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

Time travel is impossable

  1. May 21, 2004 #1
    Time travel is impossable. you cannot "travel through time" because time is intangible. Time is not a relm or a dimension. Time is a concept. It is a concept designed by early man as a way to track and orient hisself with the daily movements of the earth. The passing of events is what man knows as time. Man also devised the hour, minute, second, millisecond, nannosecond and so on and so forth. These are used as a measure of the concept of time. Therefore, you cannot travel into something is a concept.
    Also, look at it this way. Our only link with the past is our memory of it. And the only link to the future is predicting certain aspects of it by information that is happening now. what happened a few hours ago is gone. no more. there is not a " place" to travel to. when a moment in time passes by, it no longer exsists. how can you travel to somewhere that doesnt exist, or hasnt existed yet?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 24, 2004 #2
    There is an article related to that subject and the various views about the concept of past, present and future. It's phylophical in nature, but so is your subject. You may find it an interesting read.

    Being and Becoming in Modern Physics by Steven Savitt.
  4. May 24, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    It's indeed a dimension.
    Up for a debate - My pawn just moved forward.

  5. May 25, 2004 #4
    Whenever people don't have a word for something they call it a concept.
  6. May 26, 2004 #5
    I think its fairly obvious time travel is impossible, a logical way to do that would be to travel faster then instantaniously meaning u could travel an unlimited amount of distance in 0 seconds, which is weird becuase it wouldn't be a finite "speed" if you could call it that, since we aren't even near obtaining light speed, its self explanitry why this wont work.
  7. May 26, 2004 #6
    Interesting…. Using your argument of constructs, a meter is just a construct that enabled us to orient ourselves with respect to the position of others, (or landmarks) – yes, it was also a form of comparison for trade in commerce… but I digress. That simple “concept” has been expanded, and from it we now have a system to position ourselves and measure the universe around us.

    The meter is not today what it was yesteryear. It’s changed and evolved to a higher precision, thereby increasing it’s usefulness. Could it not be said that our “concept” of time and time measurement is still in it’s early stages, and that we have yet to hone it, sharpen it to the point where we can find more uses for it besides getting in to work on time (hopefully! :biggrin: ).

    We know that time exists, because we know that there have been things that once existed that no longer do. We may not be seeing the dimension in it’s full view, but I argue that four hundred years ago, people still did not understand the nature of a foot or mile.

    Well, that’s my two cents…
  8. May 27, 2004 #7
    All out support on Ebe's game
  9. May 27, 2004 #8
    Discombobulation and its applications

    I am discombobulated,
    it would be beneficial to the continual improvement of my intellectual capabilities if the venerated Physicists on this communication channel elucidated on the subject of preference, namely the possibility of Time Travel.
    Much Thanks.
  10. May 28, 2004 #9
    whenever i think about "time," I get like this: :grumpy:

    does our view of past events change as we move into the future? assuming that we are "moving" through the "dimension" of time, and comparing this to moving away from something that we are measuring the length of, do we have to take scale into account when measuring with time?

    ok i've just confused myself again: moving away from something also involves time, so it's like being driven by time. so as we move through time are we also moving through some other thing that drives time, and so on?

    and i'm assuming that all this "movement" business is like the everyday movement that we 3-d-limited creatures go through without getting :grumpy:. is there another way to think about it?
    Last edited: May 28, 2004
  11. May 29, 2004 #10
    the best way to supprot the Idea is like this:
    If time traveling was possible than we should have seen a person from the feture by now!
  12. May 29, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I just posted this in another thread a couple of hours ago. Maybe it will help:

    When you look at it this way, it should be fairly easy to see why you can't have negative movement through the temporal dimension, any more than you can move -2m through space.
  13. May 30, 2004 #12
    Why is does it have to be the speed of light?

    Why do we keep moving through time? Why can't we totally stop and move into the future? Cryogenic freezing. But why's everything moving all the time, screwing with our efforts at achieving absolute 0? Big Bang? Assuming the theory is true, how'd that happen? :grumpy: u know, i think i'm getting off-topic. This stuff is just weird when we base our assumptions upon assumptions.

    Relativity. o wait to something moving at the limit, everything else IS frozen and going quickly into the far future of the moving... thing. well that sucks.


    btw, has anyone ever seen this physics video or something in which 2 people are on opposite sides of a trolley? One person is stationary, and flashes a light as the trolley goes by. To the stationary person, the light reaches the 2 ppl at different times. But to the ppl on the train, they both receive the flashes at the same time. The light was registered by electronics, mind you. (cartoon ones, but it was supposed to be illustrating some theory... lawrence contraction or something)

    I never quite got how that is possible, even with contraction. Can anyone please explain, or refer me to a relevant website?
  14. May 30, 2004 #13
    same stuff over and over again.

    These arguments are balogny. We know nothing about time and the first argument says it all, the only things that we know about it is:
    1)Time is supposedly invented by us (but then perhaps it's only observable really, by sentient beings...how could something that has already existed before we were made be OUR invention?)
    2)The faster you go the slower that time is.
    3)You cannot exceed the speed of light (and anybody that says you can do that is not living in todays world and should really be in a star trek physics forum).
    4)If it were possible to travel in time, THERE WOULD BE time travellers all over the place. Because there are not that means either every sentient being is afraid of time travel to do it, or because it is impossible to begin with anyways.

    We MAY not go back into time.
    Time is the progression of a system.
    If you have two particles in your space, only two(to simplify this) and they are not moving they are just sitting there. If they move there is a need, a purpose for time. If they sit there, it doesn't matter 1 minute or 1 millenia it's the same anyways. If they arranged themselves into an organised, moving state, as everything in the universe does around you, those particles would experience time. Things that don't move age instantly, things that move age SLOWER. We experience time because we are moving through space, and every particle in us, this planet, and space, is interacting with each other. Even particles we have yet to detect. Screw strings they had over 30 years to explain time and the best that it can come up with is an extra dimension? What if there are no extra dimensions and they are all just fields?
    We have prove that fields of indetectable particles exist yet we go to the strings explanation because we should break with the current model and make physics more difficult for people to understand for most people. Why not if unified theory ever came out it would be a good idea otherwise the table top thermonuclear bomb might become a reality.

    Time is just what happens to make sure that all of the energy in the universe isn't interacting all at the same instant. Time is a buffer, because in reality the big bang was time exploding out, I don't think there was much room for motion in something insanely more dense than a black hole (and probably so massive that nothing would move out of synch with everything else....and if something did and broke the symmetry then wouldn't time be necessary?).
    If you can't mark one event from the other, then time is useless.

    Very simple. Energy (because only one of the most basic, smallest pieces of it wouldn't accomplish anything) plus Energy= Time.
    Even if you are flying through the vacuum of space you are coasting through an energy field of somesort. The very fabric of space is energy. Everything is energy, period, we just can't see things small enough.
  15. May 30, 2004 #14
    oh and why does time have to go backwards when you exceed the speed of light, couldn't it just slow down infinitely? Slower and slower and slower but not backwards...where's the proof that it runs backwards and not slower?
  16. May 30, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Time doesn't run at all. You run through it. Again, the reason you can't go backward is the same reason you can't have negative motion through space - to even postulate such a thing is meaningless. If you cryogenically freeze yourself, you still move through time at exactly the same pace, you just slow or even stop the chemical reactions that cause physical aging.
  17. May 30, 2004 #16

    Hey, Shadowman. :surprise:
    For the past 100 years, we have accomplished more impossible things than any other point in human history.
    In theory, I'd generally agree that time travel would be highly infeasible. But with believers, nothing is impossible.
    Or more accurately, With God nothing is impossible. While many refuse to believe in the unthought of, or hitherto unconsidered, and even the concept of God, that does not make it impossible. It only makes it not yet accomplished as we presently understand it.
    So, the next time you state 'impossible', look at the airplane, satellites, electricity, automobiles, computers, ad infinitum.
    All of these were previously impossible. They were only concepts, ideas in some "crazy" mind that all believed filled with delusions of granduer.
    While I'll admit that to believe a lie, regardless of by how many, it still can never be a truth, to equally believe a truth to be a lie, regardless of how many believe so, it is still a truth.
    When such a time occurs for humanity to comprehend the manipulation of time, we will do so. Until that point in time, we will continue to wonder.
    Remember, it was the religionists of the day who said the earth was flat. It didn't take too long to prove them wrong.
    While I wouldn't want to be the one changing human history, to be a visitor, meandering through time, yet not bound by time, would be incredibly intriguing. That alone deals with the consequences of changing our past.
  18. May 30, 2004 #17
    Time Travelers seen?

    Perhaps we have seen time travelers. UFOs are reported by many
    reliable persons every day. Might some of the lights,disks and black
    triangles be explorers from the past or future checking us out?
    It is the theme of many Sci-Fi novels and movies and perhaps it
    is not possible to time travel. Dr. Kaku has his doubts I think but
    the saying :"That's impossible" is proven wrong every day. Some
    smart men said it was impossible to drive faster than 30 miles an
    hour in the first automobiles,as the air would be moving too fast
    past your face to allow you to breathe. And they called Robert
    Goddard a "Moon Crazy man" when he experimented with his liquid
    fueled rockets in 1930. Many said man would NEVER travel to the
    MOON. :wink:
  19. May 31, 2004 #18
    I'd be a more careful timetraveller!

    But why do those IDIOTS use lights on their UFOs if they don't want to be seen? :rolleyes:
  20. May 31, 2004 #19
    ahhh and is there any proof that if something is frozen to absolute zero (not a pinch above but right when all motion ceases) that time doesn't change slightly? When you move through space time slows down for you, and the rest of space around you that moves at regular speed experiences their time, which is running faster than yours. Isn't that all caused by motion too?
    Well then since you know so much about time perhaps you have some sort of unified theory you would like to fill us all in that HAS BEEN proven and is widely accepted by the scientific community or is it that there is none, and what you are postulating is a guestimate because there's no proof that time is a dimension at all. None what-so-ever and anything that you can produce that has some sort of unproven presumption. I'm not saying that your view is any less valid but don't you think that perhaps temperature does have something to do with it? So then what do you propose is causing it? Motion through a field? And since that field is indetectable it's probable that even the motion of atoms counts as motion through that field. Either way it's inescapeable unless you go into this extra dimension thingy, but think of it this way. Call it a dimension, or a field, they both act essentially the same but principles are different.
    Has anybody proven that these dimensions exist and are not fields? Isn't that what first brought about the idea of dimensions? And perhaps they are simply objects which are smaller than what we can see with our electron microscopes and accelerators and such.
    There was an episode of star trek voyage in which kess developed great mental powers and could do things like make coffee hot, or whatever. But then she could see things even smaller, and they did this little cg animation of funky looking things but besides that, I never said that they had to be perfectly round (although I would expect symmetry to become more simplified at smaller and smaller scales) but also they are probably more or less loose collections of objects that simply bond to the things around it, kinda like temporal glue, it's why you cannot travel faster than light. Time exists everytime a bond is broken or established, which is happening all around you.
    Time doesn't have to be a particle, it doesn't have to be a higgs boson (and since they haven't been proven, perhaps when the LHC doesn't find them my ideas will be a little more accepted) . It certainly doesn't have to be a dimension but doesn't string theory also require the higgs boson, so then you are betting on a horse that hasn't placed or showed in spite of so many chances for it to do so, the odds can go either way.
    Do you have any proof of anything?
    Anything that proves that time is an effect and not an actual entity (field, etc).
  21. May 31, 2004 #20
    "The Vulcan science directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible." :rolleyes:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook