61
answers
|
Answer it!
|
sort by:
active |
newest |
oldest
If you really want an answer to your question you need to first look up more information on the arrows of time. Here are some beginning articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html
Some things can move back and forth with no problem, like chemical reactions. Take water for example. You can split water to make its component gasses and then you can combine the gasses to make water again. Its reversible. But there are some things that are not reversible, they are one way reactions and cannot be reversed. With this being the case then it becomes impossible for anyone to reverse these arrows of time and thereby "time travel".
If it was possible to reverse time there are other complications as well. Everything is moving in the universe relative to everything else. To truly reverse time you would have to also travel back to the exact same space that the event occurred. If it was an event on earth then the earth would have to return to the same place in the galaxy that the event occurred. So along with the earth you would also have to move the sun and all its accompanying planets and space debris as well. Then each planet would have to be reversed to be in the exact same position including rotation to where they were. Remember its time and SPACE, you can't separate one from the other. Then you have to include all the chemical reactions that occurred on the earth and the other planets and the nuclear reactions in the sun. All the energy that the sun radiated away would have to be brought back to it and those reactions reversed. Then there are the reactions of the other stars and the light coming from them. In effect you would need to reverse every reaction in the entire universe to get it all back to the same time and PLACE where and when the event occurred. No event takes place in isolation, everything is relative and everything effects everything else. It would take more energy than exists in the universe to reverse all the processes of the universe, and by the simple act of trying to do that you would alter the conditions anyway. Read about the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can measure the energy of a particle, or you can determine its location, but you cannot do both at the same time. The process of measurement alters what you are measuring.
Science fiction is fun, science fact is what the universe runs on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html
Some things can move back and forth with no problem, like chemical reactions. Take water for example. You can split water to make its component gasses and then you can combine the gasses to make water again. Its reversible. But there are some things that are not reversible, they are one way reactions and cannot be reversed. With this being the case then it becomes impossible for anyone to reverse these arrows of time and thereby "time travel".
If it was possible to reverse time there are other complications as well. Everything is moving in the universe relative to everything else. To truly reverse time you would have to also travel back to the exact same space that the event occurred. If it was an event on earth then the earth would have to return to the same place in the galaxy that the event occurred. So along with the earth you would also have to move the sun and all its accompanying planets and space debris as well. Then each planet would have to be reversed to be in the exact same position including rotation to where they were. Remember its time and SPACE, you can't separate one from the other. Then you have to include all the chemical reactions that occurred on the earth and the other planets and the nuclear reactions in the sun. All the energy that the sun radiated away would have to be brought back to it and those reactions reversed. Then there are the reactions of the other stars and the light coming from them. In effect you would need to reverse every reaction in the entire universe to get it all back to the same time and PLACE where and when the event occurred. No event takes place in isolation, everything is relative and everything effects everything else. It would take more energy than exists in the universe to reverse all the processes of the universe, and by the simple act of trying to do that you would alter the conditions anyway. Read about the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can measure the energy of a particle, or you can determine its location, but you cannot do both at the same time. The process of measurement alters what you are measuring.
Science fiction is fun, science fact is what the universe runs on.
One thing I don't see about time travel is the question of where you end up were you to travel in time.
For example, time travel in fiction always has the time travelers in the same spot on Earth. Go back 20 years in London and you're still in London. But then, where is London?
London is a location on the Earth. The Earth is spinning and moving around the sun. So if you were to zap ahead 6 months you should end up in space and die a quick death in a vacuum. Which is a pretty crappy vacation.
Of course, this doesn't take into account the solar system moving about in a galaxy that's moving about in the universe. So to move forward or back even a second is also a shortcut to death.
Anyway, that all makes for some very unfun fiction, so pretend it doesn't matter.
Which it doesn't.
For example, time travel in fiction always has the time travelers in the same spot on Earth. Go back 20 years in London and you're still in London. But then, where is London?
London is a location on the Earth. The Earth is spinning and moving around the sun. So if you were to zap ahead 6 months you should end up in space and die a quick death in a vacuum. Which is a pretty crappy vacation.
Of course, this doesn't take into account the solar system moving about in a galaxy that's moving about in the universe. So to move forward or back even a second is also a shortcut to death.
Anyway, that all makes for some very unfun fiction, so pretend it doesn't matter.
Which it doesn't.
Apr 8, 2012. 9:09 AMWroger-Wroger
says:
One clever person pointed out that the solar plane is not a bunch of planets wizzing around a disk, like some windup clock work desk top model.
It's a bunch of planets wizzing around the sun as it and they all shoot through space.
So the sun more or less travels along and all the planets corkscrew through the cosmos around it.
Add to that it's a teeny almost inconsqential bit, in the arm of a spiral galazy, surrounded by billions of other galaxies.... blah, blah, blah - for ever.
Sooooooo considering all the absolutely absolutness of the absolutaticness of it all, it would be quite a job to compute the exact position of point A, the here and now of you sitting behind your desk - and the exact position - and then landing on it - exactly 1,000,000 years backwards or forwards in time.
Perhaps aiming a few million miles into space would be easier - till we get the bugs out, then coming in for a landing a bit later.
It's a bunch of planets wizzing around the sun as it and they all shoot through space.
So the sun more or less travels along and all the planets corkscrew through the cosmos around it.
Add to that it's a teeny almost inconsqential bit, in the arm of a spiral galazy, surrounded by billions of other galaxies.... blah, blah, blah - for ever.
Sooooooo considering all the absolutely absolutness of the absolutaticness of it all, it would be quite a job to compute the exact position of point A, the here and now of you sitting behind your desk - and the exact position - and then landing on it - exactly 1,000,000 years backwards or forwards in time.
Perhaps aiming a few million miles into space would be easier - till we get the bugs out, then coming in for a landing a bit later.
The difficulty with this argument (putting aside the difficulties with time travel itself :-), is that you're making two assumptions which violate relativity.
First, you assume that there is some external, universal rest frame "through which" we are moving. And second, you assume that motion through time is something "special," disconnected from motion through space.
In the context of relativity (either special or general), that first assumption isn't valid. You can take yourself to be at rest with everything moving around you, and it's just as legitimate.
For the case of the rotating Earth, for example, you can perfectly well do all your physics assuming the Earth is flat and at rest; it's just more complicated. You'll discover that there are some unexpected external forces which act on you and all of your equipment (pushing your Foucault's pendulum around in a circle).
For the second assumption, travel through "time" necessarily couples with travel through "space," in a way which depends on the rest frame(s) you assume for the journey. Any attempt to construct closed timelike curves (the physicists' euphemism for time travel), necessarily involves trajectories through spacetime, with both timelike and spacelike components.
To take a concrete example, Morris and Thorne's wormhole solution (PRL 61, 1446(1988)) allows each end of the wormhole to be "attached" to a different frame (e.g., San Francisco now and San Francisco six months from now, moving in opposite directions relative to the Sun). The transit itself would apply the forces necessary such that you emerge in the frame of the destination.
The case of a "self-propelled" time machine does raise the interesting issue of how such a transfer between frames could be engineered. However, current thinking is that such a device would not be possible in general relativity (a consequence of Hawking's cosmic censorship hypothesis).
First, you assume that there is some external, universal rest frame "through which" we are moving. And second, you assume that motion through time is something "special," disconnected from motion through space.
In the context of relativity (either special or general), that first assumption isn't valid. You can take yourself to be at rest with everything moving around you, and it's just as legitimate.
For the case of the rotating Earth, for example, you can perfectly well do all your physics assuming the Earth is flat and at rest; it's just more complicated. You'll discover that there are some unexpected external forces which act on you and all of your equipment (pushing your Foucault's pendulum around in a circle).
For the second assumption, travel through "time" necessarily couples with travel through "space," in a way which depends on the rest frame(s) you assume for the journey. Any attempt to construct closed timelike curves (the physicists' euphemism for time travel), necessarily involves trajectories through spacetime, with both timelike and spacelike components.
To take a concrete example, Morris and Thorne's wormhole solution (PRL 61, 1446(1988)) allows each end of the wormhole to be "attached" to a different frame (e.g., San Francisco now and San Francisco six months from now, moving in opposite directions relative to the Sun). The transit itself would apply the forces necessary such that you emerge in the frame of the destination.
The case of a "self-propelled" time machine does raise the interesting issue of how such a transfer between frames could be engineered. However, current thinking is that such a device would not be possible in general relativity (a consequence of Hawking's cosmic censorship hypothesis).
Oh, good, I was hoping I could violate relativity today. :)
I understand that it's a different conversation and that space and time are linked. I guess that my question was really couched in sci-fi canon and how those two ideas are typically held apart. Wormholes are for long-distance travel and time travel is for no-distance travel.
Anyway, was just stirring the muck, as they (don't really) say.
I understand that it's a different conversation and that space and time are linked. I guess that my question was really couched in sci-fi canon and how those two ideas are typically held apart. Wormholes are for long-distance travel and time travel is for no-distance travel.
Anyway, was just stirring the muck, as they (don't really) say.
You're quite right about the SF canon, and how annoyingly non-relativistic it is.
What I find cool about Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever's discovery is that they not only connected those two disparate ideas in a philosophically relativistic way ("space travel" and "time travel" are connected just as space and time are), they did so in a way which was not just consistent with, but required by general relativity!
What I find cool about Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever's discovery is that they not only connected those two disparate ideas in a philosophically relativistic way ("space travel" and "time travel" are connected just as space and time are), they did so in a way which was not just consistent with, but required by general relativity!
Apr 3, 2012. 4:25 PMWilliam G
says:
ok I will try to explain this. So you can go back in time but not forward why well because the past has already happened so you can visit it but the future is still unexplored so you cant do it. hope i made sense.
Gliese 581 is a star in the constellation of Libra it is 20 light years from earth with 4 confirmed planets.
When we observe Gliese 581 through a telescope we are looking into the past 20 years, since it takes the light that long to travel to the earth.
Right now as I am typing, I am travelling to the future through liner time at a normal rate of speed.
We travel through time every day and when we look up to the stars we are looking into the past.
Time is not a thing like an atom it is more like gravity, neither of them is a thing we can control. Its units are the creation of man, in fact all units of measure are the creation of man.
When we observe Gliese 581 through a telescope we are looking into the past 20 years, since it takes the light that long to travel to the earth.
Right now as I am typing, I am travelling to the future through liner time at a normal rate of speed.
We travel through time every day and when we look up to the stars we are looking into the past.
Time is not a thing like an atom it is more like gravity, neither of them is a thing we can control. Its units are the creation of man, in fact all units of measure are the creation of man.
Mar 24, 2012. 7:55 AMDeceptibotX
says:
It is possible, and, in fact, you are time travelling right now. Any physist will tell you that there is nothing that states you cannot time travel.
Apr 3, 2012. 4:20 PMWilliam G
says:
But is there any physist that can prove you can is so then please explain.
Mar 27, 2012. 1:59 PMtastur26
says:
I suppose you can as its not been proven you can't and there is some people who claim they have time travelled and one of them actually has proof which is a video of his self meeting his self in the future. Also many years ago a plane was flying to a somewhere which should of took them maybe a couple of hours but they went through something like a cloud tunnel swirling around and when they reached open air they realised they had reached there destination in a couple of minuits or something like that. Should research more about it.
Feb 7, 2012. 11:08 PMmaemole
says:
According to the movies, yes. But based from what I learned it school, nah.
Not quite, you don’t need to move the universe you need to move you to that time and space, and that can be quite a great distance depending on the time displacement.
The effect on the present is unpredictable at this present time; some have theorised the potential detrimental effects such as time loops and parallel time lines.
The other problem is we tend to look at the universe as the earth being a fixed point when it is not. To us it is, however we can observe where the universe around us and we can look at where it appeared to be a year ago using the earth as a fixed point. We can predict where it was and where it will be using the earth as a fixed point, however this does not tell us where we are.
How can we travel to a fixed point without a fixed point of reference?
And yes I said that right, you see when we look at a star in the sky lets say Gliese 581, it is 20 light years away, we are looking at it as it was 20 years ago, not as it is now. In effect we are looking into the past.
We travel through time every day; it is called liner time.
By the way I am a science fiction writer.
Joe
The effect on the present is unpredictable at this present time; some have theorised the potential detrimental effects such as time loops and parallel time lines.
The other problem is we tend to look at the universe as the earth being a fixed point when it is not. To us it is, however we can observe where the universe around us and we can look at where it appeared to be a year ago using the earth as a fixed point. We can predict where it was and where it will be using the earth as a fixed point, however this does not tell us where we are.
How can we travel to a fixed point without a fixed point of reference?
And yes I said that right, you see when we look at a star in the sky lets say Gliese 581, it is 20 light years away, we are looking at it as it was 20 years ago, not as it is now. In effect we are looking into the past.
We travel through time every day; it is called liner time.
By the way I am a science fiction writer.
Joe
A Syfy novel I read once solved time travel to the past in a novel way.
by approaching a star that would throw anything approaching it back
in time by 560 years.
It was a fun read :-)
by approaching a star that would throw anything approaching it back
in time by 560 years.
It was a fun read :-)
Science fiction novels and movies make it look easy based in theoretical physics but it is just theory not reality. They do make good story models for authors as long as the author can tolerate their fans, science fiction fans can be unforgiving to the littlest mistake in theoretical or practical physics.
Larry Niven made the mistake of rounding off the acceleration of earth’s gravity 9.80 meters per second to 10 meters per second for easier calculations in his novel “Ringworld.” The acceleration of earth’s gravity 9.80 meters per second is an absolute number noted by ending in 0. That means you don’t round it off his fans sent him thousands of letters telling him he screwed up.
To quote Larry Niven in the next printing of the book Ringworld, “People it’s just a story, it’s not real, that is why it is called science fiction.”
In the next reprinting of Ringworld they rewrote the whole book as well as the foreword I Just quoted. Science fiction fans don’t mess with them, they will make you regret it.
Joe
Larry Niven made the mistake of rounding off the acceleration of earth’s gravity 9.80 meters per second to 10 meters per second for easier calculations in his novel “Ringworld.” The acceleration of earth’s gravity 9.80 meters per second is an absolute number noted by ending in 0. That means you don’t round it off his fans sent him thousands of letters telling him he screwed up.
To quote Larry Niven in the next printing of the book Ringworld, “People it’s just a story, it’s not real, that is why it is called science fiction.”
In the next reprinting of Ringworld they rewrote the whole book as well as the foreword I Just quoted. Science fiction fans don’t mess with them, they will make you regret it.
Joe
I did not know that about Larry Niven..
He has given me great reading pleasure including
those wonderful stories centered about Ringworld :-D
He has given me great reading pleasure including
those wonderful stories centered about Ringworld :-D
Everybody can have a bad day and fans can be taxing. I have fans in my genre of writing, and most fans are reasonable, but a couple of years ago during a book signing this good looking girl that weighed 90 pounds soaking wet leaped on me and squealed at the top of her lungs. It was more funny than anything else, the thing is they touch without asking, and that is taxing on the nerves.
I like Ringworld and many of the other books Larry Niven wrote also, just as an author I know it is not real it is just a story, some fans don’t. I wrote an erotic story called “The lessons of Ms Quade” and posted it on a web site I use for proofreading, now this lady that thinks she is the main character and she sends me pictures of herself naked.
Google Chasing UFOs by Josehf Lloyd Murchison this is a somewhat true story.
I like Ringworld and many of the other books Larry Niven wrote also, just as an author I know it is not real it is just a story, some fans don’t. I wrote an erotic story called “The lessons of Ms Quade” and posted it on a web site I use for proofreading, now this lady that thinks she is the main character and she sends me pictures of herself naked.
Google Chasing UFOs by Josehf Lloyd Murchison this is a somewhat true story.
All fans are stalkers, most are harmless, but there is always one in every crowd that isn’t. At my last book signing for “Tails of a Gay Incubus” there was a religious individual that heckled me about being gay. I told him, “I married my first wife when I was 19 and I have been with my second wife for over 25 years.”
He replied with “That doesn’t mean you’re not a fag.”
I’ve lost a lot of so called friends over that book, and it started as a joke.
My novelette “Tails of a Gay Incubus” got started one night when my wife invited a couple over one evening for a social visit. As we chatted the conversation found its way to me mentioning a demon called a Succubus, (a sexy She Demon that sucks the life force out of their victims during erotic dreams.) My wife thought I was going to tell one of my stories where I pull the listeners leg, I told them I wasn’t pulling their leg and showed them the definition in the encyclopaedia. Me being a joker I said “Wouldn’t that make a funny title, instead of Tales from the Crypt, Tales of a Gay Succubus?” And my novelette was born.
The thing is as a published author you promote your work by going out in public and meeting your stalkers. Steven King wrote about a writer’s stalker in his novel “Misery”
It is just the potential things artisans must tolerate when they promote there work, people they do not know, thinking they know you or what you are like, touching you, or even doing things to you. The hard part is you must play nice or you risk losing fans and they pay you to be creative.
It comes with the job fans go figure.
He replied with “That doesn’t mean you’re not a fag.”
I’ve lost a lot of so called friends over that book, and it started as a joke.
My novelette “Tails of a Gay Incubus” got started one night when my wife invited a couple over one evening for a social visit. As we chatted the conversation found its way to me mentioning a demon called a Succubus, (a sexy She Demon that sucks the life force out of their victims during erotic dreams.) My wife thought I was going to tell one of my stories where I pull the listeners leg, I told them I wasn’t pulling their leg and showed them the definition in the encyclopaedia. Me being a joker I said “Wouldn’t that make a funny title, instead of Tales from the Crypt, Tales of a Gay Succubus?” And my novelette was born.
The thing is as a published author you promote your work by going out in public and meeting your stalkers. Steven King wrote about a writer’s stalker in his novel “Misery”
It is just the potential things artisans must tolerate when they promote there work, people they do not know, thinking they know you or what you are like, touching you, or even doing things to you. The hard part is you must play nice or you risk losing fans and they pay you to be creative.
It comes with the job fans go figure.
Could be possible but I doubt you could travel to the past. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to change anything, as it would have already happened.
Jan 14, 2012. 2:51 PMcool knex13
says:
I heard that if you go faster than the speed of light than you can go forwards in time.
Jan 11, 2012. 11:19 PMblack hole
says:
I believe that is possible to travel through time, but not to change it. Only the future can be changed, not the past or the present. Look at it this way. In one Calvin and Hobbes strip, 6:30 Calvin went to the future to pick up his homework from 8:30 Calvin, and when 6:30 Calvin learned that 8:30 Calvin had, 2 hours ago, gone to the future to get the work, said, "Yeah, and here I am! Where is it?!". 8:30 Calvin replied, "That's what I said 2 hours ago. In the end, Calvin didn't change what did or was happening; he changed what would.
Jan 4, 2012. 9:05 PMfullinception
says:
I've talked to my friends about this and we came to the conclusion that we will probably never be able to time travel. Because if we were able to we would have people that live among us at this time that are from the future. If we could we would only be able to go back in time because theoretically the future has not happened yet.
Sep 22, 2011. 8:50 PMNerdz
says:
Technically Yes. Look at it from the point of view for the speed of light. The further away from a field of gravity you get, the slower your clock goes. For example, when astronauts go up into space, their clock actually gets slower by a few nanoseconds. In theory, if you could travel the speed of light, you could get YOUR time to slow down (relatively speaking) to the point where it almost stops. However, the time on earth would still be going on as if nothing happened, Thus if you travel around the earth for a long period of time, You could go forward in time.
Basically speaking the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower your clock ticks. The Further away you are the faster it is. Basically for the people on the ship, their clocks run slightly slower than clocks on earth. This only happens because they travel fast and are in orbit. You cannot get away from gravity fully, as there is "micro gravity"
Sources:
http://www.quora.com/Do-passengers-on-the-space-shuttle-and-on-the-international-space-station-experience-time-dilation-and-how-much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080518132335AAEvnyL
Basically speaking the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower your clock ticks. The Further away you are the faster it is. Basically for the people on the ship, their clocks run slightly slower than clocks on earth. This only happens because they travel fast and are in orbit. You cannot get away from gravity fully, as there is "micro gravity"
Sources:
http://www.quora.com/Do-passengers-on-the-space-shuttle-and-on-the-international-space-station-experience-time-dilation-and-how-much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080518132335AAEvnyL
Dec 31, 2011. 7:59 PMseraine
says:
I think that the astronauts clocks also slow down because they are going at high speeds, which means that time basically slows down for them.
I believe that is more the effect of weightlessness on the crystal oscillators in there clocks.
Sep 15, 2011. 8:51 AMkarnuvap
says:
to the future - sure.
to the past - not a chance.
Sad but true.
to the past - not a chance.
Sad but true.
Dec 5, 2011. 8:31 AMrobjob1918
says:
Agree. This would answer the common question: "If time travel were possible, then wouldn't we have met someone from the future already?"
now there could be a way to make it to the past with the scifi of the world at war teleporters on der reise why couldnt you make a teleporter in san francisco in 2012 then in 2013 make another in hong kong. and have them link toghether so that then in theory you would be teleported back to the module in 2012. Now that i think about that statement it wouldnt work because if the module was still there during 2013 you would basicly be just teleported back to san fran on the same date and probabl within a couple minutes
Dec 4, 2011. 4:10 PMrobjob1918
says:
Not just theoretically, it IS possible. An experiment was once conducted using two identical clocks set for identical times. One was launched into orbit and the other was kept on the ground. The one in orbit was travelling at tremendous speed. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 mph. Not sure how long the clock was in orbit, but when it was returned to the ground and compared with the other clock, it was found that it had "lost" a miniscule amount of time. A fraction of a second. But time is time, and it was proof that the faster one travels, the slower time passes for that individual. Meanwhile time goes by normally for everyone else. Therefore the faster one travels the further into the future one can go. It's a facinating subject really.---Rob
Oct 18, 2011. 3:03 AMdrago_maniac
says:
Now, i don't know much (i'm only 15) but, to my knowledge i believe time travel is theoretically possible, in fact, anti-particles, which are particles with opposite charges, e.g. electrons with a positive charge, are believed to be ordinary particles travelling backwards through time. This being said, i believe your question refers more to human time travel which brings the speed of light into all of this.
According to Einstein, time is all relative to the observers point of view and the faster you travel the slower time appears to move. What this means is if you could travel as fast as light, at which point time stops for you, you could go to a distant planet, when you return, no time would have passed for you, you may have been away for what seemed like a second yet you may have in actual fact been away from Earth for millions of years, thereby traveling forwards in time. Of course traveling at the speed of light does have it's side effects (infinite mass, no size etc.) but that is how to travel forwards in time. Hope it helped
According to Einstein, time is all relative to the observers point of view and the faster you travel the slower time appears to move. What this means is if you could travel as fast as light, at which point time stops for you, you could go to a distant planet, when you return, no time would have passed for you, you may have been away for what seemed like a second yet you may have in actual fact been away from Earth for millions of years, thereby traveling forwards in time. Of course traveling at the speed of light does have it's side effects (infinite mass, no size etc.) but that is how to travel forwards in time. Hope it helped
First, anti-particles follow what we consider to be normal time. Electrons and positrons (positive electrons) both travel in the same direction through time. Being anti-particles, the annihilate each other when they come in contact. Do not be discouraged though, as there are hypothetical particles that travel back in time by moving "faster than light." (these particles are a sizable topic and tangent to the issue at hand)
Secondly, there is a little more to the forward only time travel you described. Motion being relative, the mere act of moving away from an object means both you and the object are moving in a relativistic (meaning near the speeds where Relativity is significant) manner with respect to each other. The same goes for traveling towards each other.
You do not need to reach light speed, that just magnifies the effects of relativistic travel. Gravity fields passed through on the route also have a degree of effect on the passage of time as well (they might even be necessary, I don't remember off the top of my head).
The thing that makes you move slower into the future is the change in direction (and thus a change in velocity without changing speed) is what really gets you to "time travel." After this point, we start to reach the edge of where I have been told any more specifically from my Intro to Modern Physics course a couple years ago. There is also a thought burning in my mind that simply going in a circle would not work unless overwhelming gravity is involved, but like I said, I have already covered what I'm sure I remember accurately.
Secondly, there is a little more to the forward only time travel you described. Motion being relative, the mere act of moving away from an object means both you and the object are moving in a relativistic (meaning near the speeds where Relativity is significant) manner with respect to each other. The same goes for traveling towards each other.
You do not need to reach light speed, that just magnifies the effects of relativistic travel. Gravity fields passed through on the route also have a degree of effect on the passage of time as well (they might even be necessary, I don't remember off the top of my head).
The thing that makes you move slower into the future is the change in direction (and thus a change in velocity without changing speed) is what really gets you to "time travel." After this point, we start to reach the edge of where I have been told any more specifically from my Intro to Modern Physics course a couple years ago. There is also a thought burning in my mind that simply going in a circle would not work unless overwhelming gravity is involved, but like I said, I have already covered what I'm sure I remember accurately.
Oct 25, 2011. 11:54 PMhuffnpuff99
says:
theoretically you could travel backwards through time. All you need is a plane, some jet fuel and a rough understanding of time zones. Step 1 goto international date line on the new zealand side and go to the other side of the International Date Line by flying the long way round and, Hey Presto, you're back to yesterday (sorta)
P.S. I know this doesn't count as time travel but by doing this you could truthfully say that you went back in time
P.S. I know this doesn't count as time travel but by doing this you could truthfully say that you went back in time
Oct 26, 2011. 10:23 PMdrago_maniac
says:
true that, but i dont think that covers, you know, the past years
Nov 2, 2011. 10:22 AMVerendusVir
says:
I doubt it. What would happen if you went back in time and killed your grandfather? You would never have been born, so you could not kill him, but then if you did not kill him, you would be born, but if you were born, you would kill him... Time Travel creates too many impossibilities to be possible.
Oct 26, 2011. 8:37 PMjj.inc
says:
It is possible to go forwards, you don't actually jump through time though. If you go into space and come to an absolute stop relative to the universe you experience time a lot slower than on the earth, so when you have returned after a year of being stopped, 50 or more years could have gone by. Going back is just not possible when you really think about it. If it was everything has already happened and not happened and it gets confusing and it just doesn't work.
Yes time travel is possible you are doing it now. We are travelling to the future in what is called linear time.
The real question is can we manipulate our passage through time?
The answer is, not yet.
The real question is can we manipulate our passage through time?
The answer is, not yet.
Down to earth answer.
If in the future we can travel away from earth at speeds approaching a fraction
of light speed time for the travelers will slow while the near stationary planets
will appear to speed up resulting in apparent forward time travel.
A
If in the future we can travel away from earth at speeds approaching a fraction
of light speed time for the travelers will slow while the near stationary planets
will appear to speed up resulting in apparent forward time travel.
A
I write science fiction.
The manipulation of time in a bubble is a more likely scenario.
E = mc2
A 1 ton vehicle will take 4.0x10 to the power 15, j per second of energy to reach 1/10th the speed of light accelerating at a rate of 9.8 to the power 2, meters a second.
The manipulation of time in a bubble is a more likely scenario.
E = mc2
A 1 ton vehicle will take 4.0x10 to the power 15, j per second of energy to reach 1/10th the speed of light accelerating at a rate of 9.8 to the power 2, meters a second.
Oct 1, 2011. 5:39 AMBullseye-proof
says:
or there also the possibility of the earth spinning backwards thus reversing time
not to sure this would work because if thats true wouldn't the past earth just smash into you?
not to sure this would work because if thats true wouldn't the past earth just smash into you?
Oct 12, 2011. 1:10 PMfightingsquirell2
says:
alright here is the answer that u want
the sun does not spin but the earht rotates around it because of magnatism or somthing so you might be able to stop the earth from spinning but no amount of energy can stop us from moving around the sun
the sun does not spin but the earht rotates around it because of magnatism or somthing so you might be able to stop the earth from spinning but no amount of energy can stop us from moving around the sun
Sep 24, 2011. 7:31 AMdanielemur
says:
I beleive that one could travel back in time if they moved fast enough. for example, though this would take an infinite ammount of energy, if a person could travel so fast that they arived somewhere the same time they left, they could just travel a little faster and arrive before they left.
Sep 19, 2011. 4:19 PMachris4321
says:
Future yes but you cant go in reverse or that would be changing history and you wouldnt be back in time the would would have gone back in time with is imposssible because stuff like deaths chemicals that cant be undone would stop you because if you go back in time you would need everyone to be alive at the time you go back and the time you are at or you would have dead people standing dead basicly you would detroy history there by people would go crazy if more than 100 people died also they would know because of the body but lastly if they time traveled to the future it would be hard but they would have to speed up everything witch could end up killing everyone because of the speed even killing the time traveler ending up with slime everywhere just burning slime because the bodys would have goten broken up its like shacking a icey smoothy it would become hot and melt after time......................
Sep 22, 2011. 11:49 AME-roc
says:
In the assumption that time travel to the future is possible, say we are the future, and people from the present are thinking the same thing your saying and by traveling to the future they would be doing the equivalent of us traveling to the past. So by them changing their future they'd be changing our past which would be colliding with your theory of the inability to travel BACK in time. Therefore making time TRAVEL whatsoever impossible.
I don't see why you have a problem with traveling to the Future.
Traveling at near the speed of light or one orbit of a black hole will
slow your body so much that a fifty earth years pass in one of your
heart beats. When back on this planet you will be almost the same
age as you left but the date can be hundreds of years from
when you left.
Traveling at near the speed of light or one orbit of a black hole will
slow your body so much that a fifty earth years pass in one of your
heart beats. When back on this planet you will be almost the same
age as you left but the date can be hundreds of years from
when you left.
I would say no but if you ever heard of the Philadelphia ExperimentI. Allegedly, in the fall of 1943 a U.S. Navy destroyer was made invisible and teleported from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Norfolk, Virginia, in an incident known as the Philadelphia Experiment. Records in the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center have been repeatedly searched, but no documents have been located which confirm the event, or any interest by the Navy in attempting such an achievement.
The ship involved in the experiment was supposedly the USS Eldridge. Operational Archives has reviewed the deck log and war diary from Eldridge's commissioning on 27 August 1943 at the New York Navy Yard through December 1943. The following description of Eldridge's activities are summarized from the ship's war diary. After commissioning, Eldridge remained in New York and in the Long Island Sound until 16 September when it sailed to Bermuda. From 18 September, the ship was in the vicinity of Bermuda undergoing training and sea trials until 15 October when Eldridge left in a convoy for New York where the convoy entered on 18 October. Eldridge remained in New York harbor until 1 November when it was part of the escort for Convoy UGS-23 (New York Section). On 2 November the convoy entered Naval Operating Base, Norfolk. On 3 November, Eldridge and Convoy UGS-23 left for Casablanca where it arrived on 22 November. On 29 November, Eldridge left as one of escorts for Convoy GUS-22 and arrived with the convoy on 17 December at New York harbor. Eldridge remained in New York on availability training and in Block Island Sound until 31 December when it steamed to Norfolk with four other ships. During this time frame, Eldridge was never in Philadelphia.
Eldridge's complete World War II action report and war diary coverage, including the remarks section of the 1943 deck log, is available on microfilm, NRS-1978-26. The cost of a duplicate film is indicated on the fee schedule. To order a duplicate film, please complete the duplication order form and send a check or money order for the correct amount as indicated on the NHC fee schedule, made payable to the Department of the Navy, to the Operational Archives, at the above address.
Supposedly, the crew of the civilian merchant ship SS Andrew Furuseth observed the arrival via teleportation of the Eldridge into the Norfolk area. Andrew Furuseth's movement report cards are in the Tenth Fleet records in the custody of the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Admnistration, (8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001), which also has custody of the action reports, war diaries and deck logs of all World War II Navy ships, including Eldridge. The movement report cards list the merchant ship's ports of call, the dates of the visit, and convoy designation, if any. The movement report card shows that Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-15 on 16 August 1943 and arrived at Casablanca on 2 September. The ship left Casablanca on 19 September and arrived off Cape Henry on 4 October. Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-22 on 25 October and arrived at Oran on 12 November. The ship remained in the Mediterranean until it returned with Convoy GUS-25 to Hampton Roads on 17 January 1944. The Archives has a letter from Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, USNR, (Ret.), the Master of Andrew Furuseth in 1943, categorically denying that he or his crew observed any unusual event while in Norfolk. Eldridge and Andrew Furuseth were not even in Norfolk at the same time.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has stated that the use of force fields to make a ship and her crew invisible does not conform to known physical laws. ONR also claims that Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory was never completed. During 1943-1944, Einstein was a part-time consultant with the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance, undertaking theoretical research on explosives and explosions. There is no indication that Einstein was involved in research relevant to invisibility or to teleportation. ONR's information sheet on the Philadelphia Experiment is attached.
The Philadelphia Experiment has also been called "Project Rainbow." A comprehensive search of the Archives has failed to identify records of a Project Rainbow relating to teleportation or making a ship disappear. In the 1940s, the code name RAINBOW was used to refer to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. The RAINBOW plans were the war plans to defeat Italy, Germany and Japan. RAINBOW V, the plan in effect on 7 December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, was the plan the U.S. used to fight the Axis powers.
Some researchers have erroneously concluded that degaussing has a connection with making an object invisible. Degaussing is a process in which a system of electrical cables are installed around the circumference of ship's hull, running from bow to stern on both sides. A measured electrical current is passed through these cables to cancel out the ship's magnetic field. Degaussing equipment was installed in the hull of Navy ships and could be turned on whenever the ship was in waters that might contain magnetic mines, usually shallow waters in combat areas. It could be said that degaussing, correctly done, makes a ship "invisible" to the sensors of magnetic mines, but the ship remains visible to the human eye, radar, and underwater listening devices.
After many years of searching, the staff of the Operational Archives and independent researchers have not located any official documents that support the assertion that an invisibility or teleportation experiment involving a Navy ship occurred at Philadelphia or any other location.
The ship involved in the experiment was supposedly the USS Eldridge. Operational Archives has reviewed the deck log and war diary from Eldridge's commissioning on 27 August 1943 at the New York Navy Yard through December 1943. The following description of Eldridge's activities are summarized from the ship's war diary. After commissioning, Eldridge remained in New York and in the Long Island Sound until 16 September when it sailed to Bermuda. From 18 September, the ship was in the vicinity of Bermuda undergoing training and sea trials until 15 October when Eldridge left in a convoy for New York where the convoy entered on 18 October. Eldridge remained in New York harbor until 1 November when it was part of the escort for Convoy UGS-23 (New York Section). On 2 November the convoy entered Naval Operating Base, Norfolk. On 3 November, Eldridge and Convoy UGS-23 left for Casablanca where it arrived on 22 November. On 29 November, Eldridge left as one of escorts for Convoy GUS-22 and arrived with the convoy on 17 December at New York harbor. Eldridge remained in New York on availability training and in Block Island Sound until 31 December when it steamed to Norfolk with four other ships. During this time frame, Eldridge was never in Philadelphia.
Eldridge's complete World War II action report and war diary coverage, including the remarks section of the 1943 deck log, is available on microfilm, NRS-1978-26. The cost of a duplicate film is indicated on the fee schedule. To order a duplicate film, please complete the duplication order form and send a check or money order for the correct amount as indicated on the NHC fee schedule, made payable to the Department of the Navy, to the Operational Archives, at the above address.
Supposedly, the crew of the civilian merchant ship SS Andrew Furuseth observed the arrival via teleportation of the Eldridge into the Norfolk area. Andrew Furuseth's movement report cards are in the Tenth Fleet records in the custody of the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Admnistration, (8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001), which also has custody of the action reports, war diaries and deck logs of all World War II Navy ships, including Eldridge. The movement report cards list the merchant ship's ports of call, the dates of the visit, and convoy designation, if any. The movement report card shows that Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-15 on 16 August 1943 and arrived at Casablanca on 2 September. The ship left Casablanca on 19 September and arrived off Cape Henry on 4 October. Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-22 on 25 October and arrived at Oran on 12 November. The ship remained in the Mediterranean until it returned with Convoy GUS-25 to Hampton Roads on 17 January 1944. The Archives has a letter from Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, USNR, (Ret.), the Master of Andrew Furuseth in 1943, categorically denying that he or his crew observed any unusual event while in Norfolk. Eldridge and Andrew Furuseth were not even in Norfolk at the same time.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has stated that the use of force fields to make a ship and her crew invisible does not conform to known physical laws. ONR also claims that Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory was never completed. During 1943-1944, Einstein was a part-time consultant with the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance, undertaking theoretical research on explosives and explosions. There is no indication that Einstein was involved in research relevant to invisibility or to teleportation. ONR's information sheet on the Philadelphia Experiment is attached.
The Philadelphia Experiment has also been called "Project Rainbow." A comprehensive search of the Archives has failed to identify records of a Project Rainbow relating to teleportation or making a ship disappear. In the 1940s, the code name RAINBOW was used to refer to the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. The RAINBOW plans were the war plans to defeat Italy, Germany and Japan. RAINBOW V, the plan in effect on 7 December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, was the plan the U.S. used to fight the Axis powers.
Some researchers have erroneously concluded that degaussing has a connection with making an object invisible. Degaussing is a process in which a system of electrical cables are installed around the circumference of ship's hull, running from bow to stern on both sides. A measured electrical current is passed through these cables to cancel out the ship's magnetic field. Degaussing equipment was installed in the hull of Navy ships and could be turned on whenever the ship was in waters that might contain magnetic mines, usually shallow waters in combat areas. It could be said that degaussing, correctly done, makes a ship "invisible" to the sensors of magnetic mines, but the ship remains visible to the human eye, radar, and underwater listening devices.
After many years of searching, the staff of the Operational Archives and independent researchers have not located any official documents that support the assertion that an invisibility or teleportation experiment involving a Navy ship occurred at Philadelphia or any other location.
Sep 16, 2011. 7:53 AMjamesrboster
says:
Einstein discribs space and time as being one unit and as we move though space we also move though time. It has been theorized that the faster you travel the faster you move through space and time. That being said something traveling faster than an other object is going to be propelled though time faster as well, traveling farther into the future. An other interesting anomaly is the occurance of black holes which are such dense areas of space and time that it is also theroized to stop time near the event horizon of a black hole. So it is possible to travel foward in time and to nearly stop time. Traveling back in time would be the real challenge, but that would also really complicate things. What happens if you were to travel back in time and want to get back to your current time but find yourself trapped in a loop of time.
Um, no. There are several misunderstandings here, probably engendered by popular "interpretations" of relativistic physics.
1) The faster you move, the "faster" someone else thinks you're moving through space, and the slower they think you're moving through time. You, on the other hand, see exactly the same perception -- your clock is moving perfectly normally, but the folks outside are slowing down.
2) Black holes are not "dense areas of space and time." They are dense concentrations of matter around which spacetime is strongly curved. That curvature is what we call "gravity." At the event horizon, an outside observer would see the clock of someone falling in come to a stop (see item 1); in other words, the outside observer would never see anything actually fall "into" a black hole. For the object falling in, clocks don't change at all: they fall right through the event horizon and on into the center in finite local time. Physically, of course, the strong curvature means strong tidal forces, and the object gets pulled and stretched apart.
3) Relativity, as we understand it, appears to support closed timelike curves ("time loops"), and there is a substantial field of research devoted to understanding the implications of that, how it relates to quantum physics, causality, self-consistency, and so on.
1) The faster you move, the "faster" someone else thinks you're moving through space, and the slower they think you're moving through time. You, on the other hand, see exactly the same perception -- your clock is moving perfectly normally, but the folks outside are slowing down.
2) Black holes are not "dense areas of space and time." They are dense concentrations of matter around which spacetime is strongly curved. That curvature is what we call "gravity." At the event horizon, an outside observer would see the clock of someone falling in come to a stop (see item 1); in other words, the outside observer would never see anything actually fall "into" a black hole. For the object falling in, clocks don't change at all: they fall right through the event horizon and on into the center in finite local time. Physically, of course, the strong curvature means strong tidal forces, and the object gets pulled and stretched apart.
3) Relativity, as we understand it, appears to support closed timelike curves ("time loops"), and there is a substantial field of research devoted to understanding the implications of that, how it relates to quantum physics, causality, self-consistency, and so on.
Thanks for all the answers but I picked Vyger's. Thanks
Sep 16, 2011. 1:14 AMThe MadScientist
says:
By my knowledge time travel happens all the time but only on subatomic levels.
Depends on what you mean:
For people - Impossible. There are some apparent time travel effects at a sub atomic level.
The theory of relativity doesn't specifically exclude time travel as a possibility.
For people - Impossible. There are some apparent time travel effects at a sub atomic level.
The theory of relativity doesn't specifically exclude time travel as a possibility.
[citation needed]
Are you thinking of loop quantum effects? Or the fact that field theory allows you to treat (mathematically) an antiparticle as though it were the corresponding particle time-reversed? The latter is just a consequence of CPT symmetry, and isn't "time travel" as such.
Are you thinking of loop quantum effects? Or the fact that field theory allows you to treat (mathematically) an antiparticle as though it were the corresponding particle time-reversed? The latter is just a consequence of CPT symmetry, and isn't "time travel" as such.
I was thinking of this . If entanglement occurs across infinate distances then shouldn't it occur across time as well??
this seems to support
and this
Time machine
OK not convincing
There are many arguments both for and against time travel, but basically it boils down to what you mean by time travel.
If you literally mean traveling back and forth in time, the answer, simply, is no.
There are recent studies by Scientists in Hong Kong that studied the speed of photons and the possibility of speed. Basically, they found that photons are unable to travel faster than light, thus, no time travel.
Check these links out for more info:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/07/time-travel-impossible.html
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/07/bummer-time-travel-proved-impossible/
If you literally mean traveling back and forth in time, the answer, simply, is no.
There are recent studies by Scientists in Hong Kong that studied the speed of photons and the possibility of speed. Basically, they found that photons are unable to travel faster than light, thus, no time travel.
Check these links out for more info:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/07/time-travel-impossible.html
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/07/bummer-time-travel-proved-impossible/
I took a course on Remote Viewing which can go forward or reverse and anyplace in time and space.
It really worked for me, my problem was interpretation.
We were given a target as an unknown code number which I viewed and
recognized as an underwater sand-dollar mollusk type creature ( see first pic).
Later when the exercise was over, we learned the target was Hiroshima. Obviously I was looking at the top of the nuclear fire-ball ( see second pic ).
Interpretation is everything :-)
It really worked for me, my problem was interpretation.
We were given a target as an unknown code number which I viewed and
recognized as an underwater sand-dollar mollusk type creature ( see first pic).
Later when the exercise was over, we learned the target was Hiroshima. Obviously I was looking at the top of the nuclear fire-ball ( see second pic ).
Interpretation is everything :-)
Only in your mind, you could try meditation (otherwise mind-altering chemicals..)
L
Sep 15, 2011. 11:18 AMthegeeke
says:
You've been watching too many sifi movies. ;) In our terms of understanding... no. It's not... (Except for the fact that we are always traveling forward in time.)
Easy - Close your eyes and concentrate and you can travel forward in time at a rate of 1 hour every 60 minutes..
Time travel is real and commonplace.
It's not widely publicised, but around one in five people you see in the street are actually time-travelling tourists. That's why they look at you in that funny way - they're taking your photo with their contact-lens cameras.
(If you look at the statistics closely enough, you'll find that the growth in world population closely matches the mass availability of time-travel. It's not more babies, or longer life expectancy, it's temporal immigrants swelling the numbers (and most of them haven't got visas!).
It's not widely publicised, but around one in five people you see in the street are actually time-travelling tourists. That's why they look at you in that funny way - they're taking your photo with their contact-lens cameras.
(If you look at the statistics closely enough, you'll find that the growth in world population closely matches the mass availability of time-travel. It's not more babies, or longer life expectancy, it's temporal immigrants swelling the numbers (and most of them haven't got visas!).
Sep 15, 2011. 7:09 AMFoolishSage
says:
Depends on which theory you use. I've heard that some physicists are trying to get rid of the concept of time all together because it messes up their equations.
 |
