Time Travel - Possibility and Speculation

[klaw]

as a person ages they become more helpless, more childlike
in a sense traveling back in time

we travel to the past in our memories and to the future in our dreams

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by neutroncount
He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.

Blunt and to the point.

I'm not aware of anybody translating his visions into an event before that event actually took place with any accuracy.

His visions are always interpretted after the event, but then I'm sure we could all do that if were vague enough with our predictions in the first place.

 

[underworld]

possibly philisophical

consider the following:

if you were able to "travel" backwards in "time" - would you really know it? in other words, not only is existence tightly coupled with your location in space, but also with your location in time (or "spacetime"). in fact, existence is very nearly defined by movement through spacetime by following the arrow of time.

but if you moved along time in the "other" direction, would your "consciousness" realize it? in other words, not only would the things external to you follow time in reverse, but you would as well. it's very difficult to imagine a scenario where your consciousness functions in reverse. and if it did, would you really be able to recognize it? the whole concept seems very strage and absurd, and certainly approaches a philosophical argument as much as a physical one.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Time travel and in other worlds travel a possible without a body as an observing point not involved in events. Such observations was made by John Lilly and many other researchers. Thus, wormhole is in our sub consciousness.

 

[AWolf]

One of the main elements that is raised to oppose Time Travel is that the Universe contains a fixed amount of energy and in traveling in time this would be disturbed, implying that it is not possible.

The Universe has a finite amount of energy. Energy conservation says that it can neither be created nor destroyed.

Conservation of energy deals with closed systems, all the energy must be accounted for.
If you add some energy from outside the closed system, this does contravene the conservation of energy.

What difference would it make to us if another Galaxy gained a insignificant amount of energy ?

Assuming for a moment that all the components of the Universe are independant, ie they are not governed by the Universe, but through their interactions with other components define what the Universe is.

This would mean that any energy removed from the Universe will not cause an imbalance, destabilising the Universe, but rather the Universe, as a whole system, will be uneffected. The component from which the energy was removed would have slightly different properties, but in the overall scheme of things, the effect will be a reduction in mass/gravitational field.
The effect will be so small as to be insignificant.

Time Travel would effectively be taking energy from one closed system and adding it to another.
As far as the same energy not occupying the same space, the additional energy is just that, additional. It has been removed from one system and added to another - not a problem.

As for Time Lines. The only effect on a system can be from the energy contained in the system. If you remove some energy, it can no longer have any effect on the system it came from.

If you could travel to the future, you would have to wind time forward, but from outside. Whatever the future looked like, you could have no impact in it from the time you started your journey. You effectively ceased to exist from that moment until the moment you finished your journey.

Travelling backwards though time, you would have to wind time back. Your presence in the past will effect the future.

Could you effect the future to the extent that you didn't exist ?
No.
Once you take yourself outside the system, you could travel whenever you wanted. Your energy is no longer governed by the system you originated from.

 

[ewoodlief]

Contemporary proponents of time travel make the erroneous assumption if B occurs after A then B is caused by A; or more specifically, time is caused by velocity/motion. I will elaborate: as the velocity of an object increases, time decreases to the point which when velocity becomes c time becomes zero. This observation has been experimentally proven and can therefore be regarded as true. But, when science enters the realm of unsubstantiated conjecture as proof, it becomes fatally flawed. People see patterns and so begin merely associating cause and effect. The advocates ask, “What if velocity is greater than c?” They answer, “Time must be negative!” It certainly fits into the speculative construct. But this notion fails to further analysis. Because of its length, I will skip over the rigorous proof and get right to the point.

Time is not caused directly by velocity alone. There is an intermediating variable, that is, the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities and this stronger gravitational field decreases time. It is in recognizing that velocity is limited by gravitational forces and that these forces hinder change from occurring in systems that one realizes that time is nothing more than an abstraction of observed change. So, if an object were to evade the effects of gravity, its velocity would no longer be limited to c (the speed of gravitational propagation.) Instead, one would find that time dilation suddenly “goes away”, or is at least dramatically reduced, when an object’s velocity is higher than c because the object is able to outrun its own propagating gravity. It turns out that for velocities greater than c, the rate of time experienced by that object is equaled to that felt by an object with zero relative motion to surrounding massive bodies. Obviously, this only holds true if the speed of gravitational propagation is, in fact, equaled to c. Unfortunately the validity of this claim toggles every year; thus, it should be considered, for now, a foundational assumption for this conclusion. Of course, how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown. And so, at present, the maximum speed limit of c is accepted.

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely. Because time is not a dimension through which one can travel, the illusion of backward motion could only be accomplished if one were to (1) pause the universe, (2) arrange all spatial materials and associated properties like location, direction of momentum, etc. that represents a snapshot of the desired time's universe, and (3) set everything in motion again. It sounds crazy because it is.

 

[AWolf]

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely.

I agree. Time is our perception of sequence and duration, and sequence is always incremental.
Within our Universe, there are certain rules that appear to be rigid and would make time travel, as you put it, very, very unlikely.

I proposed that What if you could step outside of the rules of our Universe/system.

how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown.

By stepping outside of our system, you would effectively avoid the effects of gravity and all other rules.
Everything that currently restricts us, such as limiting velocities to the speed of light, would no longer be the case.

the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities

If time is directly related to gravity, then if gravity didn't exist, or could be avoided, then time would not exist.

This is not time being zero, but time being null.
When you stepped back into the system, the time would not be relative to when you were outside, because it can't be relative to null.
So maybe, just maybe, from outside you could pick a point in time to return to...

 

[ewoodlief]

Backward time travel is virtually impossible even if one were to "step out" of the universe. That is because even if one is outside of the universe, changes still occur on the inside. By realizing that time is not a dimension, one can begin to see why a time line is merely an accumulated recording of events that can only be traveled by, as klaw put it, "our memories ... [and] our dreams."

Furthermore, "universe" is accepted to mean all matter and energy as a whole. So trying to step out of the universe is like trying to come up with a number that is not between the ranges of negative infinity to positive infinity. Simply stated, if you were go beyond what is considered the boundaries of the universe you would still be inside of it because its definition is ever changing to encompass all matter and energy no matter its shape or configuration.

However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.

 

[ewoodlief]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the fourth dimension that many people suffer from. Obviously, the three spatial dimensions are a result of matter and energy being in a certain place. But most people tend to think that just as one can travel the first three dimensions, they can also move about the fourth and this is incorrect. The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc. occupying that point. So the full blown model is really x,y,z,t'[x,y,z] but to keep it simple it is just referred to as x,y,z,t.

Basically, if you were to step outside of the effects of universal forces you could travel unaffected by surrounding matter and energy and not affect that matter or energy yourself. But when you step back in at the same or a different x,y,z, the new t of that point would just be a result of the natural processes that took place there for however long you were away. The two primary reasons for wanting to avoid universal forces during travel is to remove the maximum speed limit of c, to be able to travel from one point to another quickly, and to travel without experiencing time dilation.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.

That is what I mean.
To travel beyond the boundary of our Universe, if at all possible, would be quite a long journey.

You would have to step outside of the system while still being within the confines of the Universe.
It would not be enough merely to circumvent natural laws and forces. The laws and forces would have to be nullified.
Rather than get round them, they would have to be removed.

A close analogy would be something like a whirlpool.
If you jumped in a body of water, you would get wet. You would be subjected to the properties of the water.
If you now disturbed the water in such a way as to create a large whirlpool, you could now travel beneath what should be the surface of the water without getting wet.
A bit similar to a worm-hole, but without the worm - just the hole.

The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc.

In your model, the t dimension only ever has one active value : 1.
More accurately is should be zero, being that it is always the point of origin whenever the past or the future are referenced. This would imply, with time being zero, that there are only 3 dimensions.
Time is always now. You can change any of the other dimensional values, but not Time (within our universe/system).

Example. Bill and Ted travel in separate craft at different speeds. At any point during their journey you can measure their relative distance, even calculate their relative time dilation, but the point at which you make the measurement would be now for both Bill and Ted.
At the end of their journey, when the two met up again, the time would be now.

 

[ewoodlief]

The model for spacetime is not mine alone; it is the model generally accepted by contemporary physicists. In the model, t does not stand for time--unfortunately, that is what most people get confused about and where they go wrong--it stands for the rate of time (or change) observed in a system at the points x,y,z. Therefore it will not always be zero, and instead must always be greater than 0.

What you are referring to is that "now" equals zero on a time line where negative t is the past and positive t is the future and it is always now--this is correct, but it's not what I was clarifying.

 

[AWolf]

it stands for the rate of time (or change) observed in a system at the points x,y,z. Therefore it will not always be zero, and instead must always be greater than 0.

But doesn't that put time on par with velocity, or better acceleration ?

I never did like the 4 dimensional model. I think the idea of a universe that has 3+1 dimensions is far better.
Where there are 3 spatial dimensions and one virtual dimension. The virtual one being time, and in stating that it is virtual means that it doesn't really exist, but is there to cater for our human perceptual needs.

 

[ewoodlief]

It need not be only acceleration because gravitational propagation is finite, and so even when an object travels at constant velocity it is running into more of its own propagating gravity towards the direction of motion than in the direction away. It would seem that the rate of time (or change) experienced is a result of gravitational forces alone, but this is rather limited thinking. Perhaps there is another phenomenon that also hinders change in a system and if discovered would make our calculations that much more precise. It is kind of like the precision gained by adding in the effects of gravity to objects of relatively high velocities instead of relying on Newton's equations. A new, mitigating factor of time would make Einstein's equations even more precise. Of course, gravity could just be the first and final factor--time will tell.

The relation is time and gravity, not just time and velocity. This is because an object with velocity is experiencing an increase in gravitational forces (it's running into its own propagating gravity waves.) And, of course, another way for the rate of time in a system to change is for the system to be surrounded by a relatively strong gravitational field. Both methods for accelerating time are based on the force of gravity and its ability to more or less hinder change in a system.

Yes, I agree with you that time is only an abstraction, human or otherwise.

 

[AWolf]

Here's a link to my http://gamert.co.uk/Theory/GT-page-1.htm
It contains, amongst other things, a single explanation of why the rate of time changes with respect to gravity and velocity.

 

[ewoodlief]

It's about time someone explained it; keep up the good work.

 

[AWolf]

I assume from your reply that it makes sense.

The theory does remove the link between time and gravity, replacing it with a far simpler basis, that of the energy of a mass and how that energy interacts.

 

[klaw]

As I get older, time "seems" to speed up
A 3 month summer at age 12 after school let out "seemed"
to be a long time, but now 3 months seems like nothing.
HMMM? Any thoughts on this?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Exponential growth of time ?

Population growth is exponential.
Radioactive decay is inverse exponential.

Exponential growth appears in nature very often.