Understanding the Paradox of Backward Time Travel: Why We Can't Go Back

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Answer me this - if there were no change in the Universe, would there still be time?

All perception would cease, as perception is a process and no processes would occur.

Your question is backward. Answer me this - if there were no time, could there be any change?

You see, the time dimension can exist without change, there simply would be anything else in existence (except perhaps space). However, change cannot occur without having occurred within a certain period of time.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Your question is backward. Answer me this - if there were no time, could there be any change?

You see, the time dimension can exist without change, there simply would be anything else in existence (except perhaps space). However, change cannot occur without having occurred within a certain period of time.

If you cannot have time without change, then time is a function of change. Change causes time. You are trying to have the chicken and the egg at the same time - CHANGE.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
If you cannot have time without change, then time is a function of change. Change causes time. You are trying to have the chicken and the egg at the same time - CHANGE.

You're the one who said that you couldn't have time without change. Re-read my previous post, please - wherein I clearly stated that the inverse of that statement is true.

 

[chosenone]

well for animal to evolve from one celled organisms,some how the dna is altered though each generation.so what came first was a animal that the chicken evolved from.so in the animal before chickens the egg and the sperm mutated into the chicken.so the egg came first!just like us to neanderthal's evolved into us,so in the woman the egg and the sperm somehow mutated into a different species,and was born form them,sorta like clan of the cave bears.so the egg came first!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by chosenone
well for animal to evolve from one celled organisms,some how the dna is altered though each generation.so what came first was a animal that the chicken evolved from.so in the animal before chickens the egg and the sperm mutated into the chicken.so the egg came first!just like us to neanderthal's evolved into us,so in the woman the egg and the sperm somehow mutated into a different species,and was born form them,sorta like clan of the cave bears.so the egg came first!

Sound reasoning, chosenone.

I'd like to add that it takes a certain amount of time for this change to occur.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
You're the one who said that you couldn't have time without change. Re-read my previous post, please - wherein I clearly stated that the inverse of that statement is true.

Mea Culpa - I DID misread your quote.

But saying change cannot exist without time is like saying distance cannot exist without inches.

What does time do if it does not measure change?

 

[Alias]

We can't "go back" because the past does not exist within this universe.

What is the mechanism of time? Don't tell us what time is, tell us how time works.

 

[CJames]

Oh man what is going on in this thread? Stop trying to define time. It doesn't really have much of a definition, other then that which is measured by clocks. Hell, that's the definition Einstein used. Any other definition just end up using the word time in it or makes some mention of the past present and future or other literary contortions.

Instead, can we go to the past is more the subject we supposedly have here.

Do the past present and future exist, or just the present? That isn't provable, really, since all you can ever experience is the present. But it too, isn't really the point.

The point is, paradoxes pop up all over the place when you are allowed to travel to the past, many of which seem to violate other laws of physics. It may be possible, but my opinion is that it is a pipe dream. You can't visit the past.

 

[pelastration]

Time is what 'our' clocks measure.
Clocks are a convention between humans to have a reference system with which they can communicate about "the duration of certain temporal (mass and energy) structures and their decay".

Time is relative to the observers structure/level, thus time is determinated by his resonance frame.
Time is the observed progress and shift between matter and energy.

For a bird, a cell in my liver or Michio Kaku's carp their is another resonance field in which the progress/shift between matter and energy happens than in your human world.
So on every level there is a type of internal clock indicating in what velocity phase of matter/energy shift his/its local structure is (Jezus, I am sleepy, Whoow ... i need to phone mum, where is Kaku ... I want some food, ...). In all universal structures there are different types of time embedded, but only the resonant are observed (conscious related).

Travel in time would suppose that ALL billions of such shifts on all their levels would be reversed identically or preset correctly in advance.
Travel in the past would also implicate that each of such shifts of the past is stored somewhere and can be recupurated.

Good luck ;-) Hope to see you when I started his post.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by pelastration
Time is what 'our' clocks measure.
Clocks are a convention between humans to have a reference system with which they can communicate about "the duration of certain temporal (mass and energy) structures and their decay".

Time is relative to the observers structure/level, thus time is determinated by his resonance frame.
Time is the observed progress and shift between matter and energy.

For a bird, a cell in my liver or Michio Kaku's carp their is another resonance field in which the progress/shift between matter and energy happens than in your human world.
So on every level there is a type of internal clock indicating in what velocity phase of matter/energy shift his/its local structure is (Jezus, I am sleepy, Whoow ... i need to phone mum, where is Kaku ... I want some food, ...). In all universal structures there are different types of time embedded, but only the resonant are observed (conscious related).

Travel in time would suppose that ALL billions of such shifts on all their levels would be reversed identically or preset correctly in advance.
Travel in the past would also implicate that each of such shifts of the past is stored somewhere and can be recupurated.

Good luck ;-) Hope to see you when I started his post.

I think you are confusing time with metabolism. If your metabolism slows down, time SEEMS to speed up (a cesium atom SEEMS to pulse more quickly), if your metabolism speeds up, the reverse is true.

YOU are changing more quickly or slowly compared with the environment against you are measuring it.

 

[pelastration]

Thank you Lord ;-)

Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.

1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower

But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.

It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.

I don't see the confusion.

I think we said the same. ;-)

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by pelastration
Thank you Lord ;-)

Your metabolism has its own time appreciation.

1. slowing metabolism : surrounding matter/energy shifts seems to be faster
2. faster metabolism : surrounding shifts seems to be slower

But the surrounding shifts have still their own speed.

It means that the observers resonant system has changed, not the surrounding. Meaning his conscious interprets the surrounding differently than before.

I don't see the confusion.

I think we said the same. ;-)

Actually, I think where we differ is that time does not need to be observed - it is a measurement of rate of change within an element or between elements - whether one of the elements is conscious of it or not...I guess I tend to define it in a more remote context.

(Te absolvo)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
Mea Culpa - I DID misread your quote.

But saying change cannot exist without time is like saying distance cannot exist without inches.

What does time do if it does not measure change?

This is written perfectly backward, and your spatial analogy proves it. Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spatial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spatial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
Oh man what is going on in this thread? Stop trying to define time. It doesn't really have much of a definition, other then that which is measured by clocks. Hell, that's the definition Einstein used. Any other definition just end up using the word time in it or makes some mention of the past present and future or other literary contortions.

Instead, can we go to the past is more the subject we supposedly have here.

Do the past present and future exist, or just the present? That isn't provable, really, since all you can ever experience is the present. But it too, isn't really the point.

The point is, paradoxes pop up all over the place when you are allowed to travel to the past, many of which seem to violate other laws of physics. It may be possible, but my opinion is that it is a pipe dream. You can't visit the past.

You are correct that time is what our clocks measure (btw, Einstein also said that space is "what we measure with measuring rods", that doesn't change the fact that he used it as a dimension), and not the other way around - namely, that time is just the measure of rates of orbit, or of movement of hands on a clock.

 

[Dave_3of5]

Hey my first post here.

Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.

Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.

I know this sounds a bit weird saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What I am saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.

To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.

What we measure as time isn't really time its another component of space -Relativity-.

Its better if I do this visually:


A ---------------------------------> B


To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.

So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.

Its hard to explain but mentats I am agreeing with you, you can't travel back in time, basically cause you can't travel back in space.

Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is written perfectly backward, and your spatial analogy proves it. Change is like "inches". Inches measure the spatial dimensions, while rate of change measures the time dimension. The reasoning of your last question, when applied to the spatial analogy, would read: "What does space do, if it doesn't measure inches?".

False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
False analogy -
Space is not the same as distance - distance is a measurement, space is an existence. Try again.

Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change. Now, do you see why I've been debating against you? If time is a dimension, then it cannot also be a measurement - as you already know to be true of space.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dave_3of5
Hey my first post here.

Ive not read all this post so ill just post my view.

Time has no direction. i.e. past is not really past.

I know this sounds a bit weird saying past is notr really past is a contradiction. What I am saying is there is no futre or past only present this would eliminate all the questions that arise about paradox.

To travel back in time IS impossible -imo- as time has no direction in fact atm its not even going forward.

What we measure as time isn't really time its another component of space -Relativity-.

Its better if I do this visually:


A ---------------------------------> B


To get from point a to b you have to move period which means what we call distance AND what we call time.

So to do the opposite is impossible because A is know a different point in space time that what moving from a to b was.

Its hard to explain but mentats I am agreeing with you, you can't travel back in time, basically cause you can't travel back in space.

Edit: Read the post about metabolism and i have a question:
So can i reverse my metabolism?

A hearty W[/color]E[/color]L[/color]C[/color]O[/color]M[/color]E[/color]!, Dave_3of5.

Yes, your point has great merit. Alias has been trying to make a similar point, and I entirely agree with the idea that there is no past or future. My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Mentat
...
My reasoning has always been that, in order for something to exist (as in, "exist at the present moment"), it must be in the present, not the past or future. The future hasn't come into existence yet, and the past no longer exists.

Mentat
You are right here.
The Universe exists in realities in current of the quantum of time which it is possible to consider as " present time". This is advantageously with an energy standpoint. The unceasing processes, what they seem us, has require the unmeasuredly greater energy. The Nature can not be such profligate.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Hereinafter content of a proposition. The People have long ago understood that a pulsed Action more effectively than unceasing one. The advantages of digital technology before analog were realized recently. If the Nature does saves Energy that why must be squander on other essences which is realized by people? I keep in mind Space and Time. Probably the Nature can not allow billions of light years to Space and just the same (!) number of the years of Time of existence. Such a System just has not controllability. The Nature has found such decision:
" And God had created a light. And God has seen a light that he is good.." This papers had been writed the thousands of years ago, but nobody has not understood their sense hitherto, regrettably.
Hereinafter, in accordance with text of the papers, God had created all objects of universe. What kind of the material was used it is possible to guess.
Exactly the Light solves all problems.
Our life in Universe this is a Light Show, has realized on the most high digital technology. It obeys to a single law. This is a Law of the conservation of Time. He causes a set of a powers and phenomenas for compensation and counteraction in an effort of any deviation. Including not known to people yet. By the way, a digital technologies this is the Information technologies. With all characteristics and possibilities of Information . I think we know far from all.
Considering said above, I'll not become to do a hard conclusions about possibilityes of information technology. While, may be.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly! Space is not the same as distance, just as time is not the same as change.

The analogy is valid.

Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
The analogy is valid.

Distance is a MEASUREMENT of space.
Time is a MEASUREMENT of change.

If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you really think this, then why do we call it "spacetime"? Why don't we call it "spacechange"? Space is a set of dimensions, and can thus be measured. Time is supposed to be a dimension also (hence they couple it with "space" in "spacetime"). However, if you think that it is really change that is the dimension, being measured, then why isn't it called "spacechange"?

I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Messiah
I don't call it spacetime. Space exists in spatial dimensions. The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship. I you want to coin some other use for the word 'dimension', a qualifying modifier would be appropriate...or you could call it something different like - 'volumechange'.

I didn't coin the word, "spacetime". It was coined by the physicists who realized that time was also a dimension.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Messiah
The word dimension denotes or infers a spatial relationship.

The word dimension describes a state of existence. Dimensions are not merely spatial measurements, because those are relative. Dimensions are almost entirely unrelated to all other ways of describing an object. For example, when describing the pen on my desk, I could say that it is about 7" in length. I could be mistaken, however, due to the effects of the doppler effect and relativity as the Earth is moving constantly. For example, a man driving past my house at 50% the speed of light would see the pen as much longer because his vision of it would be skewed. Dimensions are not the same way. I can conclude with absolute certainty that my pen has three dimensions (although they may be immeasurable, it does have a length, width, and height). Any observer in the same dimension as I would agree.

Thus, dimensions cannot be compared to other measurements, for other spatial measurements are a consequence of dimensional properties.

 

[Royce]

Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimensional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Time is a dimension just as east-west or up-down is a dimension. It is, it exists with or without us or if we measure it. We exist in space and in time which is redundant. If we exist in space we exist in time. - If we exist in time we exist in space.
If I go East does North, South and West cease to exist? If I go East does that mean that the only possible direction of motion is East? I don't think so; but to my perception since I can only see NOW and see EAST then to me and relative to me they no longer exist in my perception. I can smoothly change my direction and go West or North without having to change the motion of the universe. Simply because I, with my 3 dimensional brain cannot concieve of, nor adaquately discribe with words, the possiblity of moving but one direction in a smooth fashion along the time dimention doesn't make any other movement impossible. I am free to move in any direction along all of the other dimentions. What make this "Time" forth dimention different than all 3 of the others in spacetime?

My new good buddy!

It seems obvious to us, Royce, but others don't see it that way, for some reason.

 

[wimms]

No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.

To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.

When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by wimms
No, Time is not just a dimension. Its what enables such concepts as "exist" or "move" in the first place. If I stopped timeflow in your timeframe now, and did let it continue in about 48 hours, you wouldn't feel or even notice anything. So, you see, time is very subjective thing. There exists no time if you are not around counting it. And there is no way you could go back, as its not you who's time you have to turn back, but mine.

To move, needs time. If it doesn't take time, then you must be at 2 places at once, or more correctly, there is no space between these two places. Spatial dimensions don't make sense without time, you couldn't move, you couldn't exist.

When you move East, you cease to exist at point you were before. While you exist into the future, past ceases to exist.

... you still haven't told us why time is "not just a dimension". And some of your arguments aren't 100% true. For example, your second paragraphs forgets the uncertainty principle. Photons travel at the speed of light, therefore do not expend time while moving. Because of the uncertainty principle, photons can be detected in two places at once! But that does not mean that there is no space between them.

All in all, time is just a dimension. The only thing special about it is that it is only linear (1-dimensional), whereas space is (3-dimensional). This fact alone is the best explanation for a lot of your arguments.

 

[dr-dock]

construction of time(time backward travel is possible)

say one system is regulated with F=PS
F=force
P=presure
S=surface
the three (F,P,S) is legal event if it respects the law
say you start from (F1,P1,S1) and endup in (F2,P2,S2)
the vector (dF,dP,dS)
in (F1,P1,S1) is (P1*dS+S1*dP,dP,dS)
and
in (F2,P2,S2) is (-P2*dS-S2*dP,-dP,-dS)
if you want the shortest distance from event1 to event2 it has to be
F=a(P1*dS+S1*dP)-b(P2*dS+S2*dP)=ab*dP*dS and
P=(a-b)dP and
S=(a-b)dS or
a(dF,dP,dS)(1)-b(dF,dP,dS)(2)=(F,P,S)
now find b(a);
b1=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)-0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
b2=-0.5(P1/dP)-0.5(S1/dS)+0.5*sqrt(sqr((P1/dP)+(S1/dS))-8a);
now you get:
b=f(a)
F=f1(a,P1,P2,S1,S2)
P=f2(a,P1,P2)
S=f3(a,S1,S2)
where a is pure number and it is the quantum of time.
assign seconds to a and you get dimension time.

NOW da>0 MEANS FORWARD IN TIME WHILE da<0 MEANS BACKWARD IN TIME.
da=0 means time is frozen/no changes.
you see my concept of time is slightly different from the common one.