Time Travel has been a common staple in the science fiction genre and a topic that I always found interesting. In movies and books I learned that there are three types of time travel: paradoxical, parallel and repetitive. The first type of time travel is known as being paradoxical, where the time traveler goes back into the past to prevent his or her parents from meeting. If the time traveler succeeds, he or she will disappear and never have existed. But if the time traveler never existed, then how could he or she have been able to go back in time in the first place? Clearly, a paradox has taken place.
The second type of time travel is known as the many-worlds or many-universes interpretation. If a time traveler goes back into the past to prevent their own existence from occuring, time will automatically fork into another timeline or form a parallel universe where in the second timeline, the time traveler would never have been born because it hasn't happen yet. Therefore, the time traveler's life is in no danger of erasing his or her existence, afterall, he or she had to come from somewhere!
Finally, the last type of time travel is known as repetitive. That is, if a time traveler goes into the past, he or she can never change it because the laws of time will prevent them from doing so, therefore, they can only FULLFILL the past.
Personally, I don't think time travel into the past will ever be possible because quite simply, there is no frame of reference to begin with. The past is forever gone, there is no going back. The future has not happened yet, therefore, our cherished concept of free-will is secured. The past and future cannot exist simultaneously with the present. Hence, the only thing that remains constant is the present.
On the other hand, if our descendants discover time travel to be possible with the aid of some extremely advance technology, the one type of time travel that will never be possible is the paradoxical one. Why? Well, Einstein stated that all living things have what is called a worldline. Think of a worldline something akin to a film negative. One end represents your birth, the other end, your death. If a time traveler were to travel back into the past to prevent you from being born, your worldline will disappear and you would cease to exist like in the movie, "Back To The Future".
However, according to Einstein, wordlines can never be cut or altered. Paradoxes by definition CANNOT HAPPEN. Any time travel paradigms that result in paradoxes are inherently flawed. It should be the responsibility of any theory worth two cents to provide a paradigm that does NOT result in paradoxes.
Another sign of a lousy theory is any that requires something as implausable and unproveable as the creation of an entire universe every time someone makes a left turn as opposed to a right, just to avoid situations that are impossible in the first place! (Parallel Universes)
Which leaves Repetative, or Self Consistancy. This is of course the only theory that makes sense.
Hm.. I had similar thoughts while watching 'Terminator'. I kept thinking that they should just stand still and let a rock fall from the sky on the T(x). I tend to lean towards the infinite reality theory of the universe, in that in each instance, we are merely shunting to the fork in the multiverse where our intended decision is the one that is actually made. Of course, then there's only 1 me and an infinite number of possibilities.
This is similar to the religious 'Free will or predestination' question. We would be silly to think that God's view of the universe is the same as ours. I liken it to film and the Pachinko game. In the film strip, the contents of each 2D frame have no inkling of the sense of the 'story', which can only be viewed in the 3D world (looking at the film strip as a collection of frames, and having the sense of the 'story'). Similarly, since God is multidimensional, he can see all the outcomes, like the pachinko machine maker. But the actual movement of the ball throughout the machine, is based on the ball's individual shape and how it hits each obstacle in turn. The ball isn't aware of the rest, only the obstacle (and the options) available at any one time.
Universes are a dozen a dime... Why should it need much energy to create a universe? Just because it holds much energy? Maybe the energy isn´t really here, just "borrowed" like the energy for particle and antiparticle that fleetingly exist in a vacuum. And the auditors haven´t noticed yet...
I once heard time being described as "one heckuva giant slinky" each turn of the slinky represented a "curve in the space/time continuum". The problem was that each point along the curve represented only a moment in time. So, if we invented time travel and went back to see the fall of Rome, all we could view would be a snapshot of that moment. No motion, since no time.
Another idea is this: If our progeny somewhere down the road actually did invent time travel, then wouldn't we already have some sense of its existence? Unless time travel was governed exceptionally closely, someone would get it in their heads to go back a destroy Osama Bin Laden before he could do anything to America. And yes, one could say that we have time police, but human nature is to steal and use what we can't have. Someone would have made a mistake by now.
Time is a very complicated subject that even Einstein did stumble while handling it and I am not going to battle showing his pitfalls as it is futile.
The most modern theoreticians (including me) are proposing new sets of definitions for time.
In my position, I have classified time into three major categorical time sets.
There is the geometric time that may be represented by a geometrical interval, whether it was linear, curved or complex.
There is also the psychological time, which is the observational reference of the change of states in observable events.
Finally, there is the dimensionless comparative time in which the problem of simultaneity pops.
If we were to report the length of a side of a rectangle to the opposite and parallel side by mapping it as discrete points, then if we have a time delay in the reporting instrumentation, we must obtain a uniform parallelogram.
If we ever received a trapezoidal distortion, we must conclude that the wave was either compressed or stretched, and that is why it took less time or more time while mapping a finite number of cycles across frames of reference.
If we took Earth to be our inertial and gravitational frame of reference then if an imaginary device passing through the outer space was transmitting any frequency while travelling at the speed of light, we shall get a flat line on our oscilloscopes and we shall declare the death of transmission.
That is because the peak-to-peak change of state duration had been stretched completely out into a line.
Time dilation is not in the psychological observer's time, which is our reference, and it is not in the geometric source, which is by definition perfectly accurate (or we have no) but it is in the relativistic dynamics of reporting oscillations (change of state over time).
To make it very simple, I would say that the wavelength of a transmitted radiation shall become infinite when the radiating body reaches the speed of light relative to the receiver (going away from each other).
On the other hand, wave compression is possible if the direction was reversed for an encounter.
If it was reaching the speed of light too, all the waves shall be reported as a single instance and the wavelength becomes Zero. It is like saying that the transmitter shall arrive at the receiver before any wave could change the state of the separating space (Primedium).
Naturally this case would be a catastrophic event, similar to breaking the sound barrier and we may call it breaking the light barrier, which is a totally fictitious abstraction for the sake of logical analyses.
I always opposed the thumpers of faster than light propagation because it is absolutely illogical to tear up the space-time continuum.
If time breaks down then you have no time to break time down.
Therefore time may not break down to begin with.
Kindest regards.
There is no such thing as "time" as we perceive it. There is only the here and now and hence there's no possibility of traveling back and forth through time.
Sorry, but time travel is possible , the relevant experiments have been done. Just take a ship that is able to reach a sizable fraction of c, travel to e.g. Alpha Centauri and back (or in the direction, or where you like) and voilá, you will have traveled to the future. Coming back is the harder thing...
Time travel has two concepts.
The real and true concept is that time is dynamic, scalar and may not stop by default.
This means that we are travelling through time, riding time and at the scalar pace of time.
We are always "now" yet travelling.
The fantasy concept of time travel is related to a mathematical fantasy misconceived from the dimensions of velocity.
Velocity is a vector that allows negative quantities relative to directional references of length.
When we manipulate the quantity of velocity in a reckless manner, we may divide a negative velocity by positive length ending with a negative time quantity (it is a negative frequency in fact) result that has no physical corresponding meaning.
What is the meaning of a frequency of MINUS TEN CYCLES PER SECOND?
Mathematics is a tool for modelling nature, while nature is not a servant of mathematics to fulfil its fantasies and glitches.
EL _________________ Hemetis
Hi everyone, I had a distinct pleasure of watching a documentary about time travel. I thought it would be interesting to share its crux with you. So here goes, time is never constant anywhere. Universe is composed of dimensions, those who cease to exist in one dimension shift to another, because time will not stop even for the dead!
However, the speed of time changes with relevance to your location. If one astronaut travels over 17,000 MPH around the world in a space center above the Earth and ages 50th of a second in the future every instance. It’s a modest beginning but it’s a start! He would age 1 year in relation to 10 years on the Earth.
Having said that, it’s still impossible to go back in time. The only way to slow time down is to go fast, the closer you get to the speed of light the slower time gets. If you were to travel at the speed of time then time would stop. Therefore, to go back in time you would need to go faster than the speed of light, which is impossible!
Will time travel ever be possible? I think not.
To the earlier piece, I would like to add that due to it’s traveling at the speed of light, time stops inside black holes. Meaning if you were to somehow enter a black hole, time would be stopped on the inside and outside. However you can never get out of a black hole, it is impossible to survive the intense gravity inside a black hole, and once inside there is no getting out!
To the earlier piece, I would like to add that due to it’s traveling at the speed of light, time stops inside black holes. Meaning if you were to somehow enter a black hole, time would be stopped on the inside and outside. However you can never get out of a black hole, it is impossible to survive the intense gravity inside a black hole, and once inside there is no getting out!
I have to disagree with you Rex, because fantasy is what it is.
Einstein too had all the right to fantasise but we have all the right to reject his fantasies.
I would appreciate that honest posts make clear what is a fantastic hype-O’-thesis and what is reality that is substantiated with facts.
You never meet yourself, because you will be on a different timeline!
Timetravel discussions always lead to paradoxes problems discussions. The most famous is called the Grandfather Paradox. Let’s say you go back in time and kill your parents before you were born. If you kill your parents before you were born, how could you exist and want to go back to kill your parents?
In fact, my opinion is that there is no Grandfather paradox at all! Some of latest and more extraordinary scientific theories have to be called in order to prove why there is no paradox.
Supposing you go back in time and kill you’re Grandfather, and then you return to the present time. Soon you’ll find that almost everything looks the same, but some things had changed a lot. (The changes, actually, depend on who you are, but let’s imagine that you’re the common John Doe). Although your city looks very familiar, you’ll notice that no one recognize you anymore. Your house isn’t there, in its place there is a similar home with people you never saw in your life. So, what then? Well, welcome to the first new scientific theory: The Many Worlds Theory.
You have just discovered, in your flesh and returning from the past, what scientists mean with the Multiverse theory. Actually, in this precise moment, there are zillions of “you” out there, living in zillions of other universes. Every time you make a decision your “one you” goes in one direction and the “other you” takes the other option. Next decision, the same bifurcation happens again, and again, and again. Remember that big decision you took and regret for the rest of your life? If it serves as some comfort, I can guarantee you, there are many “yous” that took the right decision and are living that other option in this precise moment.
Galilean Lorentzean Hemetean Time Transformations {GLHTT}
Let _T_ represent the temporal interval delta-t_0, which we usually call _Proper Time_.
Thus _T_ is a time interval measured locally using a clock at rest with the observer but that such coordinate system, which we will call S' is moving relative to another remote system S and observed by its origin.
The velocity of S' in S is measured relative to S and denoted as _v_.
The interval _T_ observed remotely from S and denoted by _t_ must be dilated under the relation:
t = T / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^(0.5)
By substituting as many values for _v_ between the limits {0} and {1} we may conclude that t can be anything from Unity to Infinity.
No provisions are made by this equation for remote _time interval_ contraction.
Since roots of a square may be positive or negative, then it is up to the mathematician to match the sign including a negative time, which is not logically consistent with any imminent observation of time intervals.
On the other hand we have a variant velocity _v_ that is always observed remotely in S but the time interval is mediated by light travelling between the moving object and the axis of the coordinate system.
1- How can the velocity of the object be in meters per seconds where those seconds are relevant to the observers proper time in S while applied to the velocity of the remote object the time of which is deformed as observed by S also?
2- If we do accept two scales of proper time to exist, then say that light travels between those two scales with a constant velocity _c_, which is Length / time, then the velocity of light in meters per second must be moving between two scales in which those seconds have a variant magnitude from that of the seconds to which light speed is being referred.
My verdict is that a time interval dilation is applicable to intervals between the origin and event-points only, because remote events are evidentially only dilated (under the logic of time required for light to travel the distance) and can never be contracted unlike remote world lines (the deformation of whom are direction dependent).
Of course, if we start with the accepted relativistic equations we would be treating symptoms and not the causes behind the symptoms.
The correct procedure to investigate the apparent contradiction is to go right to Lorentz transformation and its foundational concepts.
Lorentz began by a formula that must be reducible to the Galilean transformation at low speeds and must equate it at rest.
_In Search for k_
The idea then was to _assume_ a constant of proportionality to exist, hence:
x' = k (x - vt)
Using the first postulate of SR
x = k (x' + vt')
Oops, there is something unsettling here so let us rewrite them again and investigate deeper
x' = k_1 (x - vt)
x = k_2 (x' + vt')
If k_1 = k_2 = 1, _AND_ t = t', then the equations are reduced to the Galilean Transformation.
If it was assumed that k_1 = k_2 = k, then the derivation should have substantiated a proof and not outright use the assumption to prove the assumption; besides, where is the proof of t =/= t' that was also an assumption?
Either {[t =/= t'] _AND_ [k_1 =/= k_2]} _OR_ {[t = t'] _AND_ [k_1 = k_2 = k]}, which is what the dimensional consistency of assumptions dictates to arrive at the Galilean Transformation when k = 1.
Neglecting the Equity of t and t' was unjustified and deliberate.
Then:
x = k_2 (k_1 (x - vt) + vt') = k_1.k_2.x - k_1.k_2.vt + k_2.vt'
And
k_2.vt' = x - k_1.k_2.x + k_1.k_2.vt
t' = (x - k_1.k_2.x + k_1.k_2.vt) / k_2.v
Thus, we obtain an irreducible form unless we assumed the Galilean case or the forced assumptions that we are out to prove OR disprove.
The second assumption is based on the second postulate of SR.
where:
x = ct
And
x' = ct'
Which is only acceptable of [c] = [L/T], where [T] is an invariant scale as postulated.
Therefore, remote scale variance is absolutely acceptable while local scale variance is utter nonsense.
So how do we reconcile this messy contradiction!
We have empirical data that confirms remote world-line-deformations and we need to formulate a solution to estimate values for our variables.
S' is a system moving within S, where S harbours a Divine Robot acting as the observer of the details within S.
Our DR is relentlessly tracking the spacetime coordinates of the origin of S'.
We shall re-enact the scenario of the sneezing astronaut with whom an open communication channel was open.
At spacetime events (x1,t1)' and (x2,t2)' the astronaut sneezes twice.
Electromagnetic waves move at _c_ and takes time to return from the spatial coordinates, such that:
t_1 = t'_1 + (x'_1 / c)
t_2 = t'_2 + (x'_2 / c)
delta t = t_2 - t_1 = (t'_2 + (x'_2 / c)) - (t'_1 + (x'_1 / c))
delta t = ((t'_2.c + x'_2 )/c) - ((t'_1.c + x'_1 )/c)
delta t = (t'_2.c + x'_2 - t'_1.c - x'_1 ) / c
But x'_2 - x'_1 = delta x'
and t'_2 - t'_1 = delta t'
Then
delta t = ((delta t'.c) + (delta x'))/c
Notice that the term (dt'.c) is compliant with Minkowski's world formalism.
In that way we do add spatial dimensions properly and by relating it back to the speed of light we get the relative time after deformation.
My formalism preserves the direction identity in the term (dx') because while (dt'.c) is an absolute quantity we ensure that (dx') is a vector quantity to reflect the correct deformation whether contractive or expansive.
My formalism is neither Galilean Nor Lorentzean, it is Hemetean.
By testing for a body at rest in S' with S' at rest in S, we find that dt = dt'.
The sign between the two terms decides whether the deformation was contractive or expansive.
_Time Transformations_
Galilean
t = t' .................. (Euclidean Space Compliant) (Newtonian Laws Compliant)
Lorentzean
t = t' / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^(0.5) .................. (?) (SR Compliant)
Hemetean
delta t = (( delta t'.c) + ( delta x'))/c .................. (Minkowski Space Compliant) (Relativistic)
_Discussion_
The Galilean transformations stands on the Newtonean concept of a Universal time scale, and the simple idea behind it is that you cannot determine scale changes of time unless you compare them to a universal scale to make such a decision, hence the scale must be invariant. Galileo, in his transformation did not consider "remote observation" and that is why only spatial changes can be reflected in relative velocities.
Lorentz, was motivated by Michelson and Morley experiment and by Einstein's SR as much as by the then new Minkowski space. Under the pressure of the moment a misconception of time and a dimensional confusion took place, from which science is suffering till today. The artefacts of that confusion was mainly Time Travel and the Twin-Paradox along with strong confusion between real and apparent time dilations.
Hemet (who happens to be me) is offering a new relativistic time transformations in which strong distinction between real and apparent time-interval-deformations, the later of which can be calculated by the simple formula:
delta t = (( delta t'.c) + ( delta x'))/c
This formula shows the relation between a remote time interval (delta t) as observed locally (delta t') when the remote information is mediated by light. _________________ Hemetis
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")