend the conference
- it is not possible to travel back in time to attend the conference

I thought this was a very clever experiment! Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Studiot]

Hello Brin,

Yes you have divined the essence of what I said.

A real physical object has a physical extent in space.
If you move it in space (space travel) you move the whole object, not a small part.

In the same way you have a duration of , say 75 years in time.
If you move in time you must move the entire 75 year 'time object', not just a single 'time point'

Thre is a second problem with time travel.

There is only one known time dimension or axis and this axis is full up.
If a physical object moves along say the x axis, it will soon bump into another object and progress will stop or at least be impeded.
With spatial dimensions movement is possible by simply moving around the obstruction by motion in, say the y, direction.
Such action is not known to be available with time.

 

[lolerboler]

There is only one known time dimension or axis and this axis is full up.

yo guys, BTW, how CERN experiments are moving? According to the superstring theory there are more dimensions (10 I remember), so did they prove something?

 

[Frannas]

Steven hawking recently conducted an interesting experiment on this matter. Unknown to anyone else, he left an instruction in his will to provide money for and advertisement for a time traveller conference to be held at a date, time and place that only he knew and was held only for months after editing his will. His instructions were to make the announcement as far reaching as possible and as long lasting as possible (published in historical references, scientific journals, biographies written about him, etc...). Future time travellers could come across this information and use it to attend the conference. Alas, Hawking showed up at the conference, but no one else did. Either:

- The instructions were destroyed and/or never made it to the future time traveller
- The instructions were unreadable to the future time traveller (maybe only aliens have figured it out)
- The future time traveller chose not to attend the conference
- it is not possible to travel back in time to attend the conference

I thought this was a very clever experiment! Draw your own conclusions.

one other possibility is that when future time travellers traveled back in time, they actually went to a parallel universe and met Stephen Hawking there and not in our universe. We will thus never know.

 

[Danger]

So for instance consider when I move my foot in space.
At rest, one end of my foot starts at a certain location and finishes at a different one. The foot occupies all points in between (continuity).
If I now move my foot, I move all these points together, so they they arive in the same order.

Which proves my suspicion that Studiot is a cleverly disguised Newfie clog-dancer attempting to infiltrate our ranks. Put a stop to this now, or we'll all be having finnin haddie for breakfast in a couple of weeks.

 

[Phrak]

At this time, lolerboler, I speak to you from a time in your past. You may not like to believe this. You may think I'm a fraud. But I have found a way to communicate to you in your present time. I am serious. I have a message I've been entrusted to convey to you. You may find in suprising. It's up to you. I've been trusted to give you this message: We may never travel into the past.

 

[georgir]

Self-causation and closed timelike loops may very well turn out to exist. That means "timetravel" won't let us change our past, but may very well allow us to cause our past :p It is one way to escape some of the paradoxes. It creates a lot of interesting new ones, or if not paradoxes then at least things to think about.

Some 60 years later, lolerboler will get in a spaceship accident and be sucked into a black hole, emerging at some weird planet without any life, crashing into it and dieing. But some of the rich microflora in his guts survive and begin to adapt and evolve... eventually culminating in... lolerboler again! :p But he still is no smarter and goes into that spaceship again, all the while muttering to himself "Timetravel is impossible"... ;)

 

[Danger]

Self-causation and closed timelike loops may very well turn out to exist. That means "timetravel" won't let us change our past, but may very well allow us to cause our past :p It is one way to escape some of the paradoxes. It creates a lot of interesting new ones, or if not paradoxes then at least things to think about.

Some 60 years later, lolerboler will get in a spaceship accident and be sucked into a black hole, emerging at some weird planet without any life, crashing into it and dieing. But some of the rich microflora in his guts survive and begin to adapt and evolve... eventually culminating in... lolerboler again! :p But he still is no smarter and goes into that spaceship again, all the while muttering to himself "Timetravel is impossible"... ;)

Is anyone else hearing the song "I Am My Own Grandpa" twanking around in the back of their brains? Eh... maybe that's just a personal thing...
That is an... interesting approach that you have there, Georgir.

 

[Mentallic]

If time machine will be invented then why no one travel to us from the future and say "Hello"?
They fear that harm the past? Then let they send us some device from future for proof.

Nope, we never received any strange devices.

Let's assume for a second that time travel is possible and some future civilization has invented it. Maybe there is a law which states that one cannot interfere with the past in any form? For whatever reason this may be (maybe it would be disastrous for their civilization which is why they govern this law), how about if we now assume that this law didn't exist. A logical question would be, why? Why would they bother to come to this time and inform us of time travel? They already know our future because they're the product of it, and they have a functioning civilization so what else could they ask for?

I don't see a reason in this present world or in the world where time travel has been invented to come back to this time and inform us that time travel exists.

 

[DaveC426913]

"[URL 's[/URL] Law of Time Travel:
If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in that universe.

Another one of Niven's Laws:
Any damn fool can predict the past.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see a reason in this present world or in the world where time travel has been invented to come back to this time and inform us that time travel exists.

It's not about any altruistic message for our benefit; we would be seeing manifestations.

Strange craft floating without obvious means of levitation or propulsion, abductions for medical studies, or ...

waitaminnit...

 

[Mentallic]

It's not about any altruistic message for our benefit; we would be seeing manifestations.

Strange craft floating without obvious means of levitation or propulsion, abductions for medical studies, or ...

waitaminnit...

So in other words, to cause harm to us?
I can't imagine that a civilization could be so advanced that they understand how time works completely and can manipulate it to their liking, but still have room left to do more medical studies on humans. With virtually limitless power they could have, I would imagine cloning masses of humans would be a much more simple task.

But then again I wouldn't have the faintest clue how these guys think... If I did, then I'd be working on a time machine right now wouldn't I

 

[Danger]

Strange craft floating without obvious means of levitation or propulsion, abductions for medical studies, or ...

waitaminnit...

Does Bill (Blinky) Birnes know about you?

 

[Studiot]

Danger, you must let me have details of your hairdresser, my grid needs recharging.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, there you go...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=441472

 

[JDługosz]

No time travelers at some event X you name? Well, with all time available, there will certainly be many things more interesting than X available. If space-time is infinite, then there will always be someplace-time more interesting then any chosen. So, visitors are simply always somewhere else.

 

[Learnphysics]

Hello people,

Time Machine will not be invented. We will never travel in time, not in future, not in past.

Why?

If time machine will be invented then why no one travel to us from the future and say "Hello"?
They fear that harm the past? Then let they send us some device from future for proof.

Nope, we never received any strange devices.

Perhaps it is impossible to go back in time before the date at which the time machine was assembled as the thing would disassemble itself partly and thus stop working.

 

[Danger]

Danger, you must let me have details of your hairdresser, my grid needs recharging.

 

[sophiecentaur]

To travel somewhere /somewhen 'out of sequence' with everything else around you would introduce several serious practical problems even if you could get around the philosophical ones.
You would leave a 'hole' behind you when you departed and would need to create a space where you need to be in your destination. If you turned up in a space shared by even a few grams of matter that was already there, you'd cause a massive e = mcsquared type explosion as the atoms of one object suddenly had to share the same location as the atoms of another object.
Where could you aim at as a destination which would avoid serious problems? Somewhere in deep space, possibly. But you would need to know actually where you were jumping to. Would your traveling self demonstrate Newtonian / inertial properties? For instance, would it follow the path of the laboratory around the Earth and through the Earth's orbit? If you go to a different time then where, in the orbit of the Earth and in its rotation would you expect to end up? (Not just Earth's orbit around the Sun, of course, but the general path of the Sun in space)

Perhaps Mr Hawking's future time travellers just got the date or place of the meeting a bit wrong . . . . .

 

[DaveC426913]

You would leave a 'hole' behind you when you departed and would need to create a space where you need to be in your destination. If you turned up in a space shared by even a few grams of matter that was already there, you'd cause a massive e = mcsquared type explosion as the atoms of one object suddenly had to share the same location as the atoms of another object.

Oh g'wan. There is no reason to suppose any of that. No one said that the process has to happen in an instant. It is virtually guaranteed that there will be buttloads of energy required in the time travel process anyway, so there's plenty around to expand or contract whatever needs to be expanded or contracted to make room.

As a fanciful example, imagine it happens like in the Terminator movies. The "bubble" is formed at miniscule size and grows rapidly to full size.

This is a non-issue.

 

[Ash Small]

Can anyone point out any flaws in the following statement?

The hypothetical time machine and time traveller are made up of quarks, etc.

Quarks, etc can only exist in one place at one time.

If quarks, etc traveled backwards in time they would exist in two places at the same time.

This is not possible.

 

[Mentallic]

Can anyone point out any flaws in the following statement?

The hypothetical time machine and time traveller are made up of quarks, etc.

Quarks, etc can only exist in one place at one time.

If quarks, etc traveled backwards in time they would exist in two places at the same time.

This is not possible.

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? There wouldn't be any remnants of you in the future time.

 

[Ash Small]

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? There wouldn't be any remnants of you in the future time.

That is correct, but the same quarks,etc would exist twice at the point in time that you travel back to.

They cannot exist in two different places at the same time.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is correct, but the same quarks,etc would exist twice at the point in time that you travel back to.

They cannot exist in two different places at the same time.

Who says?

 

[Ash Small]

I think it follows from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states, simply, that " two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time."

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle )

Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time.

Can you suggest any sources that state otherwise?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it follows from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states, simply, that " two solid objects cannot be in the same place in the same time."

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle )

You just moved the goalposts. Now you're saying same place and same time. Who said they have to be in the same place?

Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time.

Can you suggest any sources that state otherwise?

How does that follow from the above??

You're just making rules up.

 

[Ash Small]

You just moved the goalposts. Now you're saying same place and same time. Who said they have to be in the same place?


How does that follow from the above??

You're just making rules up.

Dave, You've misread what I said and you've mis-quoted me.

I actually said that it follows that "Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time."

 

[Studiot]

If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway?

That's another way of putting what I said.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, You've misread what I said and you've mis-quoted me.

I actually said that it follows that "Therefore, the same solid object can't be in two places at the same time."

No I have not, and no I have not.

Please note my post is broken into two parts, and each part directly addresses the direct quote from you.



You invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle, which talks about same place and same time. Since we are not talking about same place and same time, it is not applicable.

You then invent some sort of corollary rule out of thin air, about an object cannot be in two places at the same time. This is complete fabrication.

 

[Ash Small]

"If you traveled back in time, wouldn't all existence of you have shifted to the new time anyway? "

The simple answer is no.

Only the atoms within the time machine would travel back in time.

Some of the atoms that comprise you at the time that you travel back in time would have comprised, for example, the food you ate before you travelled. If you travel back in time a couple of months, some of those atoms that comprise you at the time of travel will comprise a cow or a potato at the time you travel to, for example.(Assuming you ate steak and chips before travelling)

So the same atoms would occupy different places at the same time.

(Unless you have a different explanation)

 

[DaveC426913]

So the same atoms would occupy different places at the same time.

Yes. If we posit time travel at all, the above statement is implicit.

Just as a person going back in time means he could come face-to-face with himself, so individual atoms going back in time means they can come face-to-face with themselves. No biggie.

 

[Ash Small]

No I have not, and no I have not.

Please note my post is broken into two parts, and each part directly addresses the direct quote from you.



You invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle, which talks about same place and same time. Since we are not talking about same place and same time, it is not applicable.

You then invent some sort of corollary rule out of thin air, about an object cannot be in two places at the same time. This is complete fabrication.

Dave, The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that if one particle is in state x, then another particle is in state y. Pauli actually does state that one particle cannot be in state x AND state y any more than two particles can be in state x or state y.

(BTW, Does the C stand for Cooper?)

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that if one particle is in state x, then another particle is in state y. Pauli actually does state that one particle cannot be in state x AND state y any more than two particles can be in state x or state y.

But one particle is not in two states at the same time. It's in two states at different times in its life.

You're got a "young" particle and a "slightly older" particle. PEP does not state that a particle can't be in state x at time a and then in state y at time b.

(BTW, Does the C stand for Cooper?)

No. It stands for Collins. About as common as Cooper.

 

[Ash Small]

But one particle is not in two states at the same time. It's in two states at different times in its life.

You're got a "young" particle and a "slightly older" particle. PEP does not state that a particle can't be in state x at time a and then in state y at time b.

I see your point, Dave.

The particle is older when it occupies the other state, even though it occupies both simultaneously.

(From the particle's time reference it doesn't occupy both states at the same time, although from the observer's time reference it does.)

 

[Time Machine]

Hello people,

Time Machine will not be invented. We will never travel in time, not in future, not in past.

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, perhaps the concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time could be created with gravity control. If passing through faster time/gravity variables in a slow/gravity controlled craft, time could potentially be travelled, not in, but through at a faster rate than usual. Perhaps?

 

[DaveC426913]

(From the particle's time reference it doesn't occupy both states at the same time, although from the observer's time reference it does.)

No, from the obsever's PoV, there are simply two particles in two different states. Particles do not wear nametags.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, perhaps the concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time could be created with gravity control.

Yes. One could slow time using either strong gravity or high relativistic speeds.

If passing through faster time/gravity variables in a slow/gravity controlled craft, time could potentially be travelled, not in, but through at a faster rate than usual. Perhaps?

Well, you could slow time, but you couldn't move backwards.

 

[Time Machine]

Well, you could slow time, but you couldn't move backwards.

Granted. No going backwards. But would my hypothetical parallel universe self experience time speeding up as a result, I wonder?

 

[DaveC426913]

Granted. No going backwards. But would my hypothetical parallel universe self experience time speeding up as a result, I wonder?

What?? What parallel universe self?

 

[Ash Small]

No, from the obsever's PoV, there are simply two particles in two different states. Particles do not wear nametags.

Dave, I hope I'm not going off topic here, but, from what you say, there could just be one set of elementary particles repeatedly traveling back in time until they caused the Big Bang.

Would this not violate the principle of Conservation of Energy?