1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
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

  1. Sep 6, 2003 #1
    here's how you do it.

    suppose it's 2:08pm and you're in ione, california.

    place an ad in the front page of every newspaper in the world (this requires lots of money--for someone like bill gates) that says the following:

    time travelers: go to ione california (give address) at 2:15pm.

    then at 2:15pm, time travelers will show up at your door after someone uncovers your message in the distant future when we have the technology for time travel.

    that's it.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 8, 2003 #2
    Except for one minute detail. You'll have every news agency, nutjob, wacko, and psychopath show up. So even if time travellers did show up, you couldn't tell the difference between them and the real deal.
     
  4. Sep 9, 2003 #3
    observe carefully: 2:08 and then 2:15. that's not enough time for wackos to show up. also, a neutral site would be choosen and wouldn't you say that the media would probably ignore such an attempt at contact with time travellers. someone like art bell might be interested. basically, as soon as the orders are placed over the phone, that should send into motion the correct sequence of events neccessary to contact time travelers.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  5. Sep 9, 2003 #4
    I stand corrected. Of course it would be presumptuous to assume they would time travel back to meet you. Unless you were destined to make some huge discovery, i can't see them doing that. There are probably time laws or rules governing time travel, otherwise we'd have seen proof of time travel long before this.

    Of course that leads to the question, if we've never seen proof of time travel, will it ever even exist? And if it did, they wouldn't be to interact with us for fear of changing the timeline, so in fact we'll probably never know until it's invented(not likely in our lifetimes) It's a disappointing paradox.
     
  6. Sep 9, 2003 #5
  7. Sep 9, 2003 #6
    So WHAT IF this john titon guy is authentic? Skepticism is the first reaction, but he hasn't been proven a fake yet. And as he pointed out, even if he were the genuine article, who would believe him?
     
  8. Sep 9, 2003 #7
    i am currently undecided on the john titor issue. i believe it is PLAUSIBLE, at best, that he is a bona fide time traveler from 2036. the only thing that would convince me is to go for a ride with him; i'm currently trying to get in touch with him so that i can gain access to his machine so i can decide for myself...

    cheers,
    phoenix

    ps: if you could travel to any point in time, where would you go first?
     
  9. Sep 9, 2003 #8
    PLEASE, not this idea again. I'm trying to not use words such as "stupid" here because that's just rude, but the fact of the matter is that you are asuming that someone will come. WHY? There is no reason! Even if you have, say, a million dollars, that isn't even going to be worth anything to someone from the distant future. Also, you have to assume they are actually going to see the add. This is also highly unlikely. There are just way too many problems with this theory, the least of which being that time travel is very unlikely in the first place.
     
  10. Sep 9, 2003 #9
    Sunfist has a point

    though if you believe him, I supposed your first instinct is to try and validate that. And he did suggest sending messages to yourself, so I suppose sending him a message in the future would be plausible. But why would he contact you, or me for that matter? I suppose if we were important enough. If one of us is that "farmer general" he talked about, he might bother with it, but otherwise he would have nothing to gain by contacting some random person.
     
  11. Sep 10, 2003 #10
    "PLEASE, not this idea again. I'm trying to not use words such as "stupid" here because that's just rude, but the fact of the matter is that you are asuming that someone will come. WHY? There is no reason! Even if you have, say, a million dollars, that isn't even going to be worth anything to someone from the distant future. Also, you have to assume they are actually going to see the add. This is also highly unlikely. There are just way too many problems with this theory, the least of which being that time travel is very unlikely in the first place."

    no one is forcing you to read this.

    i'm not at all assuming anyone will come. not at all. in fact, all experiements i've tried (on a limited budget) have lead to no results; this indicates to me that it is unlikely that the idea will work. in addition to taking an add out in every newspaper, ON THE FRONT PAGE, you can also deposit the message in ten trillion self replicating time capsules and scatter them all over the solar system. eventually, theory has it, an archeologist will stumble across the message at apoint in time when the technology for time travel exists. then, after a thousand more years, a time traveler may decide one day to go ahead and visit the first one to come up with this idea, which is yours truly, and show him a thing or two. this i would be very curious about.

    it wouldn't be about offering them monetary rewards for coming back. it would be about history.

    you say time travel is unlikely in the first place, and while i agree, let me point out that they once said that breaking the sound barrier was impossible, UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, and now it's done on a daily basis. while science fiction is still just fiction, it can sometimes give us new directions and goals to acheive in science.

    of course, no one like cosmic catalyst is willing to forward such ideas to kaku so as, presumably, not to "waste his time." but i wonder what someone like him would say about my time travel idea. of course, he's set it up so that it's not easy to ask him questions. i suppose i could always try to call his radio show but i don't even know where to start on that quest. it's not his approval i'm after; i'm just curious what OTHERS think about such ideas. if he has an actual criticism, i'd like to hear it for no one else has raised a real point yet that makes it seem like my idea WON'T work 100% without a doubt. i realize it is unlikely, but i find it difficult to see a PROOF that it WONT work. and it's not because i desire to meet time travelers. i'm quite content with a society without time travelling tourists from the future; i'm not convinced they wouldn't screw things up from my perspective. they're just more people to meet and interact with.

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  12. Sep 10, 2003 #11
    "Sunfist has a point

    though if you believe him, I supposed your first instinct is to try and validate that. And he did suggest sending messages to yourself, so I suppose sending him a message in the future would be plausible. But why would he contact you, or me for that matter? I suppose if we were important enough. If one of us is that "farmer general" he talked about, he might bother with it, but otherwise he would have nothing to gain by contacting some random person."

    that is an interesting question i haven't spend much time considering: why would they want to meet me? what does little young me have to offer a person from the future? nothing that i can see. so i can easily see why this idea hasn't worked yet; i prove to be an insignigicant person in the future and a waste of time. another judgement from society, the future society.

    these ideas were on mkaku.org but they felt a need to delete all messages. how can i make any progress when all my messages get deleted?? i know i can't do this alone with the amount of money i have. i'm hoping PF will be a more permanent home to my idea and that just maybe someone in the future will notice. i purposely haven't disclosed my address, yet, at least, for fear of the wrong kind of contact. so i'm not sure where to go next in my "research" of time travel.

    if you can come up with a better time travel idea that uses what technology we currently have, i'm all ears.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  13. Sep 10, 2003 #12
    Before we go any further, I feel you should read this link. I'm no physics expert, so I couldn't even begin to refute or confirm some of the things this Titon guy brings up in his story. I do know that it gained enough following that people like hawking were contacted. Most probably laughed it off, but one did reply, and here's his take on things- curious that he even uses Kaku as a possible source for this very intricate story. But read on.

    http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000482 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Sep 10, 2003 #13
    How about this one :

    suppose it's 2:08pm and you're in ione, california.

    place an ad in the front page of every newspaper in the world (this requires lots of money--for someone like bill gates) that says the following:

    time travelers: go to ione california (give address) at 2:07pm and kill me at once.

    then at 2:07pm, time travelers will show up at your door after someone uncovers your message in the distant future when we have the technology for time travel and kill you.

    you would not be there to give the ad. at 2:08pm. time travellers could not read that then. they could not kill then. loop. casuality paradox.

    that's it.
    :wink:
     
  15. Sep 10, 2003 #14
    Could not understand the issue....
     
  16. Sep 10, 2003 #15
    The paper below may have some interesting implications regarding the prospects of time travel. The probability of finding evidence for the existance of a time travel event may infact be proportional to the probability that a sum of a set of progressing events will lead up to a time travel accurance. Thus, if a particular event triggers a series of accurances that ultimately lead up to a time travel event, then that particular accurance is in some way proportional to the sum of events that it triggered leading up to the time travel event. This would be analogous to the infinite variety of complex spirals composing the mandelbrot set is still proportional to the initial condition defined by the equation (z^2+c), where z is a real number, and c is a complex number. So if a set of events leading up to a given occurence are proportional, then that means they are all defined by a single expression, like the expression defining the mandelbrot set. If the expression defining the outcome of a series of events does not change, then the probability that those events are going to occur is 100%. On the other hand, if the expression defining a set of events changes gradually over a period of time, then the outcome of those series of events will also change gradually over a period of time. Therefore, in the case where an expression defining the outcome of a series of events, or rather what form that a series of events will assume, the probability that the original set of events, which are defined by the initial expression, will occur is 0%. Therefore whether or not a series of events will unfold is strictly a matter of whether the expression defining those events is variant or invariant.

    Regards,

    Edwin


    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/anomalous-dispersion.html

    Anomalous Dispersion, not Faster than Light
    In the 20 July 2000 issue of Nature, Wang, Kuzmich & Dogariu talk about faster than light transmission. However, this is really just anomalous dispersion, as the authors readily admit. A pulse of light can be decomposed into a sum of sine waves with different wavelengths, as shown below.




    The black curve shows the sum of the red, green and blue sine waves. When all of the waves are delayed, but the longer wavelengths [red] are delayed more and the shorter wavelengths [blue] are delayed less, then the overall pulse appears to be advanced in time!



    This is how the pulse in the Wang et al. (Nature, 20 Jul 2000) experiment was advanced by 62 nanoseconds while passing through a gas cell only 6 cm long. Even if the speed of transmission was infinite, that could only shave 0.2 ns off the time. The actual advance was much larger, representing time travel into the past, not faster than light travel. But it was really only anomalous dispersion. Normal dispersion in glass delays the blue light more than the red light, while in anomalous dispersion the red light is delayed more than the blue. As shown above, this causes the pulse peak to shift earlier in time.

    Tutorial: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
    FAQ | Age | Distances | Bibliography | Relativity

    © 2000 Edward L. Wright. Last modified 20-Jul-2000
     
  17. Sep 10, 2003 #16
    thanks for the input. is it possible that the idea i have has started a sequence of events leading to a time travel occurance, however unlikely?

    now about the question of time travelers killing me before the ad gets placed, resulting in an apparent paradox. i'm considering it possible that the universe splits into two intitially parallel universes when "paradox" events occur. in one universe, it went one way, while in another universe, it went another way. so, in roughly half of the universes, i never placed the ad and in roughly half of the universes i did place the ad.

    i have yet to read ample evidence debunking the multiverse theory; i belive it is the answer to time travel paradoxes, or, at least, it has the potential to resolve time travel paradoxes.

    to put it rather simply, let me draw the following anaology. shakespeare called the world a stage, with players who make their entrances and exists. and, if the universe were a stage, you can certainly go back in time and kill your grandfather without the stage collapsing. such things happen on star trek all the time...

    do you think the eastern approach is correct, that reality is an illusion, which would lend evidence towards the universe being a stage? if not, what is your evidence that reality is not an illusion? should i trust what my sense tell me? they tell me strange things, btw. descartes taught us that the senses decieve us; do you think he was on to something or not?

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  18. Sep 10, 2003 #17
    sunfist,

    why are you still here?

    i called you a liar once (though i don't remember why) and you said you're reluctant to call my time travel idea "stupid", but that's exactly what you do when you even hint that it is stupid or that someoen might call it stupid.

    tit for tat, is that the way it goes?

    "cheers,"
    phoenix
     
  19. Sep 10, 2003 #18
    Here is another time travel soap opera.

    Buy a huge amount of stock in a company you think will do really well. Then immediatly jump into your spacecraft and travel around the world high up in space at high speed for many months. Time will slow down for you. Have ground radio you every day as to how the stock is doing. When the stock peaks on Earth in August you land. Because time has slowed down for you, your digital watch shows that it's May. So you are able to buy a huge amount of stock for cheap prices, wait for 3 months and sell it just before it peaks. You become a billionaire.

    Now when you are in space is your time what your watch says, what the radio broadcasts say, or what Earth people say when you get back. Your time arrow has nothing to do with the time arrow on earth. Your time arrrow doesn't control the time arrow on earth. Sorry guys, when you land it is Earth's time that controls the events. These types of time differences are common in many present relative situations but it doesn't result in people being able to go back or forward in the future.

    Comments appreciated though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2003
  20. Sep 10, 2003 #19
    Our existence: To be-- or not to be--an illusion, that is the question. Ha, ha.

    It is a very good question, indeed. When one observes the universe as an illusion, what exact property of our universe does one, infact, percieve that leads one to conclude that our universe is an illusion? After all, it is a specific perception of some specific property that one sees in many different categories of existance. Does this not lead to the perception that this very property is intertwined deeply within the inner workings of existance as we know it? What line of logic does one use to come to the conclusion that the true nature of our universe is obscurred by the facade we percieve as the manifestation of everyday reality? Is it that our perception of everyday reality is filled with inconsistancies that we do not percieve? Consider for a moment the limitation of our 5 human senses. We can hear only so much, see only so much, and feel only so much. Yet there is so much out there at any given time that we do not hear, that we do not see, and that we do not feel. In fact, I believe that we aquire knowlege about less then 100% of all physical phenomenon that is taking place within sensory range, including our subconscious, and even less about what is taking place beyond the range of our senses. The lack of knowlege does not neccesarily inhibit the existance of that knowlege. So the conclusion of that which is happening around us will no doubt appear somewhat inconsistant to us, but would probably become quite clear to us if we had a way of retrieving the knowlege we missed.

    Now about that specific perception:

    Now when I question how real an event is, what I am really asking myself is how real the form that the particular event takes on is. In my perception, the more solid the form that the event takes is, the more real that event's form is. To me, the occurence of the event is infinitely real, but the form that the event takes is more or less real. A good physical example would be energy. Energy can take many forms, as either potential form, like mass, or kinetic form, like light. The existance of energy itself as an event is infinitely real, because it is capable of exerting an infinite resistance to being made unreal. Otherwise, stars like Red Giants would not be able to resist the potentially infinite crushing force of it's gravitational field. Note that there are two infinities working to create a counter-balance: The force of gravity trying to crush the Red Giant into a point making it 0 dimensional, and the other force, trying to explode the star. It is clear that the two infinities when measured over a long period of time turn out to not be the same infinities. Ultimately, it is the force of gravity that wins against the forces trying to resist being crushed. This would mean, to me, that the force of gravity is a higher infinity then the kinetic forces resisting compression. In other words, the form of the infinite force of gravity is more real, or solid, then the forms that compose the infinite forces trying to prevent the massive star from being crushed. What happens to the force of gravity after the mass is crushed to a point? Well, the mass assumes an indeterminate state, while gravity keeps on ticking. If the form of the mass ceases to change under the force of gravity, once the mass is crushed, then it would seem to me that the mass, and the gravity, assume a balanced, mixed, or unified state once the mass is crushed to a singularity. If the third possibility happens to be the correct assumption, and mass is as stable as it can be in that particular state, then one form of the grand unified equation would have to reduce to an equation defining a singularity of the most stable sort. To find this equation would be, perhaps, the first step in finding it's higher dimensional analogue, "The Grand Unified Field Equation" for the four fundamental forces in gravito-thermodynamic equalibrium.

    Maybe, those time travelers have the answer!

    Regards,

    Edwin
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2003
  21. Sep 10, 2003 #20
    I am here because I choose to be.

    I am not a liar.

    Your idea isn't "stupid" as much as it is simply not going to work. There are too many factors. I'm glad you are trying to come up with some way of proving time travel, but I'm afraid this isn't going to be it.

    If time travellers are not visiting people such as Lincoln, Washington, Einstein, etc, why would they want to come see me or you? That's even assuming they find your invitation. Let me put it this way: If tomorrow you received an invitation to someone's house several states over, would you go? You don't know this person, you have no way of contacting them, they just asked you to come see them. Now, you might actually go, but I am sure most people would not.

    There are simply too many factors. Keep thinking. You might come up with a new idea.
     
  22. Sep 11, 2003 #21
    This guy has been exposed as a fake:

    http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000462 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  23. Sep 11, 2003 #22
    edwin,

    would i be oversimplifying your answer if i suggested you basically said that the senses tell us what reality is?

    if so, then what about those whose perceptions tell them things no one else's perceptions tell them? how would they ever know what is real and what is an illusion? like dr. nash, for example, or someone with schizophrenia.

    on one side, some people believe that the senses are lying and that all is an illusion. this seems to be a buddhist type point of view. a westerner then asks the perfectly valid question such as was it an illusion when america dropped the bomb on japan? i'm reading "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenence" and phaedrus' philosophy teacher said, yes, that was also an illusion. there is no differnece between a hallucination and a non hallucination.

    i have a different point of view.

    i believe what our senses tell us (INCLUDING our sixth sense) is NOT an illusion. however, i believe the picture our senses give us is incomplete. i looked at a coffee cup with the icon of a coffee cup on it once and i then could articulate what my impression is. and my impression is this: the computer screen i'm looking at is just an icon for what is really there. what is really there? well, i think that the screen has a counterpart in another world, the world of abstract thought. this is the domain of the other part of reality. the icons are very real but so are the underlying concepts the icons are representing. either way, even if we are in an illusion like the matrix then we can still see that this illusion has rules and that we should obey the rules or else we're going to an either mental or physical prison.

    sorry if it sounds like i'm rambling...

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2003
  24. Sep 11, 2003 #23
    sunfist,

    i doubt you are a liar on purpose. very much so in fact. so i'd like to officially retract what i said about you.

    heck, i'm a liar too whenever i put forward a wrong idea. in a sense. but i'm trying to not lie.

    i know i'm grasping at straws here, but i think that i have the potential of waiting for the entire future of the universe within the span of five minutes. i put in a request for time travelers for five minutes from now, too soon for a faker to reach me. then it may take ten thousand years for one traveller to be willing, but to me, no time passed at all.

    why would they come and meet someone like me or you and not einstein or lincoln? good question.

    here's a pet theory i'm working on. time travelers can see anonymously through the eyes of someoene in the past. all they have to do to meet einstein is see through the eyes of his wife or through the eyes of others around him and through his own eyes. but what a pointless idea due to the impossibility of ever having evidence either way on whether this is the way things work.

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  25. Sep 11, 2003 #24
    The idea of our six senses not picking up on everything, I think, is correct. I mean, just look outside at some object that is not transparent, such as a mountain. You can clearly see the mountain, but what about the little concealed canyon half way up the mountain? It is obscured from your sight by the geometry of the mountain. The information about the existence of that canyon is clearly missing from your five senses due to the unique perspective at your location on the ground. However, say that your friend, Dr. Nash, is halfway up the mountain at a unique position, perhaps information about the existence of the little hidden canyon reaches his five senses, being that, he is located at a position that gives him the proper perspective to sense the canyon. However, from his position, he can not see the cliff on the opposite side of the mountain, but your position gives you the proper perspective to sense the cliff on the side of the mountain. So Dr. Nash has part of the information about the mountain of truth, and you have some of the information about the mountain of truth. The sum of the two truths is closer to the ultimate truth of the mountain.

    You can tackle this from another perspective: Your senses does not give you information about the entire mountains surface; however, it does give you quite a bit of information about the mountain. It may be possible in some cases to piece together the information in order to deduce a consistent, unchanging, pattern. Say you have 78% of the information about the one side of the mountain you are viewing. Suppose that when you piece together that data, you find a solid pattern that defines all 78% of the information that you have collected via your senses. Then you may formulate an equation to define the data you have collected. In such a case, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the other 22% may be ascertained without the use of your senses by merely plugging in your equation to solve for the missing data.

    I like your idea about the symbolical nature of physics: that perhaps certain forces are merely icons from some underlying series of logic statements, say a series of cosmic 1's and 0's.

    Consider the following:

    You look into a painting of the leaning Tower of Pisa. What do you see? Well you see a three-dimensional landscape transcribed onto a two-dimensional surface. But it is not the three-dimensional leaning tower of pizza (I like domino's myself, ha, ha) that you see, but an image of the three-dimensional leaning Tower of Pisa and landscape that has been re-concocted in the mind of the artist. So, what you are actually seeing is the image of a landscape in the imagination of another person. This landscape is "imaginary," indeed. Now suppose for a moment that you have two friends: One is computer graphics artist that double majored in photographic chemistry, and the other is a professional photographer. Now over the summer, your friend, the photographer, goes on a vacation to Europe and stops by to take a photograph of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Meanwhile, your computer artist friend get's an itch, and decides to create a computer generated image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa that is so realistic, that when printed, not even a chemist examining the printed image at the molecular level could tell the difference between the printed computer image and an actual photograph of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. So your friend, the photographer, returns from his trip, and the three of you get together and compare the actual photograph with the printed computer generated image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and you find that, indeed, the two photographs are identical in every respect. Now let's say that you have a fourth friend who is a philosopher, and a Mathematical Physicist, and he creates a special type of mathematics to define three-dimensional images that are transcribed onto two-dimensional surfaces. So at a party, your fourth friend takes one of the photographs and, just for the fun of it, puts together a system of equations that define the distances in the photograph that not only describes the distance represented in the photograph, but even accounts for the two-dimensionality of the photograph itself. Now you look at the photograph, and equations with amazement, but then realize that you don't remember whether the photograph you brought to the party is the photograph that your friend, the photographer took, or whether it is the printed computer generated image created from the imagination of your friend, the computer artist.
    So, you ask your friend, the philosopher, whether the system of equations he created defines the two-dimensional image of the real Leaning Tower of Pisa, or whether his system of equations describe the two-dimensional image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the imagination of your friend, the computer artist. Your friend the philosopher replies, "I can not tell whether my equations describe the actual Leaning Tower of Pisa, or the one in your friend's, the computer artist, imagination; because, the photograph, and the printed
    computer generated photograph are identical." and "My system of equations produces the same numbers for both images." "Based on this, the geometry describing the two-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional place your friend imagined, and the geometry describing the two-dimensional representation of that identical real three-dimensional place can not be distinguished." your friend, the philosopher, concludes.

    What do you think? Is it possible that the two-dimensional representation of reality is numerically equivalent to the two-dimensional representation of a persons imagination?

    Inquisitively,

    Edwin
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2003
  26. Sep 11, 2003 #25
    Pheonix,
    Lying is defined as trying to intentional decieve (usually using and untruth). You cannot lie without knowing it. You may put forward incorrect/untrue information, but without the intent to decieve, it is not lying.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook