Is Time Travel possible?
I think that it's impossible. Mybe you have a complete information about this.
Thanks.
I think that it's impossible. Mybe you have a complete information about this.
Thanks.
Is Time Travel possible?
Theres already a topic on this.
| heridlia wrote: |
| Is Time Travel possible?
I think that it's impossible. Mybe you have a complete information about this. Thanks. |
No, absolutely not. Impossible. No way. If you want to travel to past you should read history books. If you want to travel to future you should read sci-fi books. But why do you want to travel in time anyway ? The present is much more exciting.
There are a few ways to travel true time, reading books and dreaming about the future are two of them, but to look, well not realy to travel in time, when you look to a star, you see it in the status were it was in day's, month's ago, beceaus even light takes time to get somewhere.
But in the end, real time travel as we see it in the movie's, nope, maybe when we get to warp speef and get "the borg" there supper warp thingy, well maybe then.. yes:)
Goodby to yall
But in the end, real time travel as we see it in the movie's, nope, maybe when we get to warp speef and get "the borg" there supper warp thingy, well maybe then.. yes:)
Goodby to yall
Travel into the future is certainly possible. Relativistic speeds provide a mechanism for this and there are theories that the event horizon of black holes could also be used.
However, travelling back in time is a big no-no.
However, travelling back in time is a big no-no.
fysical travel in to the future to is a "big no no" at this moment, you practicaly cannot travel faster then "time" you are in time. Does that make any sense? Yes it does.
you can look into the past of ouer universe (due to the speed of light), and think about ouer future in it.
you can look into the past of ouer universe (due to the speed of light), and think about ouer future in it.
sure you can change time. Because time is relative: to go forward in time, either go really fast for a while, or go somewhere where gravity is many times greater than the amount needed to kill you. To go back in time, either go faster than the speed of light, or successfully make and travel through a wormhole. 
Actually traveling at relativistic speeds is not a good way to travel in time. If you account for the process of accelerating and decelerating to a large enough fraction of C for you to "time travel" you didn't actually "time travel"
Ie, lets say you are going fast enough to perceive time as twice as fast as on earth. So you fly around in your spaceship for 10 years, but 20 years will have passed on earth. It will take you 15 years to decelerate back to earth's velocity, while people on earth will only perceive it as 5 years. So basically, you spent 25 years in your spaceship, and so did the inhabitants of spaceship earth.
Sorry, the numbers here are off the top of my head, I've forgotten the exact equations behind this stuff. Time dilation with a constant velocity isn't to hard, but figuring out what goes on when you accelerate and decelerate is a bitch. The idea of what I am saying is correct though.
Ie, lets say you are going fast enough to perceive time as twice as fast as on earth. So you fly around in your spaceship for 10 years, but 20 years will have passed on earth. It will take you 15 years to decelerate back to earth's velocity, while people on earth will only perceive it as 5 years. So basically, you spent 25 years in your spaceship, and so did the inhabitants of spaceship earth.
Sorry, the numbers here are off the top of my head, I've forgotten the exact equations behind this stuff. Time dilation with a constant velocity isn't to hard, but figuring out what goes on when you accelerate and decelerate is a bitch. The idea of what I am saying is correct though.
forget time travel, wen we hav barely solved the problems of today. Even if you daydreamers do escape to the future, someone has to shoulder the responsibilities of today, so you guys wont end up in some swamp called Earth in 2200. Back to reality, today the fragility of the globe remains as brittle as ever, Nukes, conflict, global warming, peak oil. Im not another idiot claiming armaggedon, im an optimist by nature, but i believe that this universe runs on one law- no free lunch, us OECD nations do not deserve the lifestyle we take for granted by sitting back n doing nothing. Forget today and there is no future. If there is no future, what are you gonna travel to?
i think i remeber reading smwhere that time travel is possible not the conventianla way that requires one to travel faster than the speed of light which einstien said cant be done. well it can be but that requires you to have no mass.. not wieth.. but MASS.. so if ur made out of nothing u can travel back in time.. but to do that you wont be there any way.
the other theory requires bending gravtiy and using dark matter propulsion smthing.. i think i read it in a pop sci mag.. and there was smthign in a quantum theory book as well about it. i think it was the new scientist may or june issue of 2005
good stuff so if you can travel back in time.. you cant really do much cauze it might lead to a completely differnt now.
like if u left a light bulb or a battery back in edsions day imagine the changes that might have happend
the other theory requires bending gravtiy and using dark matter propulsion smthing.. i think i read it in a pop sci mag.. and there was smthign in a quantum theory book as well about it. i think it was the new scientist may or june issue of 2005
good stuff so if you can travel back in time.. you cant really do much cauze it might lead to a completely differnt now.
like if u left a light bulb or a battery back in edsions day imagine the changes that might have happend
Contrary to many SF books and Hollywood movies I think that TIME TRAVEL IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Time travel into the past causes logical paradoxes / impossible situations therefore I discard this idea with prejudice.
One-way time travel into the future using a relativistic speed is just subjective time slowed down not really a travel into the future.
Of course my opinion is formed using common sense and present and near future state of science and technology. A major breakthrough in science can change that but is highly unlikely.
Time travel into the past causes logical paradoxes / impossible situations therefore I discard this idea with prejudice.
One-way time travel into the future using a relativistic speed is just subjective time slowed down not really a travel into the future.
Of course my opinion is formed using common sense and present and near future state of science and technology. A major breakthrough in science can change that but is highly unlikely.
| smarter wrote: |
| Contrary to many SF books and Hollywood movies I think that TIME TRAVEL IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Time travel into the past causes logical paradoxes / impossible situations therefore I discard this idea with prejudice. |
Tsk, you lack imagination. There are two easy solutions to the problem of time travel paradoxes that i know of; the many worlds interpretation and the Novikov principle. And that's just simple solutions. More advanced solutions also exist.
Yes, it is possible, but you must not get any evidence and you shouldn't put yourself in a position you can prove that you did it.
I don't think that is possible. but it's really great if one of us can do that. if you saw the move back to the future, you can be reach by just betting on the lotto coz you already know whats the no. that wins.
I have never heard any evidence that would lead me to believe that time travel is possible, but that doesnt mean it isnt.
Its been proven to be possible in more than one way, but do we have any chance to actually do it? No.
What we need:
1: A whole lotta energy: as in more energy than the entire Earth could currently provide.
-or-
2: A type of matter called 'exotic matter' that has yet to be discovered or produced, but would not break the laws of physics by existing.
I expect to see the ability to communicate through time before the ability to travel through it (other than in the sense that we are always traveling through it.)
What we need:
1: A whole lotta energy: as in more energy than the entire Earth could currently provide.
-or-
2: A type of matter called 'exotic matter' that has yet to be discovered or produced, but would not break the laws of physics by existing.
I expect to see the ability to communicate through time before the ability to travel through it (other than in the sense that we are always traveling through it.)
| snowboardude wrote: |
| I have never heard any evidence that would lead me to believe that time travel is possible, but that doesnt mean it isnt. |
Here's a quote from a lecture by Stephen Hawking. It poses an interesting theory about how we could travel in time, unlikely as it may seem.
"We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction. So it might seem possible, that as we advance in science and technology, we might be able to construct a wormhole, or warp space and time in some other way, so as to be able to travel into our past. If this were the case, it would raise a whole host of questions and problems. One of these is, if sometime in the future, we learn to travel in time, why hasn't someone come back from the future, to tell us how to do it. "
You can find the whole lecture at http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html
| calicamper wrote: |
| why hasn't someone come back from the future, to tell us how to do it. "
|
That's my theory about what UFO's are. Think; if you were to travel back in time, you'd want to change as little as possible, right?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
That's my theory about what UFO's are. Think; if you were to travel back in time, you'd want to change as little as possible, right? |
Except for the fact that ufos are not ufos (mostly just plains, the rest, natural phenomena and hoaxes)
^Besides those, of course.
It is impossible.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Besides those, of course. |
Nope, that pretty much cover them all, except for people seeing things that are not there.
^Spoil-sport.
if there are true UFO's (which I am by no means sure of), then that's what I believe they are.
Is that qualified enough for you?
if there are true UFO's (which I am by no means sure of), then that's what I believe they are.
Is that qualified enough for you?
But I'm saying, there are not UFOs.
Oh, forget it.
Ya,i believe time travel is possibe. But the only way is wormhole. We have to tear the space and fold it.Stringtheory says its possibe.
U should know about einstein-rogen bridge. It connects two universes or one universe but different place on different time.A new topic is send on Wormhole.
Do u know about Hawking radiation of Blackhole? If u r interested reply on this topic.Its send as topic
U should know about einstein-rogen bridge. It connects two universes or one universe but different place on different time.A new topic is send on Wormhole.
Do u know about Hawking radiation of Blackhole? If u r interested reply on this topic.Its send as topic
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Oh, forget it. |
I know what you mean but no UFO is a UFO, its ether a plane, hoax, natural phenomenon or hallucinations.. If there is people from the future here, there invisible (there craft) so they wouldn't be mistaken for UFOs.
It's highly likely that we will not evolve enough before becoming extinct to even contemplate it properly.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
I know what you mean but no UFO is a UFO, its ether a plane, hoax, natural phenomenon or hallucinations.. If there is people from the future here, there invisible (there craft) so they wouldn't be mistaken for UFOs. |
I said forget it; I don't want to debate that here and make this more off-topic than it already is.
1. Time Travel = T
2. Past = A
3. Future = F
4. Present (Time 1200 hrs) = P
Solution 1. In 10 minutes time, we have move 10 minutes into the future (T = F)
Solution 2. (T - 10 minutes = A)
Reality at present we can only move forward in time, In the future we may be able to move back in time.
Problem solved, by mad scientist
Have a good day, beam me up scotty
2. Past = A
3. Future = F
4. Present (Time 1200 hrs) = P
Solution 1. In 10 minutes time, we have move 10 minutes into the future (T = F)
Solution 2. (T - 10 minutes = A)
Reality at present we can only move forward in time, In the future we may be able to move back in time.
Problem solved, by mad scientist
Have a good day, beam me up scotty
| silkmesh wrote: |
| 1. Time Travel = T
2. Past = A 3. Future = F 4. Present (Time 1200 hrs) = P Solution 1. In 10 minutes time, we have move 10 minutes into the future (T = F) Solution 2. (T - 10 minutes = A) Reality at present we can only move forward in time, In the future we may be able to move back in time. Problem solved, by mad scientist Have a good day, beam me up scotty |
That doesn't make sense. Time travel is a function, not a variable and the construction T=F is meaningless since you cannot equate a function in that way. It is like saying 'multiplication = 23'.
I love that Stephen Hawking quote someone posted, I think it somewhat prooves that travelling back in time isn't possible, at least maybe not the way most people see it. Maybe you go back to an "parallel world".
Traveling time hm ... it is possible think. I think it is possible to travel through the time just people did not already knew how to do it. I think that traveling by time is similar thing as flying. People did not knew how to do it then finally managed to create a machine which helped them to fly. So now people have to make a machine which would help them to travel through the time.
Thats what I think .
Thats what I think
.Huh
We will need some wood a rubber band and pieces of string I guess to experiment?
Flying was always possible, wind speed and power. The simple facts are we can only travel forward in time and their is no apparent proof that paralel universes exist. How ever imaginitive minds and mad scientist will carry on regardlessly trying to prove tomorrow is to day and yestday... Ah....WoW...wiiiish.. sorry nearly got sucked into a time warp.
Regards
Dr Who
We will need some wood a rubber band and pieces of string I guess to experiment?
Flying was always possible, wind speed and power. The simple facts are we can only travel forward in time and their is no apparent proof that paralel universes exist. How ever imaginitive minds and mad scientist will carry on regardlessly trying to prove tomorrow is to day and yestday... Ah....WoW...wiiiish.. sorry nearly got sucked into a time warp.
Regards
Dr Who
Well, if we are considering theoretical possibilities then there are at least a couple which would allow time travel. One is well known and understood - relativistic time dilation - and has been discussed in detail in other threads. My own effort at explanation can be read here.
The other is the wormhole. The standard way to imagine a wormhole is to regard spacetime as a 2-D sheet of paper. You then imagine folding the sheet and making a hole in the top and bottom which would allow you to travel from top to bottom without actually moving along the sheet itself.
A recent paper by Stephen Hsu and Roman Buniy seems to show that it may not be possible to build a wormhole which has a known exit point (known as a traversable wormhole), since such a wormhole is inherently unstable.
The other is the wormhole. The standard way to imagine a wormhole is to regard spacetime as a 2-D sheet of paper. You then imagine folding the sheet and making a hole in the top and bottom which would allow you to travel from top to bottom without actually moving along the sheet itself.
A recent paper by Stephen Hsu and Roman Buniy seems to show that it may not be possible to build a wormhole which has a known exit point (known as a traversable wormhole), since such a wormhole is inherently unstable.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ....
A recent paper by Stephen Hsu and Roman Buniy seems to show that it may not be possible to build a wormhole which has a known exit point (known as a traversable wormhole), since such a wormhole is inherently unstable. |
I am not at all familiar with that paper, but isn't the history of technology filled with "unstable" situations that we eventually found a way to stabilize? Even if we can't see the answer now, do you get the feeling that the the suggested instability described in the paper is absolute or just another problem to be addressed?
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
I am not at all familiar with that paper, but isn't the history of technology filled with "unstable" situations that we eventually found a way to stabilize? Even if we can't see the answer now, do you get the feeling that the the suggested instability described in the paper is absolute or just another problem to be addressed? |
Good question. The paper most relevant to this question is the one they produced on null-energy which can be read in the original here
To my amateur eye it looks as if this defines a fundamental limitation. A later paper (here) expands the principle and seems to indicate that this is a fundamental problem rather than a temporary hitch
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Good question. The paper most relevant to this question is the one they produced on null-energy which can be read in the original here To my amateur eye it looks as if this defines a fundamental limitation. A later paper (here) expands the principle and seems to indicate that this is a fundamental problem rather than a temporary hitch |
I looked over both papers (god, I hate PDFs) and I found only a single sentence in each relating to wormholes. Much of the discussion is way over my head, but I get the impression the instability described is referring to models in a "natural state", i.e. they won't be found occurring naturally.
But then, I am not a theoretical physicist.
Whether it is a "fundamental problem or a temporary hitch", I don't think wormhole travel is going to be an option in my or any of our lifetimes.| HoboPelican wrote: |
| I looked over both papers (god, I hate PDFs) and I found only a single sentence in each relating to wormholes. Much of the discussion is way over my head, but I get the impression the instability described is referring to models in a "natural state", i.e. they won't be found occurring naturally.
But then, I am not a theoretical physicist. Whether it is a "fundamental problem or a temporary hitch", I don't think wormhole travel is going to be an option in my or any of our lifetimes. |
I would agree with that summary (and agree with the observation that much of it was over my head also...particularly some of the math).
The theory has not been proven as a fact, the maths involved only ever lead to theories and not facts.
Lets not make bold statements by treating a theory as a fact please. We are billions or millions of miles away from the nearest so called wormhole and if the theory turns out to be a fact it is best to stay well clear of a worm hole because any thing near to one is thought to be dragged into the center and expectedly crushed etc.
Whos the fool that wants to create one, huh huh! silly I thinks to myself, star treky I guess.
Beam me up scotty
Lets not make bold statements by treating a theory as a fact please. We are billions or millions of miles away from the nearest so called wormhole and if the theory turns out to be a fact it is best to stay well clear of a worm hole because any thing near to one is thought to be dragged into the center and expectedly crushed etc.
Whos the fool that wants to create one, huh huh! silly I thinks to myself, star treky I guess.
Beam me up scotty
| silkmesh wrote: |
| The theory has not been proven as a fact, the maths involved only ever lead to theories and not facts.
Lets not make bold statements by treating a theory as a fact please. We are billions or millions of miles away from the nearest so called wormhole and if the theory turns out to be a fact it is best to stay well clear of a worm hole because any thing near to one is thought to be dragged into the center and expectedly crushed etc. |
I would simply re-iterate the point I made in another thread on this issue - it is important to understand what is meant by theory in science and, with such understanding, the dichotomy between theory and fact disappears. I think that what you mean to point to is the distinction between hypothesis and theory.
It was a joke chris, please lighten up
You can not compare inventing a flying machine with inventing a way to time travel. The physic rules parellels are not the same. The guy should of used the invention of television maybe.
Best Regards
You can not compare inventing a flying machine with inventing a way to time travel. The physic rules parellels are not the same. The guy should of used the invention of television maybe.
Best Regards
Chris, Chris,
Your words are a pleasure to hear yes I agree, thanks for translating my simple rederings into scientific terms.
Black is Black and White is White, no other shade my friend.
Best regards
Your words are a pleasure to hear yes I agree, thanks for translating my simple rederings into scientific terms.
Black is Black and White is White, no other shade my friend.
Best regards
 |