# Time Travel



## NotSoRighteousRob

so... do you think it is theoretically possible? if so, which theory do you think seems the most likely, or do you have your own theory?


I personally, don't believe it is possible in the sense that people think of it. My reasons for this is because time is something we created, it has no actual meaning besides what we give to it. Still I can't help but to spend my spare time thinking on the subject. I suppose if it were possible I believe the infinite universe theory would seem the most likely. So if we were to go back in time we couldn't actually change anything, because which ever time stream we ended up the things that occurred there would be one of the infinite outcomes that was supposed to already have happened. I'm starting to lose myself here so I'm going to give up on it for now. I guess I am talking more of travel between parallel universes more than time travel but I think it may be very similar....


ok, i don't know if that made any sense, I'm hoping I can get into a very theoretical debate here, I'm hoping there will be no criticisms on peoples views on the subject since it is all completely theoretical anyways.


----------



## susurration

Time is the most confounding, interesting concept everz. 

I am posting this to remind myself to come back to this. I'm currently on the side of quantum mechanics... but I may consult some physics...

Where are the physics nutters at?


----------



## AgentSH

You may have lost yourself, but I'm still with you. Time travel is a subject very near and dear to my heart, and I agree, it may be attainable but not the way it looks in Back to the Future.

The crux of the issue is that time, as a spatial dimension, does not proceed in the straight line that we perceive, but rather moves through the dimension above it, usually referred to as causality (or probability if you're a Douglas Adams fan). Thus to travel to a discrete point in time would make you "lose your place" on the axis of causality - the travel wouldn't necessarily be the difficult part, but the getting back would.
A less eggheaded way of putting it is, yes you may go back in time, but because you're there you'll end up in a different timeline.

But AgentSH, you say, what about traveling to the future? The same principle would apply, I suppose. Traveling forward in time is theoretically possible, but you may not necessarily end up in the same universe as you would have if you'd just gone cryogenic and waited a few thousand years.

That's the opinion of someone who cheated his way through physics class. I'd like to present another issue: if time travel is possible, shouldn't we have time travelers from the future among us now?


----------



## Solace

Frankly, I'm not sure how you can have a debate about this kind of thing when none of us are qualified to really discuss it in detail, but here's my opinion on "time travel."

The short of it is that no, simple "time travel" is very, _very_ unlikely to even be plausible, much less possible - with or without special relativity with respect to *everything*. Obviously I am not an astrophysicist, but it's my very basic understanding that "time travel" generally refers to going back in time (I'll ignore going forward in time for now) without taking into account one's position relative to the other dimensions (space in general).

As far as going backwards, there needs to be some unified definition for "travel" as one person could, theoretically, use a wormhole or other curved-space architecture so as to end up at a place in both time _and_ space that is impossible for another person to reach while complying with general relativity and whatever our "normal" number of dimensions are. That is to say that the person who used a wormhole would still be traveling forward in time (relative to themselves), but would simply get there _before_ it was possible to do so by general means. To me I wouldn't call this "time travel." More like cheating. =) But again, IANAAP, so I'm not qualified to present anything as more than a basic opinion. Wikipedia has LOTS of stuff on cheating time travel. None of which is like what we see in movies or read in books.

With respect to traveling forward, I can see how that would be seen as plausible, albeit not in the way it happens in movies. This would be accomplished by simply traveling forward in time relative to others, but not yourself. That is to say that if I were to travel at or near the speed of light in one direction for 25 years, for example, then travel immediately back to earth, I would be a sum of 50 years older (25yrs each way = 50 total). However, as I'm sure people have read from Einstein's general relativity, the person observing this ~50 year journey would have actually aged much beyond the 50 years of the participant. That's time dilation. It still doesn't seem like "time travel" as we see it in movies as it is more of a cheat of observers and not yourself. It's also not instantaneous, which always seemed like a more reasonable way to do it. Although if I had the means I wouldn't mind giving up 50 years of my life to see what the world looks like in the future.

I'm curious as to what others say regarding the science. But RRob, you might want to start another thread, for the sake of comparison, as to what people think about fictional time traveling. That would be quite interesting as well. =)

*EDIT:* AgentSH beat me to posting about M-theory and divergent universes in the multiverse structure - which is what I believe he's referring to? Also, I didn't think that you could go "back" by getting to a different layer, but rather would end up in a different time-line altogether.
*EDIT2:* I'm waiting for someone to mention punching a hole in the fabric of space-time.


----------



## seraphiel

AgentSH said:


> That's the opinion of someone who cheated his way through physics class. I'd like to present another issue: if time travel is possible, shouldn't we have time travelers from the future among us now?


That's the thing. How would one arrive at their destination in time? Appear from thin air? A wormhole perhaps? What happens to the place they left? It obviously can't cease to exist because they left something behind (the whole universe that they had been in)

To travel, you are basically moving energy/matter around, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means there must be a connection for it to pass from one to the other - or both times must exist, in other words.

The question I think is this: who's time can one travel to? Their own time in the past? Their own time in the future? Or the past or future of _separate_ universes, which have no direct correlation to the one which they left?


----------



## angularvelocity

AgentSH said:


> I'd like to present another issue: if time travel is possible, shouldn't we have time travelers from the future among us now?


Don't we have a term for the people that have time traveled already? "Cucu" :happy:

I wish I could jump in and discuss the topic on some intellectual level but my physics level does not go near that in depth. The thoughts of time travel are fascinating though! I can't say I haven't daydreamed about it. But if you guys COULD time travel, ethically speaking, would you really want to?


----------



## AgentSH

Spades said:


> (snip)
> 
> *EDIT:* AgentSH beat me to posting about M-theory and divergent universes in the multiverse structure - which is what I believe he's referring to? Also, I didn't think that you could go "back" by getting to a different layer, but rather would end up in a different time-line altogether.
> *EDIT2:* I'm waiting for someone to mention punching a hole in the fabric of space-time.


Thanks, actually that's what I meant to convey, by definition you would be in a different timeline. You put it more clearly though.
But, shame on you. I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I still feel qualified to discuss time travel because it is awesome and sexy.

As for punching a hole in the fabric of space-time, who's to say it's one solid piece now?


----------



## Solace

seraphiel said:


> That's the thing. How would one arrive at their destination in time? Appear from thin air? A wormhole perhaps? What happens to the place they left? It obviously can't cease to exist because they left something behind (the whole universe that they had been in)


If he's talking about M-theory style time travel as I suspect then it's not moving through space so much, as going to a different plane (with a different set of Laws of Physics). It's more like "dimensional travel" than "time-travel."



seraphiel said:


> To travel, you are basically moving energy/matter around, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, which means there must be a connection for it to pass from one to the other - or both times must exist, in other words.


That only applies to general relativity and neither special relativity nor quantum mechanics. I don't have the credentials to answer your real question, but I do know that at the very least the first law of thermodynamics only applies to general relativity.

*EDIT:*


AgentSH said:


> ...I still feel qualified to discuss time travel because it is awesome and sexy.


Pfft. I find that the curves on "time-travel' are not to my liking. She is an awesome mistress, but a beached whale as well. =P

Yo dawg, I herd u liek edits so I put an edit in your edit so you can edit while you edit! (means I fixed something again.)


----------



## seraphiel

Spades said:


> If he's talking about M-theory style time travel as I suspect then it's not moving through space so much, as going to a different plane (with a different set of Laws of Physics). It's more like "dimensional travel" than "time-travel."
> 
> That only applies to general relativity and neither special relativity nor quantum mechanics. I don't have the credentials to answer your real question, but I do know that at the very least the first law of thermodynamics only applies to general relativity.


Ok, in that case, would you be able to travel and live to tell about it, or know that you traveled? General relativity does matter on the macro level - who's to say you won't go to another dimension that causes you to be obliterated into your basic particles? Unless you could take a 'bubble' of your own dimension which governs your own existence, or be able to maintain your consciousness in a possibly different form from the one you are used to.

Quantum mechanics (not to be confused with temporal mechanics!) is great for particles, but it becomes confusing with macro level beings, as I think Schrödinger's cat has shown. :tongue:


----------



## Solace

seraphiel said:


> Ok, in that case, would you be able to travel and live to tell about it, or know that you traveled? General relativity does matter on the macro level - who's to say you won't go to another dimension that causes you to be obliterated into your basic particles? Unless you could take a 'bubble' of your own dimension which governs your own existence, or be able to maintain your consciousness in a possibly different form from the one you are used to.
> 
> Quantum mechanics (not to be confused with temporal mechanics!) is great for particles, but it becomes confusing with macro level beings, as I think Schrödinger's cat has shown. :tongue:


First, how would you define "travel and live to tell about it?" Do you expect to come back within a reasonable frame of space-time and meet the people you knew before (even if according to general relativity they had progressed through time at a rate consistent with you)? As you said it depends on where you end it. "Time-travel" is, inherently, going to change your position in space UNLESS you use an M-theory hack (which is what we've been discussing).

Regarding "general relativity at the macro level:" wut? General relativity hasn't been unproven to our space-time simply because we don't know enough about our space-time to disprove it (but it's doing fairly well so far at a basic level). I'm not sure how we would logically apply GR to a different universe that is only theorized on paper. I'm sure that's what you're getting at =) and I have no idea. One hopes that gravity would apply in other dimension-groups and universes, but it's possible that finding out would not be fun in the least. =)

Also, going back to the "maintaining consciousness" (as an individual, not being awake), that goes back to the conservation of matter thing. If you can get there, I would expect you to maintain the same form (but hey, I'm still not an astrophysicist). You're still within the same multiverse so things would be okay regardless of whether GR/thermo applied. Right?

To make an analogy. You have a sandwich with three pieces of bread and two layers total within the sandwich. We'll say that there's a slice of salami maintaining each layer's integrity. If you took one piece of salami and "magically" moved it up a layer, it's still salami. You may have completely compromised the layer it moved to - or moved into a singularity, like peanut butter - that you didn't know existed, but you still have a sandwich with two layers. You just have ... a really gross sandwich. Oh, and now it's weightless.

[/worst analogy ever]


----------



## AgentSH

I contend that "a singularity, like peanut butter" is the BEST analogy ever.



avalanche183 said:


> But if you guys COULD time travel, ethically speaking, would you really want to?


Ethically speaking, hell yes. Since I roll with the M-theory crowd, I couldn't harm anyone I give a rip about anyway.


----------



## seraphiel

Spades said:


> First, how would you define "travel and live to tell about it?" Do you expect to come back within a reasonable frame of space-time and meet the people you knew before (even if according to general relativity they had progressed through time at a rate consistent with you)? As you said it depends on where you end it. "Time-travel" is, inherently, going to change your position in space UNLESS you use an M-theory hack (which is what we've been discussing).


I mean, living to tell about it as in the act of traveling doesn't outright kill you at some point.



> Regarding "general relativity at the macro level:" wut? General relativity hasn't been unproven to our space-time simply because we don't know enough about our space-time to disprove it (but it's doing fairly well so far at a basic level).


Not saying it's unproven, just saying for random example, spacetime may be able to stretch so that from a relative point, things can appear to move faster than light, but they are not moving faster at all - they appear to cover more space in a given time _from a different frame of reference_ but only because spacetime has been stretched. What I want to know is, would a person traveling through a modified spacetime be effected by it?



> I'm not sure how we would logically apply GR to a different universe that is only theorized on paper.


Me either, that's why I have a problem haha. 



> Also, going back to the "maintaining consciousness" (as an individual, not being awake), that goes back to the conservation of matter thing. If you can get there, I would expect you to maintain the same form (but hey, I'm still not an astrophysicist). You're still within the same multiverse so things would be okay regardless of whether GR/thermo applied. Right?


I'm not sure, I suppose you'd need to be able to maintain your own attributes, e.g. your sub atomic particles don't get stretched to the point that they lose attraction.



> To make an analogy. You have a sandwich with three pieces of bread and two layers total within the sandwich. We'll say that there's a slice of salami maintaining each layer's integrity. If you took one piece of salami and "magically" moved it up a layer, it's still salami. You may have completely compromised the layer it moved to - or moved into a singularity, like peanut butter - that you didn't know existed, but you still have a sandwich with two layers. You just have ... a really gross sandwich. Oh, and now it's weightless.


I don't quite get this... :crazy:


----------



## Outcode

Time travel? Yes please! Except lots of people will abuse it and ruin everything :|


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

i am eagerly awaiting for the discover of a tachyon particle, I think this would be the first step to getting a grasp on the theory of time.


----------



## seraphiel

> While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible to us. This inaccessibility can be understood as follows: Once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally. This is completely impractical, but even if one could theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory).


Why do I need 10 characters in addition to a massive quote...


----------



## Solace

seraphiel said:


> I mean, living to tell about it as in the act of traveling doesn't outright kill you at some point.


Well yeah, it's possible either way (and not in a Schrodinger's Cat way, either). Depends where you go. It's like driving on the highway, if you just drive in a straight line you may not know where you'll end up until you're there (or did some calculations as to where you think you'll end up based on predetermined factors). So your question is like asking, "if I die on the highway, will I have really traveled at all." And that, my good lady, is an existential question I don't know the answer to either. My thoughts: hopefully; as it's not a "time unravels when I die" situation. It seems like there's always a chance that you could end up in a bad fold of space-time which would have adverse affects on matter.



seraphiel said:


> Not saying it's unproven, just saying for random example, spacetime may be able to stretch so that from a relative point, things can appear to move faster than light, but they are not moving faster at all - they appear to cover more space in a given time _from a different frame of reference_ but only because spacetime has been stretched. What I want to know is, would a person traveling through a modified spacetime be effected by it?


Yes and no, but it really depends on what you're looking for. The easiest example of what you're talking about is redshift/blueshift and gravitational lensing (like when you look at the sun but can see stars behind it). I think you're still stuck in GR, but here's a link to *gravitational lensing* as well as *redshift/doppler effect*. I give you the links so you can read it yourself, because I simply would have to read them myself in order to effectively explain it. =)



seraphiel said:


> I'm not sure, I suppose you'd need to be able to maintain your own attributes, e.g. your sub atomic particles don't get stretched to the point that they lose attraction.


Hm, I think what you're really suggesting is that as you approach large fractions of c - would our bodies (or matter in general) re-materialize in a form consistent with how it originated. I say that because light is both/either a wave or particle and, as I think you're alluding to, because of the speeds involved matter would simply turn into energy. I've wondered the same thing myself and don't really know where to begin in terms of looking it up for myself.

AgentSH, keep your hands off my peanut butter singularity.



Outcode said:


> Except lots of people will abuse it and ruin everything :|


When _doesn't _that happen? =P

*EDIT:* RRob: Yeah, they only need like 7TeV more and they're there! Oh, and those damn birds need to stop dropping rolls in strategic places.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

I love paradoxes.. it's just the best. I even like to entertain the thought of time being completely linear so by going back in time you could create a perpetual loop where by having altered time you halt it's advance. I dunno, I can't keep my mind straight when I try to think about it too much


----------



## seraphiel

Spades said:


> [Well yeah, it's possible either way (and not in a Schrodinger's Cat way, either). Depends where you go. It's like driving on the highway, if you just drive in a straight line you may not know where you'll end up until you're there (or did some calculations as to where you think you'll end up based on predetermined factors). So your question is like asking, "if I die on the highway, will I have really traveled at all." And that, my good lady, is an existential question I don't know the answer to either. My thoughts: hopefully; as it's not a "time unravels when I die" situation. It seems like there's always a chance that you could end up in a bad fold of space-time which would have adverse affects on matter.


I don't get how you came up with this: I'm assuming the possibility of travel for the sake of the debate/argument. If you travel and die, you still traveled. I was simply asking if you would die or not (which could be an answer to the question why we don't see time travelers, maybe they tried it and died, or changed form!)



> Yes and no, but it really depends on what you're looking for. The easiest example of what you're talking about is redshift/blueshift and gravitational lensing (like when you look at the sun but can see stars behind it). I think you're still stuck in GR, but here's a link to *gravitational lensing* as well as *redshift/doppler effect*. I give you the links so you can read it yourself, because I simply would have to read them myself in order to effectively explain it. =)


Yup I'm stuck in GR (hard not to be, it's what we know first hand), but I do know about lensing and redshift etc... thanks though. :crazy:



> Hm, I think what you're really suggesting is that as you approach large fractions of c - would our bodies (or matter in general) re-materialize in a form consistent with how it originated. I say that because light is both/either a wave or particle and, as I think you're alluding to, because of the speeds involved matter would simply turn into energy. I've wondered the same thing myself and don't really know where to begin in terms of looking it up for myself.


Yeah, that's kind of on track with what I'm wondering.


----------



## Solace

Seraphiel said:


> I was simply asking if you would die or not (which could be an answer to the question why we don't see time travelers, maybe they tried it and died, or changed form!)


I see where I might have confused you. I was still referencing M-theory, so you wouldn't be "traveling" so much as showing up at a point in space-time perpendicular to your original position. That's what my sandwich analogy was about, but I digress.

Let's say that time is linear (it is) with respect to all other planes of the universe. For the sake of simplicity let's say that line is the X-axis. Now, there are three other dimensions (LxWxH), but we'll cut it to two for simplicity. If you fix your position at the origin (0,0,0) you may not be physically moving, but time is still elapsing. So after one interval you're suddenly at coordinates 1,0,0. Now imagine another interval passing; you're at 2,0,0 now. So theoretically if this entire three dimensional graph is our plane of space-time, if you move to another space-time you'd be on a seperate graph entirely, but still have the coordinates 2,0,0; assuming the transition was instantaneous. The caveat here is that while time may still elapse (next interval makes 3,0,0), all other coordinates could be related to different laws of physics which we wouldn't be accustomed to in our land of GR.

As to death; if you can make it through one of the special relativity tricks (such as going through a wormhole) or a rift in space-time, then I suppose you'd be okay. But as far as we know now I believe that it's rather like driving while blind. You may not be moving, but you certainly don't know where you'll end up until you get there. And I suppose while the blindfold is on you can't prove your location, either.

RRob: You mean like the Grandfather Paradox or an unraveling of space-time simply because you broke the laws of physics? =P

Also, I have a feeling this is going to devolve into people asking other people questions who answer with more questions. Causality phail?

*Really Big Edit for Seraphiel:*
Here's an almost-answer to your question (I think scientists just haven't been able to get it down to a theory yet concerning your question):


Wikipedia.org/FTL said:


> *Group velocities above c*
> 
> The group velocity of a wave (e.g. a light beam) may also exceed _c_ in some circumstances. In such cases, which typically at the same time involve rapid attenuation of the intensity, the maximum of the envelope of a pulse may travel with a velocity above _c_. However, even this situation does not imply the propagation of signals with a velocity above _c_, even though one may be tempted to associate pulse maxima with signals. The latter association has been shown to be misleading, basically because the information on the arrival of a pulse can be obtained before the pulse maximum arrives. For example, if some mechanism allows the full transmission of the leading part of a pulse while strongly attenuating the pulse maximum and everything behind, the pulse maximum is effectively shifted forward in time, while the information on the pulse does not come faster than without this effect.



So, uh, the important part would be the loss of acceleration deteriorating the energy in the beam of light; thus I would assume that _something_ might be lost. The last bit sounds like what you were suggesting before; that he information stored in molecules - or even atomic/sub-atomic particles - might lose their consistency. Such as the place they were originally located to begin with before FTL travel occurred. This is still cheating time-travel though.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

I'm not really sure what I meant really just kind've rambling nonsense mostly. different hypothetical situations keep running through my head. I've been reading articles on a thing called frozen light that is really just amazing. maybe soon they'll develop techniques to control light in ways we never dreamed possible. Given infinite time I wonder if there is anything we would not be capable of accomplishing.


----------



## Solace

RighteousRob said:


> I remember in futurama they went back in time because they were exposed to a supernova while there was metal in the microwave... If only it were that simple


That does some simpler than having *some jackass* arrive late to work who proceeds to create a catastrophic resonance cascade by inserting a non-standard specimen into the scanning beam for analysis and thus creates a tear in space-time which allows an alien race from the past-future to begin a war with humanity.


----------



## Solace

Here's an interesting article on "teleportation" which, for our intents and purposes, is time travel.

[LINK]

I think Seraphiel and RRob will be most interested if they haven't already seen it.

After my initial scan of the article it reminds me of how the Stargate was supposed to work in transporting energy through the wormhole and then imparting upon the particles that were already present on the other side the "information" used to recreate what was initially sent through.

I'd really like to see such "teleportation" of energy used to fix the U.S.'s current problems with the electrical grid as so much electricity is wasted just moving it around. Once we get point-to-point transmission and distribution figured out, then we could work on exploring the galaxy time-traveling-style. =)


----------



## MachinegunDojo

Spades said:


> Here's an interesting article on "teleportation" which, for our intents and purposes, is time travel.
> 
> [LINK]
> 
> I think Seraphiel and RRob will be most interested if they haven't already seen it.
> 
> After my initial scan of the article it reminds me of how the Stargate was supposed to work in transporting energy through the wormhole and then imparting upon the particles that were already present on the other side the "information" used to recreate what was initially sent through.
> 
> I'd really like to see such "teleportation" of energy used to fix the U.S.'s current problems with the electrical grid as so much electricity is wasted just moving it around. Once we get point-to-point transmission and distribution figured out, then we could work on exploring the galaxy time-traveling-style. =)


Problem I have with teleportation is that you're really just cloning yourself and killing off the original.... being an original I take issue with that:frustrating:


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

MachinegunDojo said:


> Problem I have with teleportation is that you're really just cloning yourself and killing off the original.... being an original I take issue with that:frustrating:


I have similar reservations with that model myself. I lost a lot of respect for Gene Roddenberry when I found out that's how he imagined the Star Trek tech. First, this presupposes a substantialist, essentialist or materialist model of the universe, or as I like to call it, the "Lego model" of the universe. This seems problematic at best.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

I remember reading a theory about if you knew the exact location of every particle in the universe at one given time you could accurately predict the future based on the predictability of how those particles would interact. I believe it was related to chaos theory but I can not remember the scientist who stated it. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if something is the same down to the molecular level than how is it any different than the original. Of course this would mean there was no free will, and if I am not mistaken that theory was dis-proven due to the studies of particle interactions at the times of certain cosmic events that don't hold true to the laws of physics. Something about the creation of exotic particles that do not behave in a predictable matter.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

RighteousRob said:


> I remember reading a theory about if you knew the exact location of every particle in the universe at one given time you could accurately predict the future based on the predictability of how those particles would interact. I believe it was related to chaos theory but I can not remember the scientist who stated it. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if something is the same down to the molecular level than how is it any different than the original. Of course this would mean there was no free will, and if I am not mistaken that theory was dis-proven due to the studies of particle interactions at the times of certain cosmic events that don't hold true to the laws of physics. Something about the creation of exotic particles that do not behave in a predictable matter.


Hold on, Rob, that's a patently pre-quantum physics world view. Once you get rid of the idea of mater as particles, that notion falls apart. The bottom line is that _nothing _behaves in a predictable manner. When you add how quickly and exponentially noise gets amplified in a system (think of a tiny whisper that sets off a feed-back loop in a PA system), the possibility of knowing anything but the immediate future becomes impossible.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

which is why I said the theory was disproven at the end of my statement, I believe it was something called the uncertainty principle in quantum physics that argues against the old view, but I still believe that the original theory is not completely invalid, that we just do not have a good enough understanding of things, that everything is based on theory and speculation. If two bodies are identical to the sub atomic level than there is no difference between them, a human clone would not be identical, only on the genetic level would they be identical, but afterwards cell mutations and environmental factors will have effect small changes on that body. I was only getting at the idea behind teleportation is that even if it is just a duplicate, if they could effectively map all your energy and processes at the time of transfer, you would come out the same person as you went in.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

I'm going to double post before I forget something, this may have already been discussed but I dont know

So anyways I believe that everything is quantifiable, that in time we will acquire a complete understanding of how things work, down to the sub atomic level. I think in doing so, that we may not be able to time travel but that we could in affect create the past, perhaps in a virtual reality. If we were able to do so outside of virtual reality I don't think it would be the real past, as time is really just a concept we have created, but if we were to make changes to that past that we may end up creating a whole new universe in the process. I suppose if you believe in the multiverse theory that this is just another universe that already exists and we are just entering it, not actually creating it. dunno...


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

RighteousRob said:


> If two bodies are identical to the sub atomic level than there is no difference between them, a human clone would not be identical, only on the genetic level would they be identical, but afterwards cell mutations and environmental factors will have effect small changes on that body. I was only getting at the idea behind teleportation is that even if it is just a duplicate, if they could effectively map all your energy and processes at the time of transfer, you would come out the same person as you went in.


Sorry I didn't catch that. My concern is primarily that we just don't know enough about what creates the human mind. Is it just chemical processes? My suspicion is that some novel properties of matter emerge in consciousness that we just do not understand. I would be hesitant to test this procedure on people until we understand consciousness better. David Chalmers speculated that consciousness may be a property of matter. This seems silly at first, but maybe when matter is organized in a certain way, consciousness emerges. The question then is whether or not consciousness follows the body or if the body is replicated, will consciousness spontaneously re-emerge with all of its memories and inclinations intact. Or, could this potentially cut the mind off from the body, effectively killing the person leaving the clone with the mind of a child. 

Maybe I'm belaboring a semantic point, but we really don't know s*** about mater. We have nifty _theories _about how atoms work and are constructed, but I'm just not sure if what we know about them is in any way _exhaustive_. This becomes all the more difficult to wrap your mind around when you get rid of the Newtonian partial model and bring in uncertainty. Particles become probabilities densities with fundamentally unknowable momentum and/or location with an energy that seems to fluctuate spastically around a statistical average. When I think of these things, I just don't know what a "particle" is anymore.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

I agree, our knowledge in the matter is archaic at best. But I still hold on to the belief that given the proper amount of time, that there are no unexplainable events, and that everything in it's entirety can be defined, and processed.


----------



## Solace

RighteousRob said:


> ... as time is really just a concept we have created...


I take issue with this. The fourth dimension is a proven, observable dimension, despite it being a temporal one and not a physical one.



Wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#Time said:


> *Time*
> 
> A *temporal dimension* is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that we cannot move freely in time but subjectively move in one direction.
> The equations used in physics to model reality do not treat time in the same way that humans commonly perceive it. The equations of classical mechanics are symmetric with respect to time, and equations of quantum mechanics are typically symmetric if both time and other quantities (such as charge and parity) are reversed. In these models, the perception of time flowing in one direction is an artifact of the laws of thermodynamics (we perceive time as flowing in the direction of increasing entropy).
> The best-known treatment of time as a dimension is Poincaré and Einstein's special relativity (and extended to general relativity), which treats perceived space and time as components of a four-dimensional manifold, known as spacetime, and in the special, flat case as Minkowski space.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

Spades said:


> I take issue with this. The fourth dimension is a proven, observable dimension, despite it being a temporal one and not a physical one.


I take issue with this. :laughing:

Can we "observe" time? Or can we infer its existence?


----------



## Solace

ETG said:


> Can we "observe" time? Or can we infer its existence?


*Can you move backwards in time?* No. This concludes that time is a unidirectional dimension as best as our science has been able to discover. By not being able to go backwards, we show that _something_ is there to be observed. Much the way a river would not be a river without the flow of water. If water flowed in both directions the river would stand still. However a river with a flow of water in a single direction can be observed _because of_ that movement.

*Can you observe the effects of time's passage?* Yes, the living die; the young grow old; dead plants and animals become fossilized and their cells break down. There is also this great thing called radioactive decay. These are all spontaneous things and are explained by the passage of time. Every single philosophical belief I've come across has remarked on time and it's passage. The _Tao Te Ching_ especially remarks on the passage of time. Even the _Art of War_ stresses the importance of timing and using everything about the time one has to their advantage.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob

doesn't quantum mechanics also talk about how until something is observed that it doesn't exist. That in order for something to exist we have to verify it's existence. I remember discussing this with someone else who brought up the "I think therefore I am" but that is not necessarily true. I exist because other people recognize I exist, if no one were here to observe it than it could be argued that I never really existed.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

Spades said:


> *Can you move backwards in time?* No. This concludes that time is a unidirectional dimension as best as our science has been able to discover. By not being able to go backwards, we show that _something_ is there to be observed. Much the way a river would not be a river without the flow of water. If water flowed in both directions the river would stand still. However a river with a flow of water in a single direction can be observed _because of_ that movement.
> 
> *Can you observe the effects of time's passage?* Yes, the living die; the young grow old; dead plants and animals become fossilized and their cells break down. There is also this great thing called radioactive decay. These are all spontaneous things and are explained by the passage of time. Every single philosophical belief I've come across has remarked on time and it's passage. The _Tao Te Ching_ especially remarks on the passage of time. Even the _Art of War_ stresses the importance of timing and using everything about the time one has to their advantage.


What you mention is surely true. I like "you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube" best. But when I mean "observe" I mean actually watching time. Can you observe change? The thought experiment goes that if you had no memory whatsoever, what would time look like? It seems that if we want to become aware of time, we have to rely on reason, speculation and our memory. This doesn't seem like "observation" to me. I think the problem is that _we are in time_. It's not like we can step outside of time and observe it, like getting out of a river to watch it flow by. We are always in the river. Mental abstractions create a (very interesting) mental space where time appears to be observable. But ultimately, this is a fabrication. To _really _experience time is to stop thinking about it and _be _in it. I hope this comes across as more than just a semantic point.


----------



## Solace

RRob said:


> I exist because other people recognize I exist, if no one were here to observe it than it could be argued that I never really existed.


You're getting into the "if a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?" fallacy. What you should be considering is not whether *people* observe you, but whether your actions have bearing on the universe.

That is to say that can you change the things around you? If you wanted to, regardless of freewill, would you be able to chemically change something? Can you change the state of liquid water to ice by some act of your own? Can you observe gravity by dropping a feather and thus be observed by the universe for changing the feather's position?

To this I would say that because you have _influence,_ because you can _act_, you exist within the boundaries of space and time.



ETG said:


> I mean actually watching time.


Memory is actually the answer to your question there. Without memory to prove that change has occurred, everything would seem instantaneous. As we have memories we can prove that everything is not instantaneous. Indeed, because of a cause we can observe an effect. This is causality.

I'm afraid that you are attempting to apply a philosophical idea you don't fully understand to a concept we have devised _to explain_ a manifest part of our universe. You contend that because we are within the confines of something, and cannot fully see it and interact with it without being within the system, we cannot be "aware" of its changes. This is untrue.

Can you observe gravity? Can you observe electromagnetic fields? Both of these things we are within; we are confined by the rules which govern them and therein we are governed.

also your presentation of a perceived definition of "observation" only to point out that it is obviously incorrectly defines "observation" is a waste. The scientific method is one way of proving observation has taken place at a physical level and does not require the logical fallacies you suppose.

Further, your contradictory point (with respect to a previous post) that to "experience time is to ... be in it" completely invalidates everything your conjecture was about. You are using philosophic ideas to define the rules in which _you think_ science works. Philosophy and science are two very different things.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

Spades said:


> You're getting into the "if a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?" fallacy. What you should be considering is not whether *people* observe you, but whether your actions have bearing on the universe.
> 
> That is to say that can you change the things around you? If you wanted to, regardless of freewill, would you be able to chemically change something? Can you change the state of liquid water to ice by some act of your own? Can you observe gravity by dropping a feather and thus be observed by the universe for changing the feather's position?
> 
> To this I would say that because you have _influence,_ because you can _act_, you exist within the boundaries of space and time.
> 
> 
> Memory is actually the answer to your question there. Without memory to prove that change has occurred, everything would seem instantaneous. As we have memories we can prove that everything is not instantaneous. Indeed, because of a cause we can observe an effect. This is causality.
> 
> I'm afraid that you are attempting to apply a philosophical idea you don't fully understand to a concept we have devised _to explain_ a manifest part of our universe. You contend that because we are within the confines of something, and cannot fully see it and interact with it without being within the system, we cannot be "aware" of its changes. This is untrue.
> 
> Can you observe gravity? Can you observe electromagnetic fields? Both of these things we are within; we are confined by the rules which govern them and therein we are governed.
> 
> also your presentation of a perceived definition of "observation" only to point out that it is obviously incorrectly defines "observation" is a waste. The scientific method is one way of proving observation has taken place at a physical level and does not require the logical fallacies you suppose.
> 
> Further, your contradictory point (with respect to a previous post) that to "experience time is to ... be in it" completely invalidates everything your conjecture was about. You are using philosophic ideas to define the rules in which _you think_ science works. Philosophy and science are two very different things.


I'm getting the feeling that you are looking at this entirely within the confines of science.

Stating that I don't understand something strikes me as unnecessarily rude.

The scientific method is worthless for talking about subjective states of consciousness, such as our experience of things.

I am an uninterested in how science works. I _know _how it works. I have a bachelors degree in Physics, for whatever that is worth. I suggest alternative ways of looking at the world because there are tremendous shortcomings in the scientific method, primarily the fact that it generates a specious, although highly useful, worldview. I hold this truth to be self-evident. If you do not, I would like us to agree to disagree.


----------



## Solace

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I'm getting the feeling that you are looking at this entirely within the confines of science.


As the original topic of "time" was defined in a scientific manner, I gave you the scientific reasoning. You wanted to substitute philosophical arguments (which I had to make for you), which had no place in the argument itself.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Stating that I don't understand something strikes me as unnecessarily rude.


You would only find it rude if you knew it was both true and that, as you've admitted rather openly now, you have a very close-minded view and are not open to other interpretations. This is unfortunate. I was willing to open up a philosophic debate with you, but this was not initially the topic for that.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> The scientific method is worthless for talking about subjective states of consciousness, such as our experience of things.


You still posit that science cannot be used in this instance to understand ... it's strange. That's exactly its function.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I am an uninterested in how science works. I _know _how it works. I have a bachelors degree in Physics, for whatever that is worth. I suggest alternative ways of looking at the world because there are tremendous shortcomings in the scientific method, primarily the fact that it generates a specious, although highly useful, worldview. I hold this truth to be self-evident. If you do not, I would like us to agree to disagree.


Do you really believe you have nothing left to learn? I have always felt that I will _always_ have more to learn regardless the topic. That was one of my reasons for posting in this thread, not for other people's views, but rather the information with which they built those views. Take for instance my initial interest in Dogen Zenji after you mentioned his philosophy.

As well you've been substituting subjective reasoning in the place of logic and evidence, so I really can't continue to argue with someone who insists on not providing an argument. You'll admit I had to make your argument for you to continue this conversation, perhaps I should not have.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

Spades said:


> As the original topic of "time" was defined in a scientific manner, I gave you the scientific reasoning. You wanted to substitute philosophical arguments (which I had to make for you), which had no place in the argument itself.
> 
> 
> You would only find it rude if you knew it was both true and that, as you've admitted rather openly now, you have a very close-minded view and are not open to other interpretations. This is unfortunate. I was willing to open up a philosophic debate with you, but this was not initially the topic for that.
> 
> 
> You still posit that science cannot be used in this instance to understand ... it's strange. That's exactly its function.
> 
> 
> Do you really believe you have nothing left to learn? I have always felt that I will _always_ have more to learn regardless the topic. That was one of my reasons for posting in this thread, not for other people's views, but rather the information with which they built those views. Take for instance my initial interest in Dogen Zenji after you mentioned his philosophy.
> 
> As well you've been substituting subjective reasoning in the place of logic and evidence, so I really can't continue to argue with someone who insists on not providing an argument. You'll admit I had to make your argument for you to continue this conversation, perhaps I should not have.


I think that our conversation has diverged to such a degree that it is no longer worth salvaging. You seem to be taking what I am saying out of the original context that I have offered it in, forcing it into your own context thus distorting what I am saying and then commenting how you don't understand or agree with what I am saying. I guess I missed the part when it was declared that non-scientific perspectives were not allowed to participate. As far as the closed minded comment and the "making my argument for me", that's _ad hominem _#2 & 3 for you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to conduct yourself in this manner. I also don't understand where you got the notion that I feel I have someone exhausted my understanding of the world as I have no more left to learn. There seems to be an infinite amount left to learn, but I'm not sure science in its current form can accomplish this as the frontier of inner consciousness and self-cultivation seems removed from from objective evidence. These perspectives of time are what I am interested in.

I have the feeling that we are looking at the same thing from two different sides and finding nothing meaningful to talk about between us. I hope we can find better ways to communicate in future threads.


----------



## Nearsification

Time travel is possible. Black wholes have been known to be able to "time travel" if you can get through without being ripped a part.


----------



## Vaka

There's no law against moving forward in time...I was watching something on the discovery channel, and apparently most people have gone forward in time by a few seconds atleast...but there's no law against it...it's traveling back in time that boggles my mind


----------



## Cthulhu

queenofleaves said:


> There's no law against moving forward in time...I was watching something on the discovery channel, and apparently most people have gone forward in time by a few seconds atleast...but there's no law against it...it's traveling back in time that boggles my mind


Michio Kaku makes it a bit easiier to understand, plus he is easy to listen to when he talks. Look him up on youtube or google, because i have to attend to a different matter at the moment.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

I once built a time machine, but it could only travel forwards in time, and only at normal speed.


----------



## DarklyValentine

Infinity cannot possibly exist as those of thus who are in the know know.

Time travel according to recent theory is possible both ways

I ma gladdened you jest that humble man created time and not the fabric of the universe itself

*wicked has nowt else to add


----------



## Vaka

JonnyBoy245 said:


> Michio Kaku makes it a bit easiier to understand, plus he is easy to listen to when he talks. Look him up on youtube or google, because i have to attend to a different matter at the moment.


O that guy? I watch the science channel quite a bit...is that the man who's in some of the physics shows about light, and time, and whatnot?

Anyway, I looked him up on youtube, and basically every vid of him is of a topic I'm highly interested in, so thank you 


YouTube - Michio Kaku: Time Travel, Parallel Universes, and Reality

That stuff about timelines and the time travel paradox...I shat bricks! xD

YouTube - Is Time Travel Possible?

Extremely interesting...unfortunately for me, my mind is not built to be able to wrap itself around this stuff and I'll probably never fully understand it haha...but I can try and I can watch this videos that intrigue me to no end


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

queenofleaves said:


> O that guy? I watch the science channel quite a bit...is that the man who's in some of the physics shows about light, and time, and whatnot?
> 
> Anyway, I looked him up on youtube, and basically every vid of him is of a topic I'm highly interested in, so thank you
> 
> 
> That stuff about timelines and the time travel paradox...I shat bricks! xD
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8
> 
> Extremely interesting...unfortunately for me, my mind is not built to be able to wrap itself around this stuff and I'll probably never fully understand it haha...but I can try and I can watch this videos that intrigue me to no end


Until any of this stuff can be empirically demonstrated, I'm writing it off as intellectual masturbation. I guess I just find it disingenuous when someone just spouts off a bunch of theories without actually talking about _how_. I suppose it's like the moon landing. Someone 10,000 years ago probably said that we would one day walk on the moon, and everyone probably laughed at him. Now, when you have rocketry and a pretty good understanding of physics and engineering, this idea sounds a lot less stupid. Where is the "rocketry" from the analogy? So far, it all just sounds like science-_fiction_ that correlates with a _theory_.


----------



## Vaka

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Until any of this stuff can be empirically demonstrated, I'm writing it off as intellectual masturbation. I guess I just find it disingenuous when someone just spouts off a bunch of theories without actually talking about _how_. I suppose it's like the moon landing. Someone 10,000 years ago probably said that we would one day walk on the moon, and everyone probably laughed at him. Now, when you have rocketry and a pretty good understanding of physics and engineering, this idea sounds a lot less stupid. Where is the "rocketry" from the analogy? So far, it all just sounds like science-_fiction_ that correlates with a _theory_.


Yeah...I still love theories! I know it's not the best thing, but I care more about what could be than what is; and this stuff is interesting to me. And theories still hold weight to me somewhat


----------



## just me

I question the theory nothing can travel faster than light. Stating it is impossible to have two times the speed of light is against all math. They call this genius? Right; they _called_ it genius.

"Temporal" means things governed by time. That must mean there are things that are not governed by time.
I think it possible to leave the temporal and enter the eternal, though it then would not be considered as time travel. I think it can happen, though it would need a different name. My take...


----------



## sprinkles

just me said:


> I question the theory nothing can travel faster than light. Stating it is impossible to have two times the speed of light is against all math. They call this genius? Right; they _called_ it genius.
> 
> "Temporal" means things governed by time. That must mean there are things that are not governed by time.
> I think it possible to leave the temporal and enter the eternal, though it then would not be considered as time travel. I think it can happen, though it would need a different name. My take...


If I remember correctly (I think I posted it in another thread) there's nothing against traveling faster than light. The problem is _accelerating_ to faster than light speed. Pretty much everything we see normally on a daily basis cannot accelerate to FTL. That doesn't forbid things from already being FTL, however.


----------



## just me

Makes me curious. If we turn on a beam of light that was off at point A, and we look to point B down the line somewhere, the light had to get to point B by some means. Starting and stopping without some form of acceleration would mean the light travels at the same speed all the time, which is alright.

Speed of Light SL > every other speed is that I question

Two times the speed of light 2 SL = SL is what I cannot accept


----------



## Cthulhu

just me said:


> Makes me curious. If we turn on a beam of light that was off at point A, and we look to point B down the line somewhere, the light had to get to point B by some means. Starting and stopping without some form of acceleration would mean the light travels at the same speed all the time, which is alright.
> 
> Speed of Light SL > every other speed is that I question
> 
> Two times the speed of light 2 SL = SL is what I cannot accept


well if you want a mathematical equation for it, e=mc2, hahahaha.


----------



## sprinkles

just me said:


> Makes me curious. If we turn on a beam of light that was off at point A, and we look to point B down the line somewhere, the light had to get to point B by some means. Starting and stopping without some form of acceleration would mean the light travels at the same speed all the time, which is alright.
> 
> Speed of Light SL > every other speed is that I question
> 
> Two times the speed of light 2 SL = SL is what I cannot accept


Well SL is not necessarily the fastest speed possible. It's only like that mathematically because photons are considered to have zero rest mass, but tachyons for example are faster than light, so there is a speed that is > SL.

Most other particles cannot be accelerated to light speed because light is supposed to be made of photons, which have zero rest mass - anything with non-zero rest mass would have to produce infinite energy to catch up, which means they would never get there.


----------



## just me

The Theory of Relativity .................

I was actually looking more closely at this.

Most other particles to we, the people of infinite wisdom and understanding, could be viewed as
_known _particles; could it not?

In all our wisdom and understanding, we know there are unknown, see there are unseen, and think rather highly of ourselves should we _think _we, the human race, know everything about light. 

Should we experience that which travels faster than light, embrace it as that which dances faster than that we know as time, then we may have stepped outside the boundaries of that which we are governed by: time( suggesting we not change time from that it is). If not temporal, it then becomes eternal; something we know even less about than light itself.


----------



## sprinkles

just me said:


> The Theory of Relativity .................
> 
> I was actually looking more closely at this.
> 
> Most other particles to we, the people of infinite wisdom and understanding, could be viewed as
> _known _particles; could it not?


Right, well we know photons to an extent as well, too. Tachyons are hypothetical.

One thing we don't know first hand is if photons truly have zero rest mass, because we can't really stop them to check, but we can guess by measuring magnetic fields and such. Though if photons have a non-zero rest mass, that would not only hurt special relativity but other theories we depend on as well.

But consider this, a measure of time can be infinitely small, yes? Isn't it always possible, especially in relativity, for a time unit to be shorter?

If that is the case, and time slows down relatively with speed (and/or gravity) wouldn't going faster and faster only slow you down more and more? It would seem the faster you could go, the further in the 'future' you would be if you stop.... that seems logical to me but maybe I am missing something.


----------



## just me

I apologize from editing while you were typing. I type more slowly than I think. I do not see time as something changeable in terms of slowing it or speeding its tenure.


----------



## sprinkles

just me said:


> I apologize from editing while you were typing. I type more slowly than I think.


It's ok, I saw you were editing and was trying to wait for you and thought you were done. :laughing:


----------



## just me

...which is why I stay away from chat rooms....


----------



## sprinkles

just me said:


> I apologize from editing while you were typing. I type more slowly than I think. I do not see time as something changeable in terms of slowing it or speeding its tenure.


That's the thing, time is a relative unit. Like the relative clocks part of relativity, like if you and your friend both have a watch, and your friend is sitting still and you accelerate _approaching_ the speed of light, every aspect of you, including your watch, will become slower and slower. 

However, your time and your friends time are relative, to each of you your own time has never changed, for you there would still be 60 full seconds in a minute on your watch... but if you go fast enough for long enough, you may come back to find that 10 days passed for your friend and only 1 day passed for you, but none the less neither of you observed a change in your own time!


----------



## just me

I have enjoyed this discussion and need to spend some time for rest. Thank you for your time and look forward to talking about this more another day.


----------



## Munchies

yeh i think it would be possible if you somehow made the entire universe spin backwards... maybe

Time is determined by how fast an object is moving multiplied by the distance travelled. Experiments proved this not to be just a mathematical equation to determin x amount of time with given speed and distance... but also this occurs in reality. 

That being said, if our physical universe (not atomic structure) magicaly started spin at a lower frequency, we would experience slower time, would it be observable? whoknows... But this also goes to say that if the universe just stopped spinning, we would experience 0 time... so if the universe then started to spin backwards from that point... i suppose it could be possible to start experiencing backwards time...

But then again spinning is still just spinning...its positive movment no matter what percpective


----------

