Time Travel: Is it possible?

[Azure Wrath]

I was lying around last night, wondering this:
Is time travel really possible, or is it an unreachable dream that we persue in an attempt to be able to try and rectify all our wrongs?

Personally... i dont believe that time travel can be achieved.

We livei n a world with four dimensions, the fourth being time.
Something my maths lecturer told me (and this is really something to wrap your head around). how would you see something in four dimensions? Well, lets say we lived in a two dimensional world (a plane), how would you see a three dimensional apple for example? To do that, you would have to lower the apple into the plane. Then the observer in the plane will be able to see a series of layers of the apple, starting with a point, then a small circle, then larger and larger... then smaller and smaller... until its a point again. then it dissapears. The same should (according to him) count to see an object in four dimensions. If you look into the air and you see a ball in 4 dimensions, you will first see a dot... then a small ball... then larger and larger... then smaller and smaller... untill it is gone. There you have seen something in four dimensions.

Anyway, that was just for interests sake, i thought it was cool, so i shared it.
anyway, on topic, i do not think time travel can be achieved, because there is no physical quantity such as 'time'. Time is simply a method for humans to establish the passing of events and the rotation of celestial bodies. Therefor, there is no physical thing such as time, so how would one be able to manipulate it? If the earth were to spin in reverse, time would obviosly not go back, but you would 'win' some minutes.

take for example, if i fly from south africa, to americe. It is 1pm here and lets say hypothetically that it takes the plane 7 hours to get there (yeah right). and lets also say that when i land in the US, its 1pm there. This will man that this current day that i am living in is 6 hours longer, right? True... but, one day i will fly back to south africa and i will lose those 7 hours that i won earlier.

anyway, what are your insights on this? Do you think we can accomplish time travel?

[NMK]

I had this great video about exactly this matter. The video was about dimensions and it continued til' the 10th dimension. If I find it I'll post the link here, cause it was great.

For those who doesn't understand these dimension thingys I'll just make a little example, would've made a better one but I just got out of bed.

One Dimension:

<______________________________<

When you come to the tag (arrow) on the left you'll just end up on the other side, the right tag. Then you'd just keep walking like that.

[DBZWarrior6582]

Well since time travel is still theoretical we can't be sure if we will ever achieve it. we first have to become technologicaly advanced enough to even try. if you think about it, there are alot of ideas in movies and tv on how to accomplish such a goal. if any of those actually work then by god lets use it. if not then lets keep trying. I feel that even if time travel is an unreachable goal we should try for it anyway. why stop persuing something just because everyone says you can't make it happen. I think one day we might find a possible way but can't be sure if we will actually be able to until it happens.

[DonEmu]

Albert Einstein once said the evidence that time travel isnt possible or will never be reached by us humans is the fact that we dont have any tourists from the future coming into present day, if we achieved time travel in the future then we would have visitors from said future.

[Azure Wrath]

lols, that is actually brilliant. thank you don and einstein!

[Nick]

Remember the time machine they bought on the internet in Napoleon Dynamite?

[superkhanh0]

not quite, if they come back then u must have certain rule sayin they cant do anythin to change the pass which will effect the future, if they come out and say it then everythin wud mess up rite?
so yea i believe in science

[partlink1]

time travel actuly confuses me because if you go back and change an event which causes you not to go back in time, then you never changed the event and history fixes itself, so even if it was possible history would just even out

time travel- a distubing cornicopia of unforseen events

[DonEmu]

I read a scifi book once that had some time travelling, actually in the story ppl couldnt travel to the past no matter what, but they could travel to the future...it was complicated but they could not go to the past cause it would cause a parallax but on special occasions where the journey wouldnt or couldnt affect the future they could...it was this whole nazi-scifi thing...the book is called lightning.

[Nick]

You cant have this discussion without mentioning the Grandfather paradox... for those who dont know it it goes as follows.

If a man travels back in time and shoots his grand father in the head with a gun then does it mean he was never born? And if he was never born, then did he realy shoot his grand father in the head.

I think one physisist tried to solve this by theorizing that a new parallell dimention becomes created when you shoot your grand father in the head. In one dimention you continue to exist but another dimemtion where you are never born gets created...

[Bap]

I don't think it would be possible to travel back in time. But forward in time, maybe. Doesnt Eistein also theorize that if you travel the speed of light or something like that, that you can speed through time. I really don't understand it. I am one who thinks there is no past or future, but I don't think this theory of future travel would be skipping parts of the "future," but more like taking a shortcut. A one month period of time spent travelling through space at the speed of light and back to earth would take the same amount of time as it does for 10 years to pass on earth, or something like that.

I really have no clue what I am talking about. I would like very much to understand Einstein's theories of relativity, and the implications of gravity and dimension of time. That stuff is dumbfounding to me, though.

[Chidongan]

i saw a movie called 'the timemachine' it was an ok movie, but the concept was good.

man's fiance dies, so he builds a time maching to go back in time to save, her, he does save for a few minutes longer though, she dies again anyways. he tries to save her again, but he fails again. so he goes to the future seeking the answer to why he can't save her. and the answer was, that if he had saved her in the past, then he wouldn't have any reason to build the time machine in the first place.

that could be an interesting theory, but then again if you watched DBZ they have a good concept too.

not sure if i remmeber this correctly, but when trunkz came back in time to save goku, the future didn't change. he just made a new future. so basically it was like a river that divided in two. so now there were two different futures. one where gohan and trunkz were alive and fighting the androids, and one where goku and the others were still alive.

so maybe if someone from the future indeed did come to the past and changed something we wouldn't know, becuase if that was possible there'd be more than one streams of time.

i.e. the begiining of time, jesus comes, yaddha yaddha. then the years is...lets say...1912, a fathers whole family dies in the 'titanic', so he lives the rest of his life, gets married has more children. than the year is now 2012, about a hundred years later. that mans' descendant accuires a time machine and goes back in time to save his great great grandfathers family. he does so. but when he comes back to the future, nothings changed. that's becuase he's still in his time stream. but when he saved his great great grandfathers family he started a whole new time stream entirely, in which they are alive, they live the rest of their lives. not that much seems to be changed except the fact that he doesnt exist in the new time stream (the man had no need to start a new family), but it is still a whole new time stream entirely.

if you think about it, it does make sense. how can you change something that already happened? you don't, you just make a new time stream in which it never takes place in.

now this is going off topic, but then this could also mean that those other time lines are moving at the same time and speed as us. so when the idea of different dimensions in which your 'evil' twin lives, could just be the the other time streams. you may still be alive in the other time stream, same world, same physics, everything. though a few things might be different though.

i.e. maybe someone goes back in time and stops JFK's assasination, then in that new time stream JFK does something stupid like start a major world war, and the world is in bad shape now. but in the original time stream (whichever one that may be), the world is perfectly fine.

i know it's a weird concept to grasp, but i strongly believe in it.

[DonEmu]

I don't think it would be possible to travel back in time. But forward in time, maybe. Doesnt Eistein also theorize that if you travel the speed of light or something like that, that you can speed through time. I really don't understand it. I am one who thinks there is no past or future, but I don't think this theory of future travel would be skipping parts of the "future," but more like taking a shortcut. A one month period of time spent travelling through space at the speed of light and back to earth would take the same amount of time as it does for 10 years to pass on earth, or something like that.

I really have no clue what I am talking about. I would like very much to understand Einstein's theories of relativity, and the implications of gravity and dimension of time. That stuff is dumbfounding to me, though.

Einstein theorised that moving at the speed of light would mean u have infinite mass meaning time would have no meaning and would be like technically moving into the future. He also once said it is possible that if one moves at the speed of light one would age likewise...This has nothing to do with the theory of relativity which i read once and found quite easy to understand.I will explain it in leyman's terms later if u want.

i saw a movie called 'the timemachine' it was an ok movie, but the concept was good.

man's fiance dies, so he builds a time maching to go back in time to save, her, he does save for a few minutes longer though, she dies again anyways. he tries to save her again, but he fails again. so he goes to the future seeking the answer to why he can't save her. and the answer was, that if he had saved her in the past, then he wouldn't have any reason to build the time machine in the first place.

that could be an interesting theory, but then again if you watched DBZ they have a good concept too.

not sure if i remmeber this correctly, but when trunkz came back in time to save goku, the future didn't change. he just made a new future. so basically it was like a river that divided in two. so now there were two different futures. one where gohan and trunkz were alive and fighting the androids, and one where goku and the others were still alive.

so maybe if someone from the future indeed did come to the past and changed something we wouldn't know, becuase if that was possible there'd be more than one streams of time.

i.e. the begiining of time, jesus comes, yaddha yaddha. then the years is...lets say...1912, a fathers whole family dies in the 'titanic', so he lives the rest of his life, gets married has more children. than the year is now 2012, about a hundred years later. that mans' descendant accuires a time machine and goes back in time to save his great great grandfathers family. he does so. but when he comes back to the future, nothings changed. that's becuase he's still in his time stream. but when he saved his great great grandfathers family he started a whole new time stream entirely, in which they are alive, they live the rest of their lives. not that much seems to be changed except the fact that he doesnt exist in the new time stream (the man had no need to start a new family), but it is still a whole new time stream entirely.

if you think about it, it does make sense. how can you change something that already happened? you don't, you just make a new time stream in which it never takes place in.

now this is going off topic, but then this could also mean that those other time lines are moving at the same time and speed as us. so when the idea of different dimensions in which your 'evil' twin lives, could just be the the other time streams. you may still be alive in the other time stream, same world, same physics, everything. though a few things might be different though.

i.e. maybe someone goes back in time and stops JFK's assasination, then in that new time stream JFK does something stupid like start a major world war, and the world is in bad shape now. but in the original time stream (whichever one that may be), the world is perfectly fine.

i know it's a weird concept to grasp, but i strongly believe in it.

I kinda understand what u are saying, what u are saying basically talks about the existence of alternate dimensions. Someone once said that "Given infinite time all things and everything will happen" meaning either in this dimension or another every possible decision should occur, like whether to have eggs or bacon, a dimension would be created which u would have eggs, one with bacon, one with both and one with neither. Time travel can be the same, a dimension where when time is changed it will change, while in one dimension it is impossible, while in one dimension time travel wont be possible at all.

[kjrav]

I think even if we could acheive time travel we shouldn't use it(though it could be cool) too many paradoxs and problems especially since we hae no idea what would happen.We could end up just changing somthing simply or completly cauing time to unravel.Science on this level is better left alone.

[Bap]

I have not tried reading the theory of relativity yet, but I was just looking at it in Wikipedia, and I didn't understand much of it. I had heard of it before, and I thought that the general relativity theory played some part in Einstien's time travel theories. Whatever -- If you want, you could try to explain it to me, but if not, I will just end up reading hte theory anyway.

I think time is a concept created by man to explain the world as it happens around him. Therefore, time travel cannot exist since time does not exist.

[Raki]

this thread is becoming SciFi not scienctific....

[Chidongan]

this thread is becoming SciFi not scienctific....

you know what scifi stands for?

Science Fiction. whats not scientific about it?
is it proven that time travel is impossible?
how about the theory on different dimensions?

and even if it was, whats that matter.
you should figure those stuff out on your own.

[DonEmu]

This discussion is about opinion and guessing so basically unless proven one way or the other this is scifi...though the absence of evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

[RevKev]

Ok, This is going to be a long post, so go grab some tea:

Azure, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call your physics teacher out on this one, if for nothing else to hear his explanation on this phenomenon. Matter is a term used to calculate things, energy and substance. It is also what we use to determine effects on those things. Now, if we look at time as a siple measurement for events and the likes, it's unalterable. However, we have found instances where time does NOT obey this type of thinking. Around centers of INCREDIBLE gravity time slows down. Two atomic clocks, set together, will show different times if one is placed in a higher gravity. Also, if someone goes a great speed, like that of a supersonic jet, time again slows. Einstein theorized that if anything where to exceed the speed of light they would begin to go backwards through it.

His joke about not being able to go back through because we don't have tourists from the past was slightly misqouted. He was in reference to the fact that physical matter could not exceed the speed of light, thus while theoretically possible, the limitations set by true physics performed a rather large blocade. However, since Einstein stated his theory, we've found his only reason for saying it was impossible was actually a falsehood. The only difference between substance and energy is current state. Energy will, at a certain point, become pure substance, and substance, when undergoing certain conditions, can become a mighty fine energy.

That being said, I do NOT believe time travel a possibility. Yes, if we where to convert an object into pure energy, escalate the speed to a point high than that of light, slow it back down, and return it to physical state we could break the time barrier, but we are NOWHERE near the technology to complete any of those steps, and even if we where, we'd have to complete the convert backwards phase in the past, which is a technical impossibility if the technology did not exist. So, we can decide that while it may be possible to go back in time, you're limited to those times when we already had the devices implanted to allow it. You'd be better off just enjoying the day you're in.

Now for the theories of what would happen if we COULD travel back in time:

Grandfather Theory in practise:
Idea 1: If you go back and shoot your grandfather in the head before you where born, he's dead, you where never born, so you didn't go shoot him. Because you didn't you where born, went back and shot him. Wash, rinse repeat. You're stuck in an infinite loop, thanks jerk.
Idea 2: Shooting your grandfather creates alternate dimensions in which one he was shot, the other he was not.
Idea 3: Time would reroute, replace your grandfather with another grandfather to correct itself, then carry on as if it never happened.
Idea 4: You couldn't shoot him. You've already tried, before you where born, but time itself works against you because if you did you would be UNABLE to do it, and to prevent this, "fate" works against you.
Idea 5: Time would change, and you would return to a world where he was dead, and you where never born, but have COMPLETE memory of the event.
Idea 6: The paradox created would destroy the entire universe. Thanks again jerk.
Idea 7: It would change nothing, as moving back forward through time would automatically realign the breaks you caused, and free everyone from your screw up!

Edit: Those who where typing while I was doing the same:

i saw a movie called 'the timemachine' it was an ok movie, but the concept was good.

Book was better. Movie just expressed Idea 4 in a really cliché method, book was a satire on human society and the way we segregate ourselves. I advise everyone read it, it's by HG wells.

Einstein theorised that moving at the speed of light would mean u have infinite mass meaning time would have no meaning and would be like technically moving into the future.

One of the theories, but we've since discovered that matter CAN become energy, so the increase in mass can be circumvented, so we've all but removed that theory from practicality, he did state several things could possibly occur. Also note I might be off on the speed slowing time, it might increase it inside the speed, but the point is the same that time can be affected.

[Octo]

This thought makes me giggle, if I go back 2 hours, would it teleport me to another time zone ? :P

[kjrav]

yes!No!Mabey?


I time travel is real could I go back in time and inpregnate my grandmother thus becoming my own grandpa?

[Azure Wrath]

kinky shit man!

er... lets see
Bap, i did einsteins relativity this year, so if you want me to explain some of it to you, go ahead, MSN or PM me or whatever and i'll try and explain a bit

otherwise... so much reading material, me lazy...
i like the idea of a infinite set of dimensions, each spaced X amount of seconds apart (where X strives to 0 or X = 1/infinity) and there's a 'copy' of you doing exactly what you did/will do in all of those dimansions. it makes sense to me.
but then the idea of traveling to the past will change nothing in the present. also, unbalancing or changing the continiuty of these dimensions may prove a problem
i dont know how though

i'm writing philosophy thursday, so i need to practise my debating skills :D

[Raki]

I wish I can time travel back to when I was at school , punching a kid in the face , rewinding it over and over lols

[Solace]

creating the VCR and DVD of the universe would be something eh?

[Kholdstare]

weird but somewhat frisky too.

Anyways, if I am correct what stated in this thread is that time travel is possible to some degree. Moving at the speed of light is somwhat going into the future, skipping parts. Now if you had a shield that would protect you from the time stream, where inside the shield time would stay the same then yes you can say you traveled forward through time.
But how do you get back, I think you cannot go back, thus making it logical for that no tourist from the future would be in this time. Think about it, moving faster then the speed of light, move you forward into the future, plain logic would make going far more slower then the speed of light move you backwards, what is impossible because everything is just moving really really slow. So backwards in time seems to me, impossible unless science proves me wrong.

On another note if it where possible to go back: I think time as well as history is a loop. Example: we have two persons standing across each other, one of them gets hit by an auto. The other immediatly goes and builds a timemachine and he goes back in time, and he sees the car standing that would soon hit the other guy. He gets in the car with the idea to safely put it away, but by some reason he pushes the gas and drives and hits the guy that he was suppose to safe. If this would happen then the other you would see the car hit that person, and will go on and build a timemachine, and history would repeat itself over and over again.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Its like what everyone has said time travel to the future is in a way possible because it has been proven that time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light. The USA put one atomic clock on a jet and another on the ground and started them at the same time and when they were stopped the clock on the jet was behind, moreover Einstein proved this mathematically. As of yet I don't think there is any way people have thought of to travel back in time. I find it interesting that if we ever build ships capable of going close to the speed of light, the people on those ships will arive at their destinations feeling like only a couple weeks have gone by, but to the "stationary" world it would seem like hundreds of years.

In reference to Wells' The Time Machine I fear that the western world is pushing us towards being Eloi and Morlocks.

[Nick]

yes!No!Mabey?


I time travel is real could I go back in time and inpregnate my grandmother thus becoming my own grandpa?

Don't think I didnt catch that Futurama reference kjrav! Yes Fry is the only person to disproove the grandfather paradox... He got his grandfather accidentally killed and then had sex with the woman that would've been his grand mother... Hence he was born with an unique brain wave pattern that allowed him to battle the Killer brains!!

Sorry for getting off topic.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

There is a very famous short story called "Calling all Zombies" from the 50s where a time traveler fathers himself and recruits himself into the timetravelling organization lol. Oops after checking my library its called "All you Zombies--" by Robert Heinlein.

[RevKev]

Thank you Tired, for having taken the time to read one of my favorite novels. Kinda funny, that if more people read it, the society he foretold by be circumvented by the power of simple literacy for all, eh?

Back on time travel, I AM curious what would happen if something where to exceed the speed of light. Perhaps it is possible, and this is what created Dark-Matter?

Now, here's a qustion for everyone: We know the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the slower time passes for that object. BUT, if an object where passing in a spherical motion at the speed of light, what would happen to anything INSIDE of that sphere?

[DonEmu]

Thank you Tired, for having taken the time to read one of my favorite novels. Kinda funny, that if more people read it, the society he foretold by be circumvented by the power of simple literacy for all, eh?

Back on time travel, I AM curious what would happen if something where to exceed the speed of light. Perhaps it is possible, and this is what created Dark-Matter?

Now, here's a qustion for everyone: We know the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the slower time passes for that object. BUT, if an object where passing in a spherical motion at the speed of light, what would happen to anything INSIDE of that sphere?

Nothing would happen to anything inside the sphere since the object cant possibly really surround the object within the spining object - do u understand what i just said?

And to mention something going faster than light as the reason dark matter is created kinda shows u dont really know what dark matter is, i have a feeling u have read Dan Brown books...

[animeking]

hm i do not have enough knowledge to say whether it is or is not possible but i currently think it is not meh you all already beat me to everything i was gonna say so to hell with it (i also curse chidongan for taking my line :'( *cries*) lol lmao

[RevKev]

1) No one knows what Dark-matter is, it's only a theory. But I feel I have at least some grasp of what the material is. It's a substance so Dense that no known recording instrument can detect it, bends light to it's gravitational pull, and is believed to be....74? percent of the existence of our galaxy. What I was trying to say is that according to Einstien matter gains mass as it approaches the speed of light, so I was curious if perhaps the existence of this material is the result of something exceeding the speed of light?

2) If something were contained within a gyroscope it could be within a sphere moving at the speed of light. We already know at high speeds gravity can be broken, why not consider the possibility the linearity of time as well?

[Azure Wrath]

Oi, has anyone here seen/read stephan king's The Langoleers?

the theory behind the langoleers is that if you go into the future, nothing will be there, because people haven't reached the future yet. Taking the theory where you assume that there are infinitedimensions, each dedicated to one frame in time, then according to the Langoleers, there is only one frame in whach humanity lives. so if you go to any other one the
a) nobody will be there because they are back in the present
b) and if you are in the future, then having disturbed the flow of dimensions, you will not move along in time through dimensions lie you used to. SO if you did go into the future, you could wait for the present to catch up, giving you one frame when humanity will pass you by.

An interesting theory, i say

[Bap]

Now, here's a qustion for everyone: We know the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the slower time passes for that object.

How do we know this?

[Azure Wrath]

this is because of relativity. It is called Time Dilation and apparently this does happen. I will get you an equation that defines Time Dilation if you ask nicely.

Basically, TIme Dilation states that if you have two people and send one to Planet X at nearly the speed of light, he will record the flight to be , say 8 years long. But the observers at earth (who we consider stationary) will observe that it only takes 6 years. Hard to believe, but apparently it is true

[Named]

Oi, has anyone here seen/read stephan king's The Langoleers?

the theory behind the langoleers is that if you go into the future, nothing will be there, because people haven't reached the future yet. Taking the theory where you assume that there are infinitedimensions, each dedicated to one frame in time, then according to the Langoleers, there is only one frame in whach humanity lives. so if you go to any other one the
a) nobody will be there because they are back in the present
b) and if you are in the future, then having disturbed the flow of dimensions, you will not move along in time through dimensions lie you used to. SO if you did go into the future, you could wait for the present to catch up, giving you one frame when humanity will pass you by.

An interesting theory, i say

This theory assumes one fatal error, in my perception. <---This humble disclaimer leading me neatly to my point, actually o.O
The present is merely our PERCEPTION of time. We cannot say we know anything, for we can only ever know what we percieve from our senses and experiences. The 'present' is our perception of the universe, not the truth of the universe. It does not function around our acknowledgement of it and therefore to assume nothing exists beyond our digestible conception is as arrogant as every other assertion we make on our environment.

Everything in the universe exists, whatever that quantifies. Any other statement made about matter or time is an abstraction from the wholeness of existence. Abstractions we insist for the sake of our sanity and for the sake of defeating the fear of the unknown.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

How do we know this?

I said the USA did it with clocks by putting one on a plain and the other on the ground, also Einstein proved it through mathematics, and to what Azure said its the other way around going faster slows time down for you. Moreover, I believe what Einstein proved was that if you fly to the sun at 99.999999...% the speed of light and fly around it for 10 years and come back to the Earth to the people on Earth 1000 years has passed, and its not about perception that amount of time will have actually passed at different rates for those people. My question is if time is dependent on motion, if something were ever able to stop moving completely would it never age? And, to named the idea of the present is an abstraction, however the fact that time can be manipulated through speed suggests that it has a concrete existence just ideas like past and future might as well be considered negative and positive time.

[Named]

Ah, but you better illustrated how we know time is relative. That only affirms how solidly it is based on our perception. What is 'the future', then? Einstein was also of the belief that all things which will occur have already occured. I agree with him.
It is simply our perception which cannot understand the implicate order of the universe. Our limited sight sees only the time and moment relative to it. Everything has already occured... It's always occuring. We just can't see it, for we only see what is relevant to us.

[Azure Wrath]

. Moreover, I believe what Einstein proved was that if you fly to the sun at 99.999999...% the speed of light and fly around it for 10 years and come back to the Earth to the people on Earth 1000 years has passed, and its not about perception that amount of time will have actually passed at different rates for those people.


You are exactly right, thanks to time-dilation this does happen (apparently), but i personally believe that the person will age the same way as those on earth, meaning he'll die in say 30 earth-years and not 30 near-lightspeed-travel-years...

[RevKev]

Ok, first we have to keep using Einstein like the end all to end all. Guy was a genius, don't get me wrong, but we've made some major advancements since him, and a few of the things he thought have been proven inaccurate. His theories where awesome, for their day, but we are making some huge strides in our own right.

And to answer Bap's question: Mathematics have confirmed time dilation, but on the same note, "proven" that substance cannot travel at that speed, but would rather begin shaving decimals off until it reached an infinity, never breaching that speed, and never breaking the "time barrier". As I said though, we ave recently discovered that the only difference between substance and energy is state of existence, so perhaps while in one state it can't be done, we can simply circumvent the limitations of physics and move matter in a different state through the time stream!

[Named]

Ok, first we have to keep using Einstein like the end all to end all. Guy was a genius, don't get me wrong, but we've made some major advancements since him, and a few of the things he thought have been proven inaccurate. His theories where awesome, for their day, but we are making some huge strides in our own right.

And to answer Bap's question: Mathematics have confirmed time dilation, but on the same note, "proven" that substance cannot travel at that speed, but would rather begin shaving decimals off until it reached an infinity, never breaching that speed, and never breaking the "time barrier". As I said though, we ave recently discovered that the only difference between substance and energy is state of existence, so perhaps while in one state it can't be done, we can simply circumvent the limitations of physics and move matter in a different state through the time stream!

None of Einstein's theories have been debunked. I implore you to not make blanket statements about such a man. I don't worship him as any more than a brilliant human, but neither will I -ever- accuse a thinker s/he is wrong without explaining exactly what s/he did which I feel was incorrect and above all offering clear reason why.
Many of the sophisticated theories to date, culminations of the intellectual efforts of hundreds of men, have yet to conflict with Einstein's conjectures.

We should never accept a person's espousals or scientific reasons as being irrefutably true, i'd agree with that much of an objection. But i don't believe he's given such a favour.

The Holographic Universe paradigm, like many others, came together over decades from people researching independently all over the world. Unbeknownst to each other, for the most part, that they were in an agreement. Even this model does not defy what Einstein theorised - it merely builds upon or coincides with.

All of this is unlikely a coincidence.

[RevKev]

Einstein's theory that matter cannot travel at the speed of light without gaining mass has been all but debunked. And I'm not saying he was anything less than a genius, I shudder to think what he could accomplish with today's understandings. I merely think it is a fallacy to continue to qoute himas if everything he ever said was an absolute truth. Yes, what he did has jumpstarted us a race in in theoretical physics, however he didn't write the entire book.

Personally, I do feel a few of his theories will become debunked more and more as time passes due to new discoveries. Just like we discovered the solar system did not revolve around the earth, we'll eventually better discover the reasoning behind most everything, if not in our time, then eventually.

Mostly, I find it humerous that Einstein was the one who created the method by which timetravel would be possible, but is also the person who is most commonly used to prove it's impossibility

EDIT:
Just a though, but what if time dilation lends itself to be parabolic instead of linear in it's true solution?

[Canthinkofaname]

You all have awesome grammar. Anyways, my opinion on time-travel is much scattered. My main opinion is that like in azures starting post of the thread, that time is just a word someone uses to describe the interval of two events. I have talked about time with my friend, and i think time is not a real thing, and therefore cannot be manipulated. But, i do think traveling at the speed of light can speed up 'time'.
Also another theory i would believe in if i believed time travel could be possible, is Back to the Future. those movies were awesome. If you havent seen them, i can describe the basics of the plot. But anyway, in the first movie of BttF trilogy, a scientist creates a time machine out of a car, but gets killed for stealing plutonium to power the car. so then a kid (marty) takes the car and runs from the terrorists that gave the scientist the plutonium. he was so busy escaping, he forgot the scientist said that at 88 mi/h he time-warps. after this, he befriends his own dad (hes from 1985, he traveled to 1955) and eventually, changes how his dad meets his mom. his mom instead starts to like the son, instead of the dad. marty also seeks the same scientist who made the time machine. with the picture he brought with him of he and his siblings, he studies it with the scientist. they start to notice, that the kids start to vanish. later, at a concert where the mom and dad had their first kiss, hes playing a guitar and he starts to slowly disappear. but, he does go back to normal, when the dad saves mom from the school bully (parents are in high school still). not only does he almost get himself erased from existence, but he played the guitar in a way they hadnt had in 1955.
What are you thoughts on this? do you think he could actually erase from existence? also, do you think that when he traveled back and played the sounds of the future, that the future gained those sounds? if so, that would mean, he traveled back before, giving the past the sounds for the future.
(too lazy to do a big explanation on #2, but heres the basics.)
in the second BttF, the doc and marty go to the future to prevent a minor event that creates a chain reaction getting marty and his girlfriends (in the future theyre married) kids imprisoned. after they succeed in stopping the event, marty goes into a future store where he buys a book about ALL sports results and things, to get money for the past. but the doc says, no and he throws them away. (big thing about number 1, the school bully is later the boss of martys dad, and after the past change, is his, like, servant.) little do they know, that the school bully, biff, in the future saw them and knew about the time machine. martys girlfriend was knocked out earlier because she was asking questions, and the police took her to her house using fingerprints to ID her. the doc and marty go to get her back, and biff takes his chance, and goes back to 1955, and gives that sports thing to young biff, where he gets all the money of the us or you know. when marty and doc go back to the present of 1985 when biff returns the car, they find that the world is completely screwed up, and the only way to fix is, is to go back to 1955 and get the book from biff.
The reason the only way to fix being go backwards and not forwards, is because the doc theorized that going forward in that present, would be the future of only that present and not the one they were in. what are your thoughts on that. also a detail, in the future they went to, marty was a buisnessman and poor and such, because in 1985 he got in a car accident for racing a man named needles, which is the same man who gets him fired in the future. (#3 here) when marty returns to the present after learning to mind the future from his ancestor in 1885, he doesnt race, and the girlfriend pulls out the paper she took from the fax that said "your fired". when she looked at it, the words disappeared. Also, at the end of two when the doc and marty are about to go back to 1985 from 1955, the doc gets hit by lightning (the only source of power that generates 1.21 gigawatts in 1955 to power the timemachineagain), he gets sent back to 1855 which is how 3 starts. when marty was standing there and stuck in 1955, a car drove up with a letter for marty from the doc, in 1885. when he recieves it, he seeks the 1955 doc and they dig up the time machine that was buried in an old grave thing w/e. Again what are your thoughts on Back to the Futures theory on time travel?

[Bap]

So here I am confused again. DonEmu said time travel theory has nothing to do with relativity. But then others said, like I said at first, that it does play a part. Only others have stated the theory in a much clearer way than I did.

I'm going to just read some stuff on relativity, then.

[partlink1]

time travel to the past is not possible.

all the theories stated either even themselves out or only change you time in a different dimension sort of speak. you can never fix your problems, by going to the past.

like its been stated

you fix something, you then have no reason to go so the event will reoccur in an endless cycle.

the others you fix something but sadly your in a different "dimension or universe" then when you go back to your time nothings changed

so anything about the time travel to the past thing, lets just say its impossible.

Now time travel to the future maybe possible, and that whole moving at the speed of light thing to go to the future, i don't think that methods possible, because people have a hard time handling 8g's and i forget how much a space ship is but imagine that times an almost infinite rate. You'd die period.

[KageNaruto]

i didnt read posts, sorry if this was said.

time travel is a loophole that doesent make sense.

if you go back in time, things will change depending on what you do. but if those thing swere like that already i the present, how can you change what it ALREADY IS.

theres just no way for that to happen.

and now after seeing partlink's post above me.... i figure out there was no reason to type this. damn

[Named]

There's more philosophy to be considered than that... Think outside of the constraints of your perception.

Anyhoo:
Einstein's theory that matter cannot travel at the speed of light without gaining mass has been all but debunked.
The debunking has been debunked, too ;) Both the string theory and holographic models do not conflict with the conjecture and they are far more advanced than previous paradigms.

[Azure Wrath]

'Scuse my ignorance, but could you please xplain to me what you mean by 'debunked'?

[Named]

It's not an ignorance, Azure! ^-^ Ignorance would be you not seeking to understand what you admitedly do not. We all have to admit this at some point or we don't improve! I'm constantly making this admission, "I don't understand". No other way to get over it.

To debunk a theory is to prove it untrue beyond any doubt. So of course it is often presumptuously used by people too eager to disprove what they don't personally agree with.

Most religious belief, for example, has been unequivocally debunked. However, it is one thing to prove something untrue. It is another for people to understand or accept what you present to them.

[RevKev]

Named, the matter gaining infinite mass as it aproaches the speed of light HAS been debunked. We've discovered light is a form of energy. We've discovered energy is a state of matter, just like solid/liquid/gas. Since light is now known to just be a form of matter, and light does not gain infinite mass, even at speeds 300 times it's natural speed, and the beam traveling at this speed did not in fact go reverse through time, it has been shown that matter can meet the speed without the theorized increase in mass as well as surpass the speed without reversing in time. We're now coming to understand that speed may have nothing to do with time dilation at all, but instead mass is the true cause of this phenomenon.

[Canthinkofaname]

light is not a form of matter. "Since light is now known to just be a form of matter" as you say, is untrue (unless its just a typo). light is pure energy. if it was matter, you could feel it. can you feel light? i dont think so

[RevKev]

Can think, you're mistaken. It has been discovered that energy can and does, at certain stages transition from "pure energy" into "pure matter". Also, we can create "pure energy" from "pure matter" by the simple application of antimatter. The only difference is, as I said, the state in which we are observing existence.

It's a case of making a 6x6 clay brick fit through a 2x2 hole. Melt the brick, pour it through. Changing state to achieve the requirement is still meeting the requirment.

[Canthinkofaname]

(sorry, im not that good at science)

yes but, melting a solid into a liquid. its still all matter while light isnt. you may be able to transform light into matter with antimatter (ok), but light moving at, the speed of light, doesnt transform itself. why do you think its called, the speed of LIGHT. its called that cuz thats how fast light normal goes, so it would transform into matter, or go reverse in time. the reason time travel is impossibly (back or forwards) is because no matter can achieve the speed of light without deteriorating into nothing. unless we find some super way to make an invincible matter, we can never achieve any time travel

[RevKev]

Can think, you missed my point. Light is a simple state of matter. just like a liquid/solid, light can be made into a solid, though it changes properties at that point. Also, the speed of light is merely a refernce for speed in general, which is the speed it naturally travels through a vacum. We've devised a way to make light travel at 300 times that speed, and nothing happened. So, if we now know light is a form of matter, and we can make it go faster than that speed, and it didn't travel back through time, matter won't travel back through time when it surpasses the speed of light

[Canthinkofaname]

no i get your point, but im saying light cant be made into a matter, which is my point, making your point, pointless (lol). if you can give me an instance where light is a matter, ill post again

[Azure Wrath]

how do we know that life is a form of matter? As far as i know, the substance of light is unkown, because it has qualities of both waves and matter

[RevKev]

Energy has been observed, in nature, to break down and reconvert into basic forms of matter. Let us also not forget that we know matter can be turned into light (one of the reactions between matter and anti-matter is the creation of a large amount of light). We also know that the creation of light is a natural byproduct of most forms of reaction. Knowing this, if light did NOT, at some point, return to a lower form of matter, then eventually all material in the universe would become light

[Azure Wrath]

but light is energy? Energy is not converted to matter, it simply bonds matter. Once bonds are created/broken there is a shift in energy to accomodate the shift in bonds, thus releasing/gaining energy. Releasing energy happens in several ways, radiating light being but one of them

[Canthinkofaname]

rev, you can explain all you want. just give me one time, that light is ever matter. and even so, "Since light is now known to just be a form of matter, and light does not gain infinite mass, even at speeds 300 times it's natural speed, and the beam traveling at this speed did not in fact go reverse through time, it has been shown that matter can meet the speed without the theorized increase in mass as well as surpass the speed without reversing in time." in your theory you never mentioned the light going 300 times the speed of light to be matter, meaning that weve not tested the light matter going the speed of light. even if light was matter, ever, going to speed of light would make it deteriorate back into energy as no matter can withstand the force the speed of light puts on it

[Marimo]

Named, the matter gaining infinite mass as it aproaches the speed of light HAS been debunked. We've discovered light is a form of energy. We've discovered energy is a state of matter, just like solid/liquid/gas. Since light is now known to just be a form of matter, and light does not gain infinite mass, even at speeds 300 times it's natural speed, and the beam traveling at this speed did not in fact go reverse through time, it has been shown that matter can meet the speed without the theorized increase in mass as well as surpass the speed without reversing in time. We're now coming to understand that speed may have nothing to do with time dilation at all, but instead mass is the true cause of this phenomenon.

I know this is a very very old thread but I just couldn't resist wondering...

Since when has the theory of matter gaining infinite mass when approaching the speed of light been debunked?!?!

And what the hell is this talk about 300 times the speed of light??
Light has no mass and therefore can nothing exceed its speed

[blind]

Matter doesn't gain mass when approaching the speed of light, it approaches no mass...

Simply put, light = emission of photon, which has a mass, so it doesn't have no mass

[Marimo]

Matter doesn't gain mass when approaching the speed of light, it approaches no mass...

Simply put, light = emission of photon, which has a mass, so it doesn't have no mass


Are you sure?

more speed --> more energy --> more mass?

[blind]

Ah, you`re correct, I was thinking length dilation...but light is still photon, which means it still has a mass

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Photons have a mass of 0 lol...

[Arty]

I dont think you understood your professor Azure.

To imagine an object in additional dim while raiming in your current one isn't possible.

If you turn this into math its like adding an additional value to a already true equation. Its true you can create it , like - lets say in a 3d program - The added value will start at the highest possible value and then appear in its reverse - E.a It goes up and then it reaches its theatrical peak and then collapses or reverses. ( The ball will grow to its peak and then its inside becomes its outside as it collapses till it disappears ) A box will "spin" so its inner "joints" will become its outer ).

To imagine the dimension is quite easy actually. draw two lines like a cross -

X and Y - there you have two dims ( There you have a graph )

X , Y , and Z - There you have three dims ( This is a 3d graph )

Now the fourth dimension will be X , Y , Z , W ( That is the fourth dimension )

As i said you cant really "picture" it but i guess the fourth dimension would appear as the frame around the graph - Sort of like a square -

Its all in "theory" math - But the easy way to think about time would be to think of it as the "4 fourth value" - The value can be anything :) Thats why there is no "world" time - Its like a flow?

Time can be "slower" somewhere while it remains its "pace" "here".

[Karin<3]

no

/thread

[Arty]

Traveling to the future would be <.< rather strange -

None the less - Time travel is doable in theory.

[blind]

Photons have a mass of 0 lol...

How does something with a momentum have 0 mass? :confused:

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

How does something with a momentum have 0 mass? :confused:

I'm not a physicist, but all I know is that photons have 0 mass. Try weighing light and see what happens?

[blind]

lol, I guess, but thats what I based my post on, that photons definitely have a momentum, hence must have a weight :D

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

lol, I guess, but thats what I based my post on, that photons definitely have a momentum, hence must have a weight :D

I know photons have a velocity, but I'm not sure they have momentum, after all if they did the momentum would have to be conserved somehow, light can only interact with it's surroundings by being absorbed as energy.

[blind]

Hm..I couldn't sworn photons had momentum...but then again I didn't really pay attention in physics class, so lol :p

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Hm..I couldn't sworn photons had momentum...but then again I didn't really pay attention in physics class, so lol :p

This is where we end up when a chemist and a biologist start talking about physics lol.

[blind]

lol, indeed, too lazy to go look up the actual facts, but maybe later :D

[kjrav]

Photons have mass...it's just negligible, similar to elctrons.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Photons have mass...it's just negligible, similar to elctrons.

Photons don't have negligible mass. The mass of electrons is measurable.

Q: Do photons have mass? If not, why does the gravitational field of a star bend passing light?
A: No, photons do not have mass according the present definition of mass. The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity, says Dr. Matt Austern a computer scientist at AT&T Labs Research. Under this definition, mass is proportional to the total energy, Eo, of the object at rest.
"A particle like a photon is never at rest and always moves at the speed of light; thus it is massless," says Dr. Michael S. Turner, chair of the Department of Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well, I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to argue with them because it wouldn't matter. But I still don't understand how something can move if it doesn't have mass. Light is composed of something. And I would think if it is composed of something then it must has some mass.

How can no mass be absorbed and generate heat? If it had no mass then wouldn't that mean it is nothing?

It is pure energy.

[Lukasz]

Albert Einstein once said the evidence that time travel isnt possible or will never be reached by us humans is the fact that we dont have any tourists from the future coming into present day, if we achieved time travel in the future then we would have visitors from said future.

lol reply to old post.

that is no reason at all. Me thinks Einstein was mistaken. He didnt thought it through.

Because we can have hundreds of tourist from the future. But since time traveling would require time manipulation, tourists visit our time but their visits are erased from the time-continuum to avoid any influence.

so yeah. time-tourism exist but it doesn't affect us at all.


oh. btw. probably mentioned. but there is already tested method of going to the future. just fly very fast like 99.(99)% speed of light. You will travel in time in no time.

[Arty]

Why are you so focused on Optics? It has very little todo with the topic of this thread.

I believe Sleepy is right though , light does not have "mass" - But id also like to point out that even if the wave particles do not have mass it is not affected by ea. Our defentions are with no doubt "flawed" or you could say we have no aquired enough knowledge in optics to catagorize lights matters.

Light is affected by mass in the same way as any other matter - But that doesnt mean it is the same as any other matter , - That conclusion is but a fallacy.

I would also like to point out the "idiocy" of the phrase " Travel in time " - Please give it a thought.

[Erosannin]

To OP:

NOT POSSIBLE...

~Cheers~ :D

-The End-

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I disagree!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA

[partlink1]

time is nonexistent, it is simply a way to measure growth and age of something, there is no moments except for the present, if you were to "time travel" you would just become little, you would not go back to when you were 5, you'll just look 5 and have all the internals of when you were a 5 year old.

and even if time was not just a unit of measurement, we would still get into a bunch of paradoxe's, except if time would work like it does in Heroes, where it's basically a self correcting paradox, where you can not change the past by going there from the future, you must go from the past to the future to see how you can change everything.

but in conclusion:
time = unit of measurement for growth and age of anything
so thus impossible

[Erosannin]

I disagree!!

Sigh... as always...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA

lol Classic...

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

time is nonexistent, it is simply a way to measure growth and age of something, there is no moments except for the present, if you were to "time travel" you would just become little, you would not go back to when you were 5, you'll just look 5 and have all the internals of when you were a 5 year old.

and even if time was not just a unit of measurement, we would still get into a bunch of paradoxe's, except if time would work like it does in Heroes, where it's basically a self correcting paradox, where you can not change the past by going there from the future, you must go from the past to the future to see how you can change everything.

but in conclusion:
time = unit of measurement for growth and age of anything
so thus impossible

No time can be distorted as has been proven with the atomic clocks on US jets, it is possible to slow down the possage of time for an object, thus time must be something which exist. It is just measured in units of growth and age, plus these are really just measure of time at the speed which we live at.

[partlink1]

No time can be distorted as has been proven with the atomic clocks on US jets, it is possible to slow down the possage of time for an object, thus time must be something which exist. It is just measured in units of growth and age, plus these are really just measure of time at the speed which we live at.

An atomic clock is a type of clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock) that uses an atomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) resonance frequency standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_standard) to feed its counter. Early atomic clocks were masers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser) with attached equipment. Today's best atomic frequency standards (or clocks) are based on absorption spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy) of cold atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_atom&action=edit&redlink=1) in atomic fountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_fountain&action=edit&redlink=1).

they do that, and they adjust the frequency to match with time, since the speed at which "time" passes is already set by people, atmoic clocks do not measure time itself.

and your right time is the measure of the speed which we live and grow, but here's a quick science lesson, the cold slows down reactions, as materials are not able to catalyze as well, and enzymes will work slower, also the initial amount of energy to begin a reaction will increase.

so in the end the "distortion" could just be a malfunction or the cold atoms which are being read, could have "warmed", thus throwing off the calculations


in the end, god bless AP Bio

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Lol, time dilation is not due to the kinetics of the clock. The feature of enzyme kinetics is due to the fact that it takes very little energy to break down the weak bonds, hydrogen bonds and van der waals forces, so as the temperature decreases more of those bonds form and the enzyme becomes more rigid and thus often loses it's conformation. Moreover, the kinetics of most enzymes are adapted for very small energy ranges that make temperature a large part of fueling the reaction. Furthermore, the increase in motion of particles in solution from heat increases teh chance of the enzyme encountering it's substrate thus increasing the reaction rate. All of these are factors which do not come into play with mechanical movement of an object made of metal. If you increase the temperature by 5-10 degrees usually that will decrease the reaction rate since the enzymes can no longer keep a functional conformation.

It has been explained and theorized by Einstein, and proven experimentally by the US government that time dilation exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

[Arty]

[/quote]and your right time is the measure of the speed which we live and grow, but here's a quick science lesson, the cold slows down reactions, as materials are not able to catalyze as well, and enzymes will work slower, also the initial amount of energy to begin a reaction will increase.

so in the end the "distortion" could just be a malfunction or the cold atoms which are being read, could have "warmed", thus throwing off the calculations[/quote]

I rofled.

[Marimo]

But on the topic...

Time and just the universe in whole is a very funny thing so I wouldn't be shocked if some kind of time travel was be possible.

I have heard of experiments using very strong lasers, but I haven't read enough on the subject

[Arty]

I read theories about the "Light going faster than light" -

It was a short article but a rather good one. - The idea was a follow up on the "Faster than yourself" thing - If you were to run around a rock ( in circles ) and you went so fast you could see yourself at the other end you would be "time traveling".

So if the light were to go that fast it would mean everytime it passed it self its speed would increase - until what? :P

But still - If you think about it -

At what point are you time traveling? If you think about it - When you reach the speed at witch you can see yourself you are already watching the past happen befor your eyes - You are going faster than the light reflected from you - So what happens when you pass yourself?

[Marimo]

But there is also one theory about light that say that even if you are traveling on 99,9 % the speed of light then light will pass you with speed of light.
You won't see a photon, it will go past you on the speed of light like always

I like that theory,
just saying that the speed of light isn't necessarily a constant