Time Travel

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by JimmyJames, Jun 6, 2001.

  1. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    <IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>

    <IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/timemet.gif/>

    <IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/tt22.gif/>

    <IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/Image11.gif/>

    <IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/kerrworm.jpg/>
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 01001010 ... unique ... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    it's all very clear now...

    lol
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ankit The Angel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    Two theories!

    The Special theory of relativity and the theory of simultaneity, concerning your time-travel comment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beauideal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    My thoughts

    Crisp

    You said:

    ____________________________________________________

    I disagree, light has something to do with time. We human beings experience time as a sequence of events that happen (the sun sets, night falls, sun rises - repeat ad infinitum). The sequence in which we see events happen has to do with light: since we assume that nothing can travel faster than light, the only way for us to witness an event is to see it (and not hear it for example).

    ____________________________________________________

    I do not believe that we human beings necessarily experience time as a sequence of events. Rather we human beings measure that which we refer to as time using those repeating ad infinitum events. Those events in no way produced time. A person who is born blind and never able to view a single event, still experiences time and yes they can keep track of and measure time by using a repetitive sound such as tick tock tick tock. Likewise, even a person that is born both blind and deaf will also experience time and do it without any audio or visual sensory input. This leads me to believe that time is something other than just light or even the entire Electro-magnetic spectrum. Light is a photon and no matter how instantaneous light may seem it still takes time to produce light. Therefor, knowing this, we can then say, time cannot be a product of light but rather light is a product of time. I believe time and energy to be interwoven as a time-energy spectrum. I call it a spectrum because time can be an interval as vast as space itself or sliced into an interval as small as quantum mechanics wants. Simple example: we can measure time as a month, a week, a day, an hour, a minute, a second… a nanosecond and so on, the limit is only our ability to understand.
    We sometimes forget that it takes time to do anything. Simple example: baking a cake, one of the most important ingredients is time, too much time and your cake is burned, too little time and your cake is still ruined. I like to define time, as the amount of energy required to do anything.

    If I am wrong please show me the error in my thought process.
    thanks.
     
  8. Hypnogog Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Time for me

    Just read the last little bit and thought I'd drop my two sense in about time.
    To make it all nice and simple:
    Time is the measure of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.
    So long as energy is active there is time, when there is no active energy - no time.
    Which is also why I've had a problem with time dialation (merely philosophical of course)
     
  9. Beauideal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Thanks Hypnogog, that is a much nicer definition of time and fits perfectly with my personal thoughts about time. I have searched long and hard, near and far for anyone who could tell me what time is and now I believe my search is over. And now on to the process of trying to figure out how to manipulate the process of time.

    Thanks
     
  10. Hypnogog Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Travel

    Let me precurse this by saying I know I'm probably going to get smacked hard for this but...
    I think time travel using FTL is impossible on a macroscopic scale. I'm not a math geenius but, using the simplest system (d=s*t), the only way would be to divide two positive #'s and get a negative answer.
    Relative time travel may be just that, relative to the observer, but taking my definition of time the universe still "ages" regardless of how fast you go. I've always had a problem with Dialation because the only way I ever see it is that the Universe itself is the Observer.
     
  11. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi all,

    Beauideal,

    I agree, you took the point I was trying to make one step further: but in the post you refered to I was trying to point out that there definitly is a relation between light and time.

    Hypnogog:
    Ok, this definition is unfortunately as empty as the current definition of time. How would you define "energy" ?

    Unfortunately things aren't that simple anymore. I just wish they were, but I'll have to disappoint you... The theory of special relativity has thought us that time and space are interwoven and that the simple equation x = v* t no longer is valid in this vision of the universe.

    [/quote]Relative time travel may be just that, relative to the observer, but taking my definition of time the universe still "ages" regardless of how fast you go. I've always had a problem with Dialation because the only way I ever see it is that the Universe itself is the Observer.[/quote]

    Time dilatation is an effect that we witness everyday. If it weren't for time dilatation, we couldn't detected muons on the surface of the earth (this is *the* textbook example on time dilation, I'm sorry that I didn't come up with a more.. interesting example but I am a bit too tired now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). In this scenario, the two "observers" are the scientist in the lab and the muon particle.

    Also, the "aging" of the universe is a concept that depends heavily on your definition of the universe: most commonly it is defined to be the fabric of space-time + all matter within. Therefor, the universe cannot "age" as time is a part of the universe. What concerns the aging of the matter within the universe: this is a different situation, as now you have one piece of matter as one observer and all the other matter as second observer, consistent with the view of special relativity on time dilatation.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  12. Ankit The Angel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    Yo, Crisp!

    So how exactly would YOU qualitify 'energy'? Because that would certainly solve a lot of problems. As referential to other problems - I will stay relatively lconic on the subjest, except to consolidate Crisp's statement that time & light are linked: because, (unless I have been misinformed (if an infinite amount of energy is required to propel something at c (spd of light), then time must surely be intertwined with light (if you get me?).

    Peace, brothers & sisters(where exactly r the girls here?)
     
  13. hacksys_brazil Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    I travelled in time_Also_regards to jimmy's idea.

    Hi everybody,
    and Hi Jimmy !
    Well, Jimmy, I would like to put some ideas here, and first I would like to say that I don't believe that your space ship would ever work... As a time machine... And even if it did work, you would not be travelling 4 years in time like you said.... But a few milliseconds and I agree with Crisp on that....
    Now the point for me is: Light is a " onda eletromagnetica" very pure, it is almost pure energy, it almost does not have any mass at all... So , I could say that light is a very pure, refined type of matter...
    And that's why your space ship will never reach the light's speed, 300.000 Km/s, because you have all that "junk together", all that Mass, that's far from delicate, far from refined, far from pure... It's a ship it's made of steel, coarse substance.... We can build a really fast space ship, and we could use the "solar wind" as energy, so we cut off all that heavy stuff... But even, it will be far, very far from light's speed.... It will be good for travelling to further planets in our system , but not TIME !!!
    TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE !!! But not using a machine, a ship.... I've done it ! I've travelled in time.... Do you guys ever heard of Projeciologia ?????????.........
    If you guys want to talk more about it, I'm at : canjibrinos@yahoo.com.br ....

    Abraços,
    To all friends all over our planet... Fighting to make it better and just...
    ........................................................ Fab.
    .......................................................... Brazilian friend.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. hacksys_brazil Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    I've travelled in time...

    Hi everybody,
    and Hi Jimmy !
    Well, Jimmy, I would like to put some ideas here, and first I would like to say that I don't believe that your space ship would ever work... As a time machine... And even if it did work, you would not be travelling 4 years in time like you said.... But a few milliseconds and I agree with Crisp on that....
    Now the point for me is: Light is a " onda eletromagnetica" very pure, it is almost pure energy, it almost does not have any mass at all... So , I could say that light is a very pure, refined type of matter...
    And that's why your space ship will never reach the light's speed, 300.000 Km/s, because you have all that "junk together", all that Mass, that's far from delicate, far from refined, far from pure... It's a ship it's made of steel, coarse substance.... We can build a really fast space ship, and we could use the "solar wind" as energy, so we cut off all that heavy stuff... But even, it will be far, very far from light's speed.... It will be good for travelling to further planets in our system , but not TIME !!!
    TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE !!! But not using a machine, a ship.... I've done it ! I've travelled in time.... Do you guys ever heard of Projeciologia ?????????.........
    If you guys want to talk more about it, I'm at : canjibrinos@yahoo.com.br ....

    Abraços,
    To all friends all over our planet... Fighting to make it better and just...
    ........................................................ Fab.
    .......................................................... Brazilian friend.
     
  15. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Yo Ankit bro'!

    Hi Ankit,

    I should have seen that one comming

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .... (scene where Crisp scratches is forehead)... Well ehr...

    I am sure there are some nice textbook definitions on what energy is, but in the end it all comes down to this: energy is a concept that is introduced to differentiate between - for example - one object and one that moves faster. You cannot touch energy, it's something that was introduced in physics to make the framework of thinking a bit easier.

    Energy is also not an "absolute" quantity. Different theories in physics have different definitions for the kinetic energy of a moving object (for example: the special theory of relativity we've been talking about defines kinetic energy in a totally different way than the classical Newtonian theories - there's some correlation ofcourse, but no perfect match).

    So I personnaly would classify "energy" as one of the physical buzzwords like "entropy" (does anybody really know what that is ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).



    hacksys_brazil,

    You could even say that it has no restmass at all (m0 = 0) because otherwise light would not be able to travel... at the speed of light

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The most accepted idea on light defines it to be small packages of pure energy (so there's no mass involved).

    But then there's this "so what is energy then"-question again... if I say that light is pure energy and energy is a fictional concept, then how can there be light ? To be completely honest - I don't know. Be sure to drop me a mail if you do - I guess light and energy are just a few of those physical concepts that scientists are still struggling with today.


    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  16. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    All,

    The best idea I’ve seen on time travel is not really time travel at all but the ability to traverse parallel universes where each universe is out of phase with the next by a minute fraction of a second. By traversing across many universes you will effectively be traveling back or forward in time.

    Now the question is which concept is more fantastic, parallel universes or time travel?

    Cris
     
  17. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    I time travel frequently. It takes me exactly one hour to get 1 hour into the future.
     
  18. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    Theoretical Rehteric-al Conflicts...

    <IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
    Crisp, and others...

    I would like to see some additional replies to this other Gentleman's posting at the Dr. Michio Kaku's "Science Forum" message-boards

    http://mkaku.org
    ____________________________________________________
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The quantum theory is incompatible with theory of relativity,
    do you disregard it claiming a lack of logic ?

    Within theories themselves illogical facts abound: In classical physics the branch thermodynamics which treats heat and work as two incompatible entities, is in blatant contradiction with the same classical physics branch of kinetic interpretation of heat.
    The theory of ligth as a wave, riding in absence of any media, is in blatant contradiction with the very defintion of a wave which intrinsic entity is the variation of a media.
    And the spin of earth or any object in the universe, should quickly be put to an end by the fundamental first law of Newton (this simple overlooked fact is explained in details in my site, see ‘puzzling facts’ about spinning objects).
    It turns out, that at least there is one approach which does put all this back together. And that is the timeless motion or ABSOLUTE MOTION theory.
    With extremely simple concepts it also shows that the statistical aspect of quantum theory has a deeper explanation as Einstein thought himself (see paragraph named 'Muons').
    Absolute motion, and theory of relativity surprisingly cohabit as explained in my site: TheTruthOfTheMatterIs.com.
    As far as I understand things, the theory of relativity remains fully ‘logical’ it describes events in a manner the absolute motion theory, which considers only dependencies and describes nothing, will never do. At present the absolute motion theory is presented in the form of a few principles. At this time it is not backed by any mathematics, but even if that happens it will never compete on either theory of relativity nor quantum theory as far as description of physical events is concerned, because in the absolute motion theory the concept of ‘position’ of a point or of an object has no meaning. The interesting aspect of the ABSOLUTE MOTION theory is it clearly deleneates the scopes of relativity and quantum theories, rendering the whole of the construct of human mind logical !

    Credits:
    ---"henrisalles"

    Forum
    http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/michiokakusscienceforum

    Website
    http://TheTruthOfTheMatterIs.com
     
  19. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi Time/02112,

    I'm going to answer here, not because I fear a possible reply from any of these guys, but simply because I don't feel like subscribing to yet another forum like there are 1000's of a kind (sciforums is quite unique, that's why I like it and why i dislike others

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    Anyway, here goes for the reply:

    Wrong. There's no contradiction whatsoever, there's even a connection between thermodynamics and the classical Newtonian physics, and this connection is called statistical mechanics.

    Some history for the folks that don't know about this branch of physics: Newton developed his theory of mechanics in the 1600's. However, until the late 1800's, scientists were unable to describe things like "temperature" and "heat" in the Newtonian framework, so they created a new theory called "thermodynamics" to describe effects like metals expanding when heated etc etc... At that time, the two theories seemed unconnected - the reason why scientists weren't able to connect them was because the mathematics weren't advanced enough to do so.

    Somewhere around the 1900's (a bit earlier really), the mathematical theory of statistics was formulated/perfected, and physicists used this theory to describe large collections of particles in a gas. It then turned out that the results for large collections of particles were related to the already known thermodynamical properties of gasses. So using statistics, the link between Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics could be made (that's why this area of mechanics is called "statistical mechanics"). Statistical mechanics therefor links the microscopic world of particles with the macroscopic world of temperatures, heat, ... (these are all macroscopic variables). Probably one of the most famous results in statistical mechanics is the relation between the average kinetic energy of a particle in a gas and the temperature of a gas:

    (1/2) * m * v^2 = (3/2) * kB * T

    Here m is the mass of the particle, v the velocity, kB the Boltzmann constant and T the macroscopic temperature of the gas.

    So you see, no contradiction, but a perfect match.

    This is exactly why scientists have long believed in the existence of ether: an invisible medium where light and other electromagnetic waves propagate in. However, since the Michelson-Moreley experiment the believe in ether has weakened, and nowadays most scientists differentiate between two types of waves: electromagnetic waves (that don't need a medium to propagate in, these consist of pure energy) and mechanical waves (oscillations of a medium).

    Now this is funny: the most fundamental concept in the theory of relativity is that every kind of motion is relative, and not absolute

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    ... rendering the theory completely useless as a physical theory, since physicists in the end always want to know the position of an event or object! That's what all of quantummechanics, relativity, newtonian mechanics is about in essence: how can we describe the motion of a given object. And to know the motion, the position is ofcourse a requirement.


    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  20. Ankit The Angel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    Hey, y'all

    I must concur with my dear Crisp on this topic. The quantum theory and the theory of relativity not only don't contradict eachother, but conversely, compliment eachother. I will elaborate: intrinsically, the theory of relativity is how matter move in relation to eachother and that there isn't absolute motion, e=mc2 etc. and quantum theory describes the composition of matter...these two are inseperably linked, but actually achieve correlation. Invariably and invitably, I would prefer to prceive this philosophically rather than scientifically

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Reality is often our perception of it, argue many physicists and philosophers, ergo dictating that you have the power to make what you believe...which is obviously horseshit. Anyway, more relevantly, quantum theory describes composition, quanta and o on, whereas relativity rehashes cosmological physics in another sense...they compliment eachother because without Newton, there would be no Einstein (and Max Planck, who we haven't forgotten, who, ofcourse, introduced quantum theory)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Newton's theories were revolutionary in the sense that they improved physics infinitely (figuratively speaking). Einstein also did the same, but differently...he conquered physics, trangressing popular modern belief of Newtonian physics...let's be honest: Newton wasn't 100% correct. Einstein finished and polishd off Newton's theories...

    To be continued (I'm outta breath)
     
  21. hacksys_brazil Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Re: Yo Ankit bro'!

    Crisp, I used to think like that.... just accepting that Light's mass == 0, but ,.... Although it is very insignificant, to our "macro" World, I think it does have mass... And that " insignificant mass" it's definitely significant when talking about "micro" universe... Why am I saying that there is mass ???... First Because I believe in it, second because I saw this laddie, a scientist at MIT, saying that she was doing research to find out exactly what's the light's mass... Is it wrong ??????...

    ¥ PAZ ¥
    Hacksys_Brazil........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi hacksys_brazil,

    Okay, it depends a lot on how she phrased it.

    Yes, I agree: light has a relativistic mass (wrongly called "mass" by many theoretical physicists for the ease of use). Light has a momentum and this momentum adds up to the energy - or mass, using the mass/energy equivalence - of a photon. If she is researching the origin or physical meaning of this relativistic mass, then she's doing some great work. The answer to that question probably leads to the answer of the 300 year old question "what is light?".

    If she is determing whether light has a restmass (and this is not the same as relativistic mass... well, not always

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) or not, then she sure is a brave lady - that means defying the pretty well established and experimentally tested theory of special relativity.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  23. Beauideal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    It seems that the topic has moved on to what is light and I know that my reply is behind the topic but I've been too busy...
    First, I would like to say to Hypnogog. I think you are on the right track. Keep at it.

    Now to Crisp,
    Light has no more to do with time than a pair of binoculars has to do with light, when used to view an event that occurred in the light, which occurred in time. What I mean to say is that the event occurred in the light but the light occurred in time. All light was used for was to observe time and that is the only role light is used for. Light does not in anyway create time, just as the binoculars in no way created the light in which it was used to observe. All binoculars were used for was to observe the light and that is all the binoculars were used for. Light would have to somehow be responsible for the production of time in order for the speed of light to be the key to time travel. I hope I have explained myself clearly this time but I probably haven't. However, if you think I have anyway reaffirmed your idea that the speed of light is the key to time travel, then you have really, really, really misunderstood everything that I have said and for that I am disheartened.

    Now as for light being pure energy? I thought the debate was still on as to weather or not light is a particle, wave, or particle-wave. As we all know light exhibits the properties of being both a particle and a wave. Now if light is at all in anyway a particle, then we all know that no matter how minute, particles still have a mass. Moreover, if light does contain particles then that would mean that light is not pure energy. The closest thing to pure energy that I can think of would be "thought." I'm not certain that pure energy could react with anything other than another form of pure energy or the source, which creates the pure energy.

    A question I have is what would happen if pure energy was to interact with mass? It's kind of like asking what would happen if an irresistible force collided with an immovable object.

    I would also like to ask, for those of you who believe that the key to time travel is the speed of light and also at the same time believe that it is impossible to reach the speed of light as something other than pure energy, how do you propose to ever time travel?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2001

Share This Page