Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Hermes

Thread: Time travel....

  1. #1 Time travel.... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Although a quantum theory of gravity has immediate practical application there is one budding area of physics devoted to a novel application of quantum physics: time travel. Oddly enough, Einstein's equations admit the possibility of time travel. But it may take the full power of the unified field theory to calculate whether it's really possible or not. Back in 1949, Einstein's next door neighbor at the Institute for Advance Study, the great mathematician Kurt Goedel, demonstrated Einstein's own equations allowed for time travel. If the universe rotated, and you went around the universe, you could arrive back before you left!

    In his memoirs, Einstein pointed out that Goedel's solution could be dismissed on "physical grounds." Our universe expands, it doesn't rotate. But this leaves open the possibility that if the universe rotated, then time travel would be common place!

    Since then, literally hundreds of solutions of Einstein's equations have been found which yield time travel solutions. They include:

    An infinite, spinning cylinder. This allows for time travel if one travels around the cylinder.
    Cosmic strings. They allow for time travel if the cosmic strings collide.
    A spinning black hole. This collapses into a spinning ring (not a point), so anyone falling through the ring might actually fall through a wormhole (the Einstein-Rosen Bridge) which, like Alice's Looking Glass, connects two different regions of space and time.
    Negative matter. If enough negative matter were to be found,then it might open up a wormhole large enough so that a trip through time wouldn't be any more jarring than a ride on an airplane.
    Negative energy. Similarly, an intense concentration of negative energy can also open up a wormhole. A crude version of "warp drive" can be obtained if one stretches the space in front of you and compress the space behind you via negative energy.
    A Theory of Everything may also help explain the sticky paradoxes found in time travel stories,such as the grandfather paradox (what happens if you kill your ancestors before you are born). Because the entire universe must be quantized, it’s possible the universe splits in half when you alter the past. The "river of time" forks into two different rivers.

    If you go back in time to save President Kennedy from being assassinated, you will only save someone else's President Kennedy. Your own past cannot be changed.

    But don't expect any amateur inventor to announce the invention of a time machine anytime soon. Negative matter has never been seen (it falls up, not down) and you need a fantastic amount of both negative and positive energy, called the Planck energy (which is a quadrillion times larger than the energy of the LHC). When Michael J. Fox jumped into his plutonium-fired De Lorean car in ‘Back to the Future’, we can calculate that his plutonium power source does not have enough energy to open a hole in space-time. Even if we could buld one the stability of these time machines is in question. We don't know if they will be stable enough to transport us safely back in time.

    Outlook

    At present, superstring theory has emerged from being a fringe theory of physics to becoming one of the dominant areas of research, generating tens of thousands of papers. The pace of research is feverish. Edward Witten of the Institute of Advanced Study, one of the principle researchers in string theory, recently made another discovery, that there might even be a hidden eleventh dimension. But the truth is that no one is smart enough to completely solve the theory and settle intriguing theoretical questions about what happened before the Big Bang and if time travel is possible


    http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    TIme travel into the future is not only possible, it is unavoidable.

    Time travel into the past is quite problematic, and most likely not possible in any form.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman countdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    TIme travel into the future is not only possible, it is unavoidable.

    Time travel into the past is quite problematic, and most likely not possible in any form.
    the single most important thing in science is to travel back in time to rescue our ansesters and eventualy so they can rescue us from death as man first objective is to stay alive,you were on the verge of saying imposible and thats something a good scientist never says,not a very smart thing to say,saing imposible just mean it hasent been solved yet,a farcry from imposible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    You have to keep in mind that you are always living in the past. Everything you see, hear, feel, or experience is old. It's impossible for you to live in the true here and now.

    As to traveling back in time beyond a certain point (nanoseconds) this is completely out of the question, unless of course you simply manipulated all matter to represent what it once was precisely. Time is not a physical object and thus can not be manipulated. Matter and energy are, so they can be. In order to travel back in time (as some think of it) one would be saying to revert back to a former state. I for one would have issue with my world being altered in such a way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by countdown
    you were on the verge of saying imposible and thats something a good scientist never says,not a very smart thing to say,saing imposible just mean it hasent been solved yet,a farcry from imposible
    Saying that something has not been solved yet is a far cry from saying that it is possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    You have to keep in mind that you are always living in the past. Everything you see, hear, feel, or experience is old. It's impossible for you to live in the true here and now.
    Everyone lives in the here and now. I think that what you are attempting to say is that all interaction with the world occurs as the world was in the past and not as it is now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    You have to keep in mind that you are always living in the past. Everything you see, hear, feel, or experience is old. It's impossible for you to live in the true here and now.
    Everyone lives in the here and now. I think that what you are attempting to say is that all interaction with the world occurs as the world was in the past and not as it is now.
    Umm, no. I'm saying everything you are experiencing and even your very thoughts are delayed. You can't really live in the moment. You are always behind, as are the sounds you hear, the light you see, the warmth you feel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    we live in the here and now but our 5 senses must take time in cololecting and processing information.

    in other words we live in both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    we live in the here and now but our 5 senses must take time in cololecting and processing information.

    in other words we live in both.
    I suppose so, to bad we always see and hear our old selves and not the here and now self.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Umm, no. I'm saying everything you are experiencing and even your very thoughts are delayed. You can't really live in the moment. You are always behind, as are the sounds you hear, the light you see, the warmth you feel.
    Umm yes. I did not repeat what you said, but what you are trying to say. What you say about external experience is correct. What you are saying about thought is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Umm, no. I'm saying everything you are experiencing and even your very thoughts are delayed. You can't really live in the moment. You are always behind, as are the sounds you hear, the light you see, the warmth you feel.
    Umm yes. I did not repeat what you said, but what you are trying to say. What you say about external experience is correct. What you are saying about thought is not.
    Thought is based primarily on our senses. So it will always be delayed. Also our brains are limited in speed. It takes a certain amount of time for synapses to fire and the entire process to complete. So why am I wrong about thought? It starts, after a delay..takes time to process and more time to register in to another thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Thought is based primarily on our senses.
    To a degree, I agree. When you think about what you did in elementary school, or what you will do in 20 years, which of your externally based senses do you consider that you use?

    So it will always be delayed. Also our brains are limited in speed. It takes a certain amount of time for synapses to fire and the entire process to complete.
    Are you saying that a thought is made at the end of some process, rather than being the process itself?

    So why am I wrong about thought? It starts, after a delay..takes time to process and more time to register in to another thought.
    I think that what you are describing is that the process of thought is not instantaneous, with which I agree. However, I disagree with your seeming contention that the thought only exists at the culmination of brain activity, rather than being the process itself..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    before we can say anything more about the subject some seriously big advances in our understanding of brain function will have to be made.

    if thought is the proccess then why does it stop when we are dead?
    what drives the proccess?

    if it is the result then how is the result achieved?
    how does the fireing of neurons in the brain cause consiousness or thought?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    16
    The only real theory of time travel has to be the manipulation of light i.e. speed it up to go into the futer and some how reverse it to back to the past. BUT this is verging on Hawkings big bang theory i herd that before the big bang time was running back wards untill it got the zero and then started all over again counting up. So in other words went from the end of the universe to the beggining and now from the beggining to the end. So actualy you could argue that in fact the universe is time its self and everything just moves through it.
    Its not whats on the out side that we observe closer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    before we can say anything more about the subject some seriously big advances in our understanding of brain function will have to be made.

    if thought is the proccess then why does it stop when we are dead?
    Because interaction of the brain cells stops.

    what drives the proccess?
    Interaction of the brain cells.

    if it is the result then how is the result achieved?
    What might this even mean?

    how does the fireing of neurons in the brain cause consiousness or thought?
    Is concsiousness caused, or recognized? Perhaps the universe is a consciousness, and humans are able to develop some awareness of that consciousness.
    Z@T@RA18 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Interaction of the brain cells.
    What drives the interaction of the brain cells?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Tjalian
    What drives the interaction of the brain cells?
    It is difficult to respond to this, because I have no idea what level of response you would like.

    Energy drives the interaction of the brain cells.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    how do brain cells interact to cause consiousness or awareness?

    The only real theory of time travel has to be the manipulation of light i.e. speed it up to go into the futer and some how reverse it to back to the past. BUT this is verging on Hawkings big bang theory i herd that before the big bang time was running back wards untill it got the zero and then started all over again counting up. So in other words went from the end of the universe to the beggining and now from the beggining to the end. So actualy you could argue that in fact the universe is time its self and everything just moves through it.
    time running backwards... that requires the overall Entropy of the system (universe) to decrease. which last time i checked is only alowed to increase.
    i read something like this in New Scientist magazine involving Loop Quantum Gravity, which one of the contenders for the theory of everything, where some guy did some calculation involving the early universe that did not produce a singularity and alowed him to emerge on the other side of time zero, as the article was titled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    time running backwards...
    While a fanciful theory, I have yet to hear of any possibly interesting evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Time travel.... 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    At present, superstring theory has emerged from being a fringe theory of physics to becoming one of the dominant areas of research, generating tens of thousands of papers.
    This was true in 1995. It is not true today. Superstirng theory is on its way out [and in my view, about time to: its the ssame sort of fruitless speculation that gives religion a bad name. ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by ssj4dave
    The only real theory of time travel has to be the manipulation of light i.e. speed it up to go into the futer and some how reverse it to back to the past. BUT this is verging on Hawkings big bang theory i herd that before the big bang time was running back wards untill it got the zero and then started all over again counting up. So in other words went from the end of the universe to the beggining and now from the beggining to the end. So actualy you could argue that in fact the universe is time its self and everything just moves through it.
    light effects the visual perception of time, altering it, e.g slowing it down would surely only create the optical illusion of things slowing down, you could still move yourself around freely right? and feel your fingers as normal , the image wouldnt tell the same story though. Another example ... say a planet 20'000 light years away has people on it, and their local star goes supernova.. to them its happening in the now, at that same time your on earth watching that same star through a telescope... its happening in the 'now' to them at the same time your sitting at that telescope, yet you wont see it go supernova for another 20'000 years.

    people cant honestly believe that even though the stars and galaxies appear to be back in time, that they are actually in the same position and condition in their local vacinity as we see them today.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    16
    I know what your saying but i think there might be something to my theory but maybe you just have to take more factors into it such as time its self because you found the true 'energy' (so to say) that could be manipulated i think you still have to combine with what you see. So my firsth theory is just a way in wich you can form the illusion of time travel then?
    Its not whats on the out side that we observe closer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denmark, Earth
    Posts
    16
    Erm, ive got some questions here. A friend of mine, tried to explain the relativity theory, by using ugly drawings. A man standing in a moving train, turning on a Flashlight, would see the light travel, at exact the same speed as a spectator outside the train. Basically that light always has the same speed, based on the viewer.

    Is this proved in any way? Is light not substantial in any way?

    But before that, he used an example with the person in the train throwing a ball. That the balls speed, would be slower for the man in the train, than the spectators. But doesnt the ball, travel at a locked speed? Is speed determined by the viewer? What if there was another spectator watching outside the Earths rotation field, would the ball go faster? For a spectator "outside the universe"?

    If a person is then travelling at near light-speed, and throwing a ball, would the ball then travel faster than light, according to a spectator on Earth, but being a perfectly normal speed for the person in the spaceship? Is there speeds faster than light?

    So if the person in the spaceship turns on a flashlight, seeing the light travel forward with the speed of light, would the spectator on earth then see a extreme slow moving light, or would he see light travel faster than light?

    Is this where the idea of time travel comes from? That the person in the spaceship experiences everything at "normal" speed, while spectators seeing it as "slow"? If he traveled a year at this speed in space, and returned to Earth, would the spectator have experienced this as a ridiculously long time?

    Is time determined by speed? Does time exist because of the universe expanding? If the universe would begin contracting, would we all start going backwards in time?

    I hope someone will take the time to clear this out for me, because now im even more confused that i was before i wrote this.. *Edit* Had to add some more questions :S
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The speed of light is an absolute. It is always seen as travelling at a constant velocity. As a consequence time and space are viewed differently by different observers, who are travelling at different relative velocities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denmark, Earth
    Posts
    16
    I could not convince you to make me an ugly drawing instead, by any chance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'll try to find a suitable web site that doesn't get too over the top. Probably wont be till tomorrow though. Midnight is getting nearer here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    the experiance of time isnt solely reliant on light, if the universe suddenly becomes absent of light, you can still judge time from your touch and feel. The flow of time in terms of light is not a complete determinate, it is just an aspect of perception, time flow seems to be more fundemental. Yes you can create an illusion.. but your not really at different times in space, its just visually relative.

    virtual particle's blip into existance and then vanish, doing that over and over again.. perhaps what we actually experiance as time is related to the flow of creation and destruction of these virtual elements, which detectable functionality relies on.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: Time travel.... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    Although a quantum theory of gravity has immediate practical application there is one budding area of physics devoted to a novel application of quantum physics: time travel. Oddly enough, Einstein's equations admit the possibility of time travel.
    http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp
    General Relativity as you are refering to it here is only theoretical framework much like quantum field theory which is more like a mathematical language that can be used to describe practically anything. The fact that the General Relativistic framework can be used to describe time travel does not remove it from the realm of pure science fiction.

    Logical inconsistencies with traveling backward in time make the idea of a time travel technology little more than a silly fantasy for enjoyable sci fi stories. Temporary defects in the space time continuum that involve a sort of time travel which is beyond our control has less logical problems but is still pretty far fetched. I can assure you that the scientific community is not taking these possibilities very seriously beyond exploring what sorts of senarios the framework of General Relativity can describe. However, the progress of modern science has cautioned us not to rule even the most absurd possibilites.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    Here are my thoughts a.k.a. food for thought with facts

    So we know that crazy hair dude named Einstein said that when anything reaches the speed of light, time stops. Correct? Makes sense too. He also said for something to go at the speed of light, the object must not have mass.

    So here is my so called theory. If we go faster than the speed of light we can go back in time. This is said to be impossible at this point in time. So for the time being we can not go back in time. But, we can freeze time. How? Somehow convert our human bodies into energy (I have no idea how), move this energy, and convert it back to mass. Using this we can freeze time, and solve the problem of pollution. If everyone can go at the speed of light, why would we need cars or machinery? I suppose there would be a lot of pollution while converting humans to energy thou.

    My final answer would be "no" we can not go back in time for the time being, nor can we go into the future (which makes no sense, because the future is unpredictable). What we can do thou is freeze time, and this is even a stretch.

    Awesome question thou.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    [quote="Voursez"]Erm, ive got some questions here. A friend of mine, tried to explain the relativity theory, by using ugly drawings. A man standing in a moving train, turning on a Flashlight, would see the light travel, at exact the same speed as a spectator outside the train. /quote]

    More or less this is true, but not exactly, time has speed, so the person on the train and the person outside the train would see the light go on and different times, but it is sooooooooo small a difference of time that it doesn't really get considered.

    Example: Let's say someone was on some planet 1 light year away from Earth (1 light year = the distance light travels in one year). So the person on this planet, which is 1 light year away sees his sun shinning. For a person on earth to see his sun shining (trying saying "see his sun shining" five times in a row ) it would take one year for the light to travel from the martian's planet to earth. So a person on earth would see the light one year after the guy on the other planet.

    This is why some people think we are able to move back in time. The only way to do that is go faster than the speed of light, which I think for the time being is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    *time has speed* i meant light*

    a big difference
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Voursez
    If a person is then travelling at near light-speed, and throwing a ball, would the ball then travel faster than light, according to a spectator on Earth, but being a perfectly normal speed for the person in the spaceship? Is there speeds faster than light?

    So if the person in the spaceship turns on a flashlight, seeing the light travel forward with the speed of light, would the spectator on earth then see a extreme slow moving light, or would he see light travel faster than light?
    no, theoretically, from what we have observed, it is impossible for anything to go faster than light, and impossible for objects with mass to go as fast as the speed of light. we cannot even explain hypothetical situations like going the speed of light and then throwing a ball forward because of this. the know laws of physics breaks down in these situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voursez
    Is this where the idea of time travel comes from? That the person in the spaceship experiences everything at "normal" speed, while spectators seeing it as "slow"? If he traveled a year at this speed in space, and returned to Earth, would the spectator have experienced this as a ridiculously long time?
    you have figured out the theory of relativity, congratulations! the faster a person goes through space, the slower their time is, relative to someone on earth (or at rest). but to the person travelling, time is the same as it always was, until they go back to earth, that is, because on earth, a lot longer time will have passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voursez
    Is time determined by speed? Does time exist because of the universe expanding? If the universe would begin contracting, would we all start going backwards in time?
    these are some interesting questions. speed definately warps space such that time is relative. but mass also warps space (and time therefore) as well. it would be interesting to know what the expansion of the universe had to do with the state of time, because it would be constantly stretching the fabric of space.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima Rahnemoon
    So here is my so called theory. If we go faster than the speed of light we can go back in time. This is said to be impossible at this point in time. So for the time being we can not go back in time. But, we can freeze time. How? Somehow convert our human bodies into energy (I have no idea how), move this energy, and convert it back to mass. Using this we can freeze time, and solve the problem of pollution. If everyone can go at the speed of light, why would we need cars or machinery? I suppose there would be a lot of pollution while converting humans to energy thou.

    My final answer would be "no" we can not go back in time for the time being, nor can we go into the future (which makes no sense, because the future is unpredictable). What we can do thou is freeze time, and this is even a stretch.

    Awesome question thou.
    there is a theory, based on how the math of physics works, that time can go forwards or backwards, and depending on which way it is moving, can change the characteristics of particles. so every particle would have an opposite particle that it would become if time were reversed. mathematically, this has to be true, because time is a dimension, and just like x and y on a graph, they can be positive or negative. this could also explain things like negative energy/matter, it would just be normal matter that is passing backwards in time.

    now with what you were saying about turning humans into energy, there is another obscure science that theorizes (with evidence) that human consciousness stems from a combination of neurons and an electromagnetic field that is tied to brain activity. i dont know how this could be used for time travel, but it pertains to your theory.
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known" - Frank Herbert
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    Awesome, I still don't see how a person can travel in the future. Theoretically I understand how a person can travel into the past. But the future is unpredictable. That's my belief thou. Lol fate seems too over rated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    we are travelling through time in a future oriented direction, thats a good definition of time travel to the future.

    right now you and me are goin into the future at a different rate, relative to the other, depending on our velocity through spacetime.

    time travel to the future as commonly described would include one individual increaseing his velocity to slow time localy, reletive to everything else, to the point where everyone else is travelling faster than the traveller. producing the Time Travel effect. this applies whe the velocity is slower or equal to the speed of light, beyond that who knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    There are two possibilities for time travel into the past. Essentially when we look into the sky we are looking back in time. Sunlight takes over 8' to get to the earth. The light from Jupiter left hours ago to arrive at earth. Light years away, the stars and other objects are seen hundreds to millions of years ago. So when we look into the sky, we are looking into the past.

    Conceive of a quantum tunneling system which can transport about 100 LY, as if one were passing thru a door from one room to another, about 100 LY apart. Viewing the sky, one could observe events occurring about 100 years in the past, at maximum.

    For longer quantum tunneling travel, thousands of years into the past observations could be made. Perhaps this is a reason why quantum tunneling cannot exceed light speed. It's hypothetical. I don't claim that it's possible or even true.

    The other means of time travel is the statement by Feynman that anti-particles can be considered as normal matter moving back in time. Again, I cannot verify this as current theory, but Feynman was usually right. And time flow on the quantum level is well known to be probabilistic, which results in the peculiar acausal nature of quantum events.

    Suppose then, we create a series of atoms of antimatter, encode information on them & send them to a receiver in the past, where they are converted back into information. Time travel of information into the past could be said to have occurred.

    Again, highly theoretical, and I'd defer to good references as to the truth of the Feynman statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •