What has the speed of light got to do with time travel?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between the speed of light and time travel, examining why light is considered special in this context and how it relates to concepts of simultaneity and causality in different frames of reference. Participants delve into theoretical implications, speculative ideas, and the nature of time as understood in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the speed of light is considered special compared to the speed of sound, suggesting that light's ability to propagate without a medium is a key factor.
  • One participant explains that the speed of light is the only speed measured consistently by all observers, leading to different conclusions about simultaneity in different frames of reference.
  • A scenario involving two observers (one on a train and one on the embankment) illustrates how they can perceive lightning strikes differently due to their relative motion and the constant speed of light.
  • Another participant argues that the speed of light has no real connection to time travel, stating that exceeding this speed is speculative and lacks physical interpretation.
  • One participant introduces the idea of faster-than-light (FTL) communication and its implications for causality, suggesting that if such communication were possible, it could lead to paradoxes involving time travel.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of FTL signals and the relativity of simultaneity, with some participants challenging the notion that FTL communication is inherently impossible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the connection between the speed of light and time travel, with some asserting that there is no meaningful relationship while others explore speculative scenarios involving FTL communication and its potential consequences. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference theoretical constructs such as the relativity of simultaneity and the implications of general relativity, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of time travel and the physical interpretation of FTL concepts.

  • #61
Max™ said:
For a photon, a point in space directly corresponds to a point in time.

Photons move through time in a way which is equivalent to motion through space.

Yesterday for a photon is "over there", tomorrow is "that way", now is "right here".
What coordinate system are you using to justify these statements? And what is the physical basis of such a coordinate system? Keep in mind that for inertial coordinate systems for observers moving slower than light, all coordinates are intended to reflect the measurements on a hypothetical set of rulers and synchronized clocks which are at rest relative to that observer--for example, if I see an explosion happen in space right next to the 8 light-second mark on the ruler at rest relative to me that represents my x-axis, and the clock sitting at the 8 light-second mark which is synchronized with my own (according to the synchronization convention) reads 5 seconds at the moment the explosion happens, then I assign that explosion coordinates x=8 light-seconds, t=5 seconds. Do you have any kind of analogous way to ground the coordinate system of a light ray in terms of physical measurements?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
JesseM said:
What coordinate system are you using to justify these statements? And what is the physical basis of such a coordinate system? Keep in mind that for inertial coordinate systems for observers moving slower than light, all coordinates are intended to reflect the measurements on a hypothetical set of rulers and synchronized clocks which are at rest relative to that observer--for example, if I see an explosion happen in space right next to the 8 light-second mark on the ruler at rest relative to me that represents my x-axis, and the clock sitting at the 8 light-second mark which is synchronized with my own (according to the synchronization convention) reads 5 seconds at the moment the explosion happens, then I assign that explosion coordinates x=8 light-seconds, t=5 seconds. Do you have any kind of analogous way to ground the coordinate system of a light ray in terms of physical measurements?

Set x = t?

If an event happens 8 light seconds along x from a beam of light's reference frame, then it happened 8 seconds away in t.Time = Space for a beam of light, any change in Time is equal to the distance covered in Space.

Weird to think about, huh.To put it another way, a beam of light has no rest frame, as it has no rest mass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63


A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. -- Alexander Pope
----------------------------------------------------
Happy to see that someone else enjoys the "musings"
of our greatest metaphysical poet...and is sharp enough
to quote Pope's admonishment of "not drinking deep enough
into the spring of knowledge..." beyond the common day
practice of mistakenly saying, "...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
...NOW, back to quantum physics / mechanics.

In '69 I read Wheeler & Planck's Theories of Black Holes in Space.
Singularity has come a long way from '67 when Planck coined the phrase
"black hole." Will anyone venture a guess about what we can expect from
the LHC? Will Hawking again be disproved as a pie in the sky philosopher,
like his "information lost theory?" Any bets on the search for HIGGS?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the HIGGS will be proven [ ] or non-existent [ ].
(I'll check off a box after I give this more thought)
cybersurf88
 
  • #64
FUTURE HEADLINES

LHC proves HIGGS [ ]
LHC proves HIGGS continues to "evaporate" detection [ ]
 
  • #65
Dr Brian Cox of the University of Manchester adds: "The energies of billions of cosmic rays that have been hitting the Earth's atmosphere for five billion years far exceed those we will create at the LHC, so by this logic time travellers should be here already. If these wormholes appear I will personally eat the hat I was given for my first birthday before I received it."
Statement made in response to assertions that the LHC will become the beginning point
for future time travellers to return to. (Russian scientists)
-----------------------
So...
What events occur at the horizon of a microcosmic black hole?
Microcosmic black holes are theoretically created around us everyday
according to some quantum physicists. Are light and time drawn into
the gravitational center of a microcosmic black hole as happens within
nebulas? Some LHC participants anticipate a potential for the creation
of time distortions / wormholes by LHC microcosmic black holes.
What if information passes consistent with the Hawking paradox of parallel universes?
Would information passing into a PU preclude time travel?
How about creating a clean equation of non-linear parallel universes.
For example, I propose / hypothesize that our entire universe is merely a subatomic particle lying like a grain of sand in a sand dune of universes. (c)
What if our entire cosmic existence is a mere speck of dust on some cosmic policman's
badge? Although we are free willed and our future is non-determinist, what if
time and matter have already completed our full cycle and we are existent only
as defined by a specific framed constant of time and space, within many frames and constants of time and space, where some constants are prologue and others are completed cycles as our epilogue.
Singularity presumes the existence of a subatomic condition for the big bang.
Is the presumptive condition before the big bang a necessary corrallary of the
existence of "sand dune universes?"
Could the evaporative HIGGS evidence time and place distortion or travel?
Is a single theory of creation unachievable because it necessarily must include
a rare interaction of multiple universes of which the discipline has failed to prove
mathematicallly or objectively verify?
 
Last edited:
  • #66
I am aware that multiple dimensions of time is outside of conventional and proven
theories. The closest work on multiple dimensions of time is that of the Bars theory of two dimensions of time. SEE: http://physics1.usc.edu/~bars/research.html#2T
 
  • #67
Itzhak Bars, "While taking exactly two timelike dimensions produces a coherent theory, investigations of alternatives with more than two times have been done (including alternatives to Sp(2,R)). So far such possibilities are ruled out because of problems with ghosts and unitarity, and this seems to confirm the special status of 2T-physics."
------------------------------
No responses to this site...? I think it's time for me to move to another site.
Thank you Jesse M for your assistance.
 
  • #68
Think of it like this, we have one guy whos got his new car that travels at 99% the speed of light, his friend wants him to race a beam of light with his new car. He stands next the car with a laser and when he says go the driver zooms off at the smae time the other guy turns on the laser. The laser guy sees the driver trailing along the beam of light, right behind it almost. However the driver returns claiming that no matter what he did the light shot past his car at 100% the speed of light. How is this possible? Time must slow down for the observer in the car.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
941
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K