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 possible? Maybe.

  1. Aug 20, 2004 #1
    My name is James Reinlie, I live in Central Florida. I'm 15 years old and I am very interested in Einsteins theory of Relativity.
    But I feel that he has a flaw in his formulas. He states that no object can travel the speed of light besides light energy itself. But, if a object were to travel at .95 the speed of light through space, and a projectile were to be launched from this object at .06 the speed of light. Thus, accelerating the object to travel at 1.01 the speed of light. Which would, I believe, give it the ability to jump over dimples in space time. Which I believe is a quantem leap? if I am wrong please tell me. I believe that space time has dimples. There has to be changes in time, Picture space time as a giant graph, or volleyball net if you trow a ball into it . At the point of impact the grid would flex in, space time is said to have areas like this. If you were to travel fast enough, then you could jump across these dimples in space time.
    [​IMG]
    Please let me know if my theory has been proved before, I am very curious
    and eager to know the answer.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 20, 2004 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hello,

    Welcome to physicsforums.com.

    While I do not want to scare you off, I must warn you that you are violating our site guidelines by posting your personal theories about dimples in time. Please refrain from posting this sort of speculation in the future.

    To answer your question about the 0.95c object expelling a 0.6c projectile: you are not adding velocities properly. Velocities do not add linearly in relativity like you're used to them adding.

    Please see this thread:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39886

    And this site:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

    - Warren
     
  4. Aug 20, 2004 #3
    I am sorry that I violated your forum policy. I did not understand. But can you please tell me why I cannot post this theory?


    EDIT: Nevermind I read the sticky.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2004
  5. Aug 20, 2004 #4
    From Wikipedia

     
  6. Aug 20, 2004 #5
    I am not a mad scientist or anything, It was just a theory on time. I'm not challanging anyone or anything. Thanks for the info on the "Quantem Leap".
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2004
  7. Aug 20, 2004 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's okay, A 15 year old -- you've caused no great harm. We just like to keep this forum about real science. :smile: Stick around, you'll probably learn a ton here.

    - Warren
     
  8. Aug 20, 2004 #7
    Well, what do you call real science?:) All real science was based on theories at one point. After all, I just might be right....Did'nt know you could'nt share your ideas. I feel like a scientist in the old days. Burned like a witch for contesting the general science. All fun though. I always felt that my intellectual level was higher then my fellow classmates. Just to let you know I scored 142 on the Mensa IQ test. I feel at home here already, I do intend to stick around and play sponge for a while.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2004
  9. Aug 20, 2004 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, for starters, dimples in time and things going faster than light are not, in current understanding, real science.

    - Warren
     
  10. Aug 21, 2004 #9
    A 15 year old, you say about Einstein being wrong but he can't be proven wrong properly until objects can travel faster than the speed of light, which we know is impossible because of Einstein's Law of Relativity. You are in a loop-hole here.

    Oh and you are not the only young mad scientist around. I am only 16 and I am into Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics. The trouble is I understand even less than you. :cry: Hehe :biggrin:

    Have fun here.

    Post around. :biggrin:

    The Bob (2004 ©)

    P.S. I am in the guidelines to say that, right Chroot??
     
  11. Aug 21, 2004 #10
    I never said he was wrong, just that he had a flaw in his formulas. Nobody is perfect. I'm glad to see that i'm not the only young one around here.
     
  12. Aug 21, 2004 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He doesn't have a flaw in his formulas.
    You've got a flaw in your thinking by assuming the Gallilean addition of velocities is valid in all cases. It is not. Period.
     
  13. Aug 21, 2004 #12

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor


    OUCH! That's an even worse statement that "A 15 year old" gave!

    You are the one who is in a loop hole. We don't "know" objects moving faster than light because of Einstein's theory (not "law") of relativity. We THINK that's true because there is plenty of experimental evidence for the theory but if someone COULD show such that would invalidate the theory.
    I, for one, happen to believe that nothing can travel faster than light but, like any theory, the theory of relativity is not perfect and it is possible that we will eventually learn that it is completely wrong. Of course, whatever is true would still have to include length and time contraction since those have been shown to be true experimentally.

    Before you assert that some thought experiment show that it can be violated, you better know exactly what the theory asserts (I'm now picking on "A 15 year old"): if You space ship is moving at 95% the speed of light relative to a specific frame of reference (that's an important part of the statement) and the space ship launches a "shuttle" at 95% the speed of light relative to the space ship then the speed of the shuttle relative to the specific frame of reference is (.95c+ .95c)/(1+ (.95c)(.95c)/c2)= (1.90c)/(1.9025)= 0.9986c, still less than the speed of light.
     
  14. Aug 21, 2004 #13

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    According to relativity, each observer in a seperate frame measures a different speed, time, position.... etc etc. That means that 20 km/h to you may be 19.999999km/h to the guy walking next to you, and 0 km/h for the guy in the car. It's all very confusing at first, it was for me. But the main thing that helped me understand was a simple picture. Look here:
    Excellent site which explains relativity
     
  15. Aug 21, 2004 #14
    Can I ask how please.

    Sorry. I was useing the theory to say that as far as we know there is nothing with matter that can travel at the speed of light. I was saying that tehre is a loop-hole because unless we find something, that was not created by humans, then we can do nothing but believe the theory is accurate. This is because if we add more energy (as fuel or force) then we must increase the mass as a byproduct. As the mass increases we must increase the amount of 'fuel' to increase the speed further, which in turn means more mass etc.....

    I apologise for not knowing enough to make a well stated statment. I just thought I would have a go.

    The Bob (2004 ©)
     
  16. Aug 21, 2004 #15

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What about this train of thought:

    Let's say you "theoritcally" can reach and exceed the speed of light with less than an infinite amount of energy. What happens when you hit light speed? Your time STOPS (or goes infinitely fast, depends on your idea of time). As such, if you were to reach the speed of light, it would be difficult/impossible to change your speed since acceleration requires time.

    Another point is that, technicly (TECHNICLY) you can exceed the speed of light. If you constantly accelerate for a few hundred years, then decelerate, you'll find that the time that passed for you compared to the distance you've travelled (as seen by your current frame) is much higher than c. The reason you never exceeded c is space was contracted when you were moving faster (relative to your current frame).
     
  17. Aug 21, 2004 #16
    The faster you travel, the less time goes by correct? This topic is becoming very interesting to hear your ideas and theories on time travel.

    Cheers.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2004 #17
    -You can find objetcs travelling faster than light in theories they are called tachyons their mass is imaginary and they can not go slower than light speed (the lower boudn for their speed is c).
     
  19. Aug 21, 2004 #18
    Wow the board sure did get a influx of new members here, always great to see new faces.

    But for some reason I can't shake the feeling of deja vu.
     
  20. Aug 21, 2004 #19
    New members with new ideas, you might say.
     
  21. Aug 21, 2004 #20
    Yea, I'm aware of tachyons.

    [tex]E= \pm mc^2[/tex]

    So, that is where they get tachyons from. Doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered theoretical. Although, neutrinos at one point were (still maybe) considered tachyons. I don't know though. Whatever floats your boat. :smile:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Time Travel possible? Maybe.
  1. Is time travel possible? (Replies: 46)

Loading...