Log in

View Full Version : Time Travel Possible?



QuarantinedII
06-11-2013, 05:47 AM
Time Travel Possible?

Introduction:
I have recently been looking into the possibilities of time travel, and I have found this article in the Los Angeles Times that may help with your understanding of time travel.

The Quote:
From the outside, an Einstein-Rosen bridge, as wormholes were originally known, looks a lot like its cousin, the black hole. Which you must keep in mind that "nothing can escape from a black hole — not even light."

Einstein and Rosen made a very bold supposition: What if a traveler fell into the mouth of something that looked like a black hole, but rather than being crushed by a singularity at the center of a black hole, instead emerged from another mouth, potentially many light years from where he or she started? This isn't as crazy as it sounds. Einstein's theory of general relativity — our current working model for how gravity and space work — has been confirmed with countless experiments. And, as ad hoc as it sounds, an Einstein-Rosen bridge is a perfectly valid solution to the equations of general relativity.

And it's not just a shortcut through space. In 1988, Caltech physicist Kip Thorne also showed something else: If you can build a wormhole, you can also turn it into a time machine. By dragging one of the mouths of the wormhole around space at nearly the speed of light, we can create a two-way tunnel connecting two points in time. Even better, you don't need to worry about mucking up history. A time machine built from the laws of general relativity is necessarily self-consistent, and thus your history will remain safely as you left it.

However, Einstein's original concept had a few flaws. For one thing, going through an Einstein-Rosen bridge, later theorists have concluded, would have to be a one-way trip, since one mouth always serves as the entrance and the other the exit. An even bigger problem with the wormhole Einstein envisioned was found in 1962, when John Archibald Wheeler demonstrated that an Einstein-Rosen bridge would collapse before anything, even a beam of light, could travel through.

Fortunately, wormhole design has improved considerably in the last 75 years. In 1988, Thorne and his students took up the problem of traversable wormholes, in large part because of a plea from his friend Carl Sagan, who was then working on the novel "Contact." Thorne found that it was theoretically possible to construct models of wormholes, but they would require the existence of as-yet-undiscovered "exotic matter" — strange stuff that has less than zero mass — to keep them open. Unlike Einstein-Rosen bridges, Thorne's model was bi-directional and, more important, stable.

This all might seem like good news, but the fine print on wormholes is pretty daunting when you get into it. For one thing, we've never discovered anything like the exotic matter needed to prop wormholes open, and for another, we're not sure how we — or even a super-civilization — could punch a hole through the universe to create one in the first place. Furthermore, the idea of time travel is so anathema to many respectable physicists that some, including Stephen Hawking, have proposed a "chronology protection conjecture," basically insisting that physics must somehow outlaw time machines in order to keep "the universe safe for historians."
-Los Angeles Times
Conclusion:
In my opinion Time Travel is not possible, there is plenty of information out there on the internet that shows time travel could be possible, but I feel that it is not possible in this universe.
My question to you is "do you think that time travel is possible?"
-QuarantinedII

SiN
06-11-2013, 11:59 AM
good stuff.. just wish i had one... would go back and slap my self few times.... ask WHY! you do that!

John Henry Eden
06-11-2013, 12:26 PM
I think it's possible but I don't think we'll ever be able to go through a black hole without dying.

QuarantinedII
06-11-2013, 03:09 PM
good stuff.. just wish i had one... would go back and slap my self few times.... ask WHY! you do that!
Why? I asked... :086:
Also I am pretty sure in the future, maybe not my future, there will be a way to travel through time.
Riddle me this:
You're in a car travelling at 100mph
On the front of your car is a gun pointing forwards..
On the back of your car is a gun pointing backwards..
The guns both shoot their bullets out at 100mph when fired.

Ok..so you're travelling at 100mph, so are the guns attached to your car..
you fire both guns *bang*, one in front, one behind, both bullets are forced out at 100mph.. simple enough?

1(a)
How fast would you measure the bullet in front to be travelling away from you?
(b)
How fast would you measure the bullet behind to now be travelling away from you?

An idle bystander is also taking measurements of the bullets speeds from the sideline..
2(a)
At what speed does he measure the bullet which was shot forwards to be travelling through the air?
(b)
& at what speed does he measure the bullet which was shot behind you to be travelling through the air?

CloudStrife7x
06-11-2013, 08:19 PM
i can actually time travel but i can't divulge the secrets yet guys sorry maybe later :lol:

lickerout
06-11-2013, 09:02 PM
Why? I asked... :086:
Also I am pretty sure in the future, maybe not my future, there will be a way to travel through time.
Riddle me this:
You're in a car travelling at 100mph
On the front of your car is a gun pointing forwards..
On the back of your car is a gun pointing backwards..
The guns both shoot their bullets out at 100mph when fired.

Ok..so you're travelling at 100mph, so are the guns attached to your car..
you fire both guns *bang*, one in front, one behind, both bullets are forced out at 100mph.. simple enough?

1(a)
How fast would you measure the bullet in front to be travelling away from you?
(b)
How fast would you measure the bullet behind to now be travelling away from you?

An idle bystander is also taking measurements of the bullets speeds from the sideline..
2(a)
At what speed does he measure the bullet which was shot forwards to be travelling through the air?
(b)
& at what speed does he measure the bullet which was shot behind you to be travelling through the air?
The quick answer is that relative to you, the bullet will always travel at the same speed. In other reference frames, however, unexpected things can happen!

Newton's first law:
"Every body persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it."

or rephrased a little:
a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an external force.

So what does this mean for a gun? If the gun is facing forward and shoots bullets at 1,000 mph, then the bullet will always move away from the gun at 1,000 mph, so the speed of the bullet plus the speed of the car equals the speed relitive to the ground.

If you shoot the bullet off the back of the car, the bullet will still be moving away from you and the gun at 1,000 mph, but now the speed of the car will subtract from the speed of the bullet. And relative to the ground the bullet will now be moving slower than when facing forward.

but why ask a physics question about time travel, quantum physics is on another level all together.

QuarantinedII
06-12-2013, 02:25 AM
Now lets set the exact same conditions, conduct the same experiment but instead of the car going 100mph we'll have it go at the speed of light.. & instead of bullets/baseballs being launched at 100mph we'll shoot light photons from lasers attached to the car, front & back, being shot out of course at the speed of light.
We'll call this experiment 2

The previous (theoretical) experiment showed that each observer (driver & bystander) measured the bullets/balls travelling at different rates than what the other observer did.. that's what they observed & is how they recorded it. Which is true. Both results were accurate relative to each observer.

The bystander observed the forward projected bullet/baseball travelling at 2x the speed of what it was actually projected/launched away at.
They also observed the rear projection apparently projected with no velocity at all.

So..
Is this then to say that if we conducted experiment 2 we would have the light photons being projected from the front laser travelling at 2x the speed of light, & the photons being projected from the rear laser travelling at 0, idle, according to the bystander?

Emerald Lance
06-12-2013, 04:03 AM
Now lets set the exact same conditions, conduct the same experiment but instead of the car going 100mph we'll have it go at the speed of light.. & instead of bullets/baseballs being launched at 100mph we'll shoot light photons from lasers attached to the car, front & back, being shot out of course at the speed of light.
We'll call this experiment 2

The previous (theoretical) experiment showed that each observer (driver & bystander) measured the bullets/balls travelling at different rates than what the other observer did.. that's what they observed & is how they recorded it. Which is true. Both results were accurate relative to each observer.

The bystander observed the forward projected bullet/baseball travelling at 2x the speed of what it was actually projected/launched away at.
They also observed the rear projection apparently projected with no velocity at all.

So..
Is this then to say that if we conducted experiment 2 we would have the light photons being projected from the front laser travelling at 2x the speed of light, & the photons being projected from the rear laser travelling at 0, idle, according to the bystander?
Yes, for the instant of a photon's existence. The problem here is that we're dealing with theoretical physics. Einstein's theory of relativity is just that: a theory. Even though it has been a reliable measure of universal physics thus far, there is no possible way we could understand the entirety of the cosmos in such detail that we'd ever be able to prove (or disprove) said theory to be a law.

The same is true of wormholes in general. This all works around the theoretical concept of spacetime, which is (1) a theory and (2) something we barely understand as it is. Put in layman's terms, in general, spacetime is the simple mathematic practice of placing time and space within the same continuum. This works when explaining the flow of time along stronger sources of gravity; the stronger the gravity, the slower time moves (hence why time moves slower the closer one gets to the center of a black hole).

Let's call this "lighter than zero" matter "-1 matter" for this example. Assuming spacetime works the way we think it does, and assuming the theory of relativity is exact (and we simply have yet to prove it as a law of physics), backwards time-travel would still be impossible. Greater gravity produces slower time, and higher mass produces greater gravity; as we get lighter and lighter, time moves quicker and quicker. If -1 matter did exist, it wouldn't cause time to reverse, but would instead cause time to speed up, and -2 matter would cause it to go even faster. In other words, you're on the right track, but you're going the wrong way; in terms of the relationship between mass and time, the only way to move -BACKWARDS- in time is with the use of matter that is more dense than infinity!

Of course, the closer and closer we get to infinity (which by definition cannot be reached), the more and more intense the gravity well becomes. And the single moment in time that a particle is created with infinite density, time itself will stop completely as gravity instantly (not at the speed of light but instantly) crushes everything in existence down to a zero singularity (a singularity that has a size of zero). The only thing that will survive is the infinity particle, and only because it is, by its very nature, infinite and cannot be crushed down to nothingness. And then time will forever be at a standstill (there will be no big bang).

In short, my opinion on time travel is thus: I know it's theoretically possible to move forward in time at a faster pace than normal, but there is no way we could possibly move backwards in time without annihilating the entire scope of existence (at least in terms of gravity manipulation through mass density).

lickerout
06-13-2013, 12:48 AM
and that would be why i simply said that quantum physics are a another level all together because the shear amount of energy it would take for even a single person would take an almost unlimited amount of energy (which we don't have) and a computer that can do an almost infinite number of computations at any one time along with a mode of transport that can take a huge amount of stess that the "speed of time" would likely create.

kingadent
06-13-2013, 01:51 AM
I have no idea what everyone said, but i'll add my own opinion.

My guess is that we cannot move forward in time because time is instantaneous, as in we cannot move forward because it isn't "pre-recorded", and if it is instantaneous then what we perceive as the past is merely our memories.

If what i'm saying is 100% bull, then i retract my statement, because i'm no scientist.

SiN
06-13-2013, 04:13 AM
i can actually time travel but i can't divulge the secrets yet guys sorry maybe later :lol:

Lol cloud... Well take me back to 1999....:)

Emerald Lance
06-13-2013, 05:13 AM
I have no idea what everyone said, but i'll add my own opinion.

My guess is that we cannot move forward in time because time is instantaneous, as in we cannot move forward because it isn't "pre-recorded", and if it is instantaneous then what we perceive as the past is merely our memories.

If what i'm saying is 100% bull, then i retract my statement, because i'm no scientist.
Time is the fourth dimension; it's a measurement. Put in more context:

The first dimension is length.
The second dimension is width.
The third dimension is depth.
The fourth dimension is time.

It's been argued that gravity might be the fifth dimension due to the fact that all other four known dimensions are properties of matter (including time), but that's another issue entirely.

Anyway, since time is a dimensional measurement, that means it can be measure and is not only at one instance. For example, measuring seconds is the time equivalent to measuring length with centimeters. Just as we experience the world around us in three full dimensions, so too is the experience of time full. The biggest difference is that we are used to being able to manipulate the physical dimensions of objects around us, but we haven't figured out how to manipulate time yet.

Truth be told, we could move forward in time quite easily (relatively speaking). If the density of the atoms in your body are made to be heavier, time within the general area will be made slower to compensate, even if by a virtually undetectable degree (this is shown in that, if two perfect clocks are synced up exactly, and one is moved to the ocean and another to the top of Mount Everest, when brought together again the one at sea level will be slightly behind). The same effect can be produced by causing all of the atoms in the environment around you to be less dense than zero. In the first case, you will move slower through time, and it will grant the illusion that time has sped up; in the second case, your immediate environment will move more quickly through time, and this includes you as well.

It's going backwards that's difficult.

jayhov
06-13-2013, 06:59 AM
I wih this was true but I personally believe this could never happen

frogface30
06-13-2013, 12:41 PM
well that my brain cabbaged for a day lol

QuarantinedII
06-14-2013, 12:28 AM
Matter cannot travel at the speed of light for if it 'did' it would have reduced its mass by 100% & would be timeless, like light. It basically would no longer have, or be mass.
Plus, the energy needed to accelerate mass to the speed of light would probably need to be greater than that of the 'Big bang' itself. If possible at all. Not in this universe.

Consider also that ALL information you receive was sent before you received it > what you call 'Now', i,e this moment, to you, (anyone/everyone) is actually entirely made up of information that was sent prior to this moment, in 'the past'.
Of course the further something is away from you, the farther 'back in time' you are observing it.

Another good hypothetical example i just thought of would be to stand on Earth's surface and look up at a star 1 light year away.. (for example)
This stars light took one year to reach your eyes.. ok.. that's how you see it in your moment now.
1 lightyear is the distance light travels in one year - so this star you are looking at is 5,878,786,100,000 miles away & it took its light one year to reach you so you are seeing how it looked 1 year ago.. ok simple so far..

..Now, if you take a journey to that star what are you going to observe on your way?
The closer you get to the star the less distance the light is travelling, so the 'later through time you will be seeing it.
As you approach the star, you will observe it ageing at a rate which makes it the 'right age' when you reach it..
So, however long your journey took to reach the star at whatever rate you were moving towards it, you will observe the star age exactly one year plus the time it took you to travel there, in the same time it took you to travel there.
That is; Whether you took 10 minutes to make the trip or 10 years, you will observe the star age one year plus the time it took you. Right? Time is shifting there..

Your time rate is by standard, relative to the nearest/largest mass which is causing the largest 'warp' in spacetime. In our case it's the Earth. -This is what we simplify with the word 'gravity'.
The Earth's nearest/biggest influence is of course the Sun. Spacetime is warped enough to cause Earth to 'fall towards it, it is governing its 'gravity & in effect setting the rate of time for the planet. -As space & time are not 2 separate things as our common sense suggests, Spacetime is warped (which is a gravitational force) > This causes even the space which matter occupies to also warp/alter.. & the time information can travel to warp/alter, i.e changing time & size.

QuarantinedII
06-17-2013, 10:05 PM
Any opinions guys?