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: No spaceships, no wormholes

  1. May 20, 2004 #1
    Just a thought.

    Space-time consists of three special dimensions (x,y,z) and one temporal dimension (time). These four dimensions are warped within another special dimension (hyperspace) which is perpendicular to the three perpendicular x,y,z dimensions. The warping occurs around anything with mass, the higher the mass the more the warping. Time is bound to the three dimensional space-time.

    Hopefully this is kosher with relativity, if not I am just an idiot.

    Walking on the ground in a straight line is a one-dimensional motion. If a post is in your way, you stop. If you evolve to “see” two dimensions, you may now step to the side and pass the post. And in effect disappear as seen by everyone else. If you now come to a wall (here is where time comes into play) you may walk around the wall with everyone else, but if you evolve to “see” three dimensions, you may now jump over the wall and save the time it takes everyone else to walk around. Being the only one who can jump, you move faster than time. By that I mean, time has to flow around the wall as nothing is able to jump over it. To everyone else you can disappear by jumping and reach far away places by jumping. All you had to do was evolve to “see” in three dimensions.

    Now since we can all step around and jump, so can time. So we must do what time cannot. Step or jump “upsilon” (not my term, I forget where I heard this) around or over the obstacles that time cannot pass. These obstacles are the warps in space-time. If we go through a massive obstacle we will move faster than time, which has to move around the obstacle. Lets say John is walking past a building, and I am next to him. If the sidewalk is exactly straight (to him) he will walk exactly straight. But he is actually walking some portion of the “diameter?” of a hyper-sphere that goes around the building. (Very little warpage, I know, but warpage nonetheless) Now if I am capable of moving in a direction that combines x,y,z and hyperspace, I can walk a straighter line than John. I will move through the four dimensional void left by the warp and arrive at our destination before John. He will see me disappear and then reappear further along than himself.

    In order for this to work we must evolve to “see” how to move in a direction other than x,y,z. I think that upon the instant that someone truly visualizes four dimensions they will have the ability to move freely through them.

    I love to think about crazy things like this. Not only time travel but think about a hyper-surgery. No knives. Just a reach in the right direction… and here is your kidney.


    This maybe an Acidic thought and maybe that is the key.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2004 #2
    Did you see the star trek where they were warped in time with a bunch of particles, and until they destroyed them time was messed up?
     
  4. May 25, 2004 #3
    What you say does conform with relativity, but t is not necessary, the four dimensional manifold can be embedded with a higher dimensional space (greater than four for the four dimensional manifold) mathematically, but it does not have to be, the mathematics does not require an embedding, it simply allows it. As a result the theory itself cannot tell us if there is a higher dimensional space whtat spacetim is embedded in, and anything about the nature of the extra spatial dimensions is beyond the theory's ability to address.


    The rest of your post though seems to based on the physical existence of the embedding which as i said is not actually required by relativity (mathematically speaking).
     
  5. May 26, 2004 #4
    Isn't GR based on this "embedding"? I may be wrong.

    If it is I have another question.
    If we could "step" out of x,y,z, and we found a place with a great amount of gravitational waves (maybe that would be everywhere equaly on Earth, or at the poles or whatever) and we let ourselves pass through them. What would happen? I am kind of tired and can't think, but I assume it would be awesome.
     
  6. May 26, 2004 #5
    I think you're right. I'll try reading this post again this weekend and maybe it will make more sense. :wink:
     
  7. May 26, 2004 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're basically just asserting that space and time dimensions are equivalent, and thus moving through time should be as easy as moving through space. In one sense, that's correct -- you're always moving through time rather effortlessly. As it happens, you can describe the trajectory of a particle in space-time as always going the speed of light in some direction through space-time. When you're "at rest" in space, your entire velocity is in the time direction and you experience the most time passing; when you're moving quickly through space, less of your total velocity is directed in the time direction, and you experience less time passing.

    However, there does not seem to be any way to circumvent this and simply "jump" from one time to another, and never any way to go backwards in time. In fact, such possibilities would undermine all currently understood physics all the way down to the postulate that energy is conserved.

    - Warren
     
  8. May 26, 2004 #7

    turin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    This is almost the opposite of the truth. GR is based on 4-D being non-Minkowskian (kind of like non-Euclidean) rather than a "rubbery" 4-D "surface" in a higher dimensional space. It is almost essential to GR that no embedding space is necessary. Perhaps this string theory or LQG says that space-time is actually embedded in 10-D or something, but this is not a feature of GR.
     
  9. May 28, 2004 #8
    chroot,
    I am not syaing that we move through time. I am saying that time moves along independant from anything that we do. Its only rules are to move forward and stay within its boundries. If we step out of time's boundries, it will continue to move forward. Personal time, such as aging and atomic decay ext., will still continue on our time scale.
    Above I did not mean to describe time as a thing. Time is a measurement. Or not, whatever you think. I just mean that we can "outrun" time by taking a shortcut. Think of two cars side by side, speeding at 80mph in a straight line. There is a bend in road to the left followed by another to the right. One car (as well as every car ever to drive on this road)follows the contour of the road and measures 10 minutes to arrive at whatever destination. The other car cuts out the bends and reaches the same destination in 2 minutes. NONE OF THESE NUMBERS MATTER (I hope)
     
  10. May 30, 2004 #9
    Nice job. That's very good cake.
     
  11. Jun 2, 2004 #10
    kokain, i must ask you to look for my own theory, if you have not already done so. what it says is that time travel is acsessable with the mind. i belive you would find it interesting. you will have to look up two theories to understand it completely thoguh. look up- by christian_dude_27: time travel with the mind?-by ****ashi: jellotivity. these are extremely interesting theories, not to be bragging, but they are very good.
     
  12. Jun 4, 2004 #11
    Christian Dude,
    Our theories are similar. Both deal with a higher level of thought. Have you ever dropped? You sound like you have as you talk of spirits and OBE's. Unfortunatly, OBE's have no place in my theory(I wish they did). I will have to read jellotivity's post.
     
  13. Jun 5, 2004 #12
    well, jellotivity does not talk of OBR's and spirits, only my theory does. his tells of another way, actually a better way, of how spacetime really acts and how the universe creates matter and how just about everything works in reality. my theory uses that plus it uses the idea of the power of our own mind and spirits to do things that are unimaginable to just ordinary people. one thing that i have usually always been good at doing is puting the puzzle together. i don't leave things out, unless of course i haven't ever heard of it. many people just throw me out with the trash because of this. i am quite a strong christian, but i belive science is with everything, including my religion. so i mix the two together. christians today really have no hope. for centuries they have been given a bad name, and have been trampled over time and time again. i'm just trying to show the world, we are all of one people, christianity has its bad times, just as everyone else does. no one person place or thing is perfect. but one clue that christianity is true, no other religion but christianity does not have their prophet's body still in the grave. this does not mean that he wasn't real, because they have records of him appearing to hundreds of people AFTER he was dead. but anyways, off of religion, back to science. your theory, it is quite interesting. i'm gonna have to read over it again, because the first time i read it, i only skimmed through it, and i want to get a god understanding of this. to get the entire theory of jellotivity, you will have to go to google and type "jellotivity". there, you should get both part one and part two of jellotivity. read them, and enjoy them, because the man who wrote them is extremely intelligent. one of the most intelligent men i know.
     
  14. Jun 8, 2004 #13

    All manifolds can be described as embedded in a higher dimensional euclidean space. It is not necessary though, as for GR, but it is still premissible in GR, there is nothing that forbids it.
     
  15. Jun 9, 2004 #14
    I may be misunderstanding "embedded". I am talking about space-time curvature. If it curves, then there must be something (in a higher dimension) where space-time is not. Well I suppose there doesn't have to be.
     
  16. Jun 21, 2004 #15
    I think that..............

    Can I say that 'Seeing 3-D' is different to 'Seeing 4-D' mainly because time is a factor created by humans. Before we invented the clock it did not exist, in a manor of speaking. So you must never see time as a measurement when talking about physics, I don't mean a unit like m/s but when talking about its affect on events. It must be seen more as a way of linking two different objects relative to each other. If on object moves in 'Time' and the other moves in 'Time' then they are both moving relative to each other and the effect that each has on each other increases, as no event is independent. (This whole section might have made no sense so I apologise now).

    So now we can look at time travel without the time part. A simple travelling to a different place faster than everyone else. I can see where the idea of it comes from but visualising is different to seeing. If I see a cake then I see it. I see if it has currents in or has iceing on the top. If I visualise a cake then I can only think if what it should look like. This is different to 'seeing' in the fourth dimension. Although I have spent many a lesson thinking of two objects linked by 'time strings' (as I call them) and how they affect each other I cannot see it as being possible to 'skip time' as we know that travelling at the speed of light near a black holes does do this, but obviously it is not possible for mass to travel at the speed of light (E=mc²).

    Hope this helps because I got lost as well. :confused: :biggrin:

    I am new to these forums and only 15 so that is what I think and is what tried to put across to you boffins, which you are likely to discard.

    Hope I can become as intelligent as you all.

    The Bob (2004 ©)
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  17. Jun 24, 2004 #16
    Bob,
    You confused me a little, but I felt some of your meanings. My use of words may have been wrong. By "see" I mean to understand how to move in another direction. If we can only move our arm left and right, we need to understand the spacial relationship of "up/down" in order to make the movement. So we need to visualize the spacial relationship of a fourth spacial dimension with respect to xyz in order to move our arm in that direction. We must "see" the direction, understand where that direction is, then be able to move that way.
     
  18. Jun 24, 2004 #17
    I understand that and I feel you have an excellent point. I would never have thought of it :biggrin:
    However I have been thinking about this and talked to friends and there simplier questions made me think. Now (unless I am wrong (and tell me if I am)) unless we can make solid objects with no will (e.g. A building) see in this dimension as well I feel that we could only ever do this action in open spaces.

    Just a thought

    The Bob (2004 ©)
     
  19. Jun 30, 2004 #18
    Tb,

    I am not sure where you are going with this, but I am interested. Why would the building have to see in 4d? Keep in mind that the rocks, grass, dirt, the Earth in general creates warpage. So an open space is non-existant on Earth. But then again, I am not sure of anything. I make it up as I go. :smile:
     
  20. Jun 30, 2004 #19
    Kokain,

    I know where I am taking this but I think you need to explain to me what warpage is on an xyz and a time-space diagram (or simply what it is) because for me to formulate a reply I need to really undestand it (not have a small knowledge about it).

    The Bob (2004 ©)
     
  21. Jun 30, 2004 #20
    Space-time IS xyz and time. Time is not the fourth spacial dimension. Time is a temperal dimension. The fourth spacial dimension is an axis that is perpendicular to x, perpendicular to y, and perpendicular to z. If you try now, you will not be able to visualize this axis (no one can). Because this axis extends into the fourth spacial dimension, it can be perpendicular to xyz (which seems impossible). The warpage occures when an object with mass exists within space-time. Space-time with curve around the object, and other smaller objects will "fall" into this curving space-time (GRAVITY). Time is just flowing, as I "timetravel", I am not going back in time, I am just moving faster (via the short-cut) than time.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Time Travel: No spaceships, no wormholes
  1. Time travel (Replies: 3)

  2. Time travel (Replies: 3)

  3. Time Travel (Replies: 4)

  4. Time travel? (Replies: 3)

Loading...