Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Travel?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Time Travel?

    I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts and theories were. I am really not expecting anything viable; I want to hear everything, from the most outrageous theories to the more subtle ones. The reason being is that there has been a steady increase in publications in physics journals which I look at frm time to time, and I have to admit that as far out as this seems I am getting more and more fascinated by this.

    The most convincing theory I read was proposed as thus:

    A two chambered room with a set of high density parallel metal plates in each chamber, for a total of four plates (two in each chamber). If then possible to harness enough electricity (energy) to be transmitted through this, a rip in the electromagnetic space-time fabric can be achieved. If achieved in both chambers, a worm-hole (I think its technical term is an Einsteinian Bridge) can be achieved and maintained. If one of these chambers can then be taken at speeds approximate to the speed of light, what goes in one wormhole and out the other technically has travelled through time, because as Einstein's relativity states: time travels slower for a body in motion. The limiting technologies here are: harnessing of enough energy to rip into space-time and propogation of high speeds.

    Other theories I remember involved the maintenance of black holes: In a black hole there is a point called an "event horizon" where I think that a particle trapped here would be smashed into such oblivion (due something to the effect of infinite gravity) that its density reaches infinity. Some astro-physicists are now coming forward and saying that this "point" (event horizon) is more oriented as a ring (like a donut) and thus if a particle were to pass through, it ends up in another point of the universe.

    I know this stuff is way out there, and I'm sure my physics-grammer needs to be maintained, but I was just wondering what some of my fellow geeks thought.
    No one ever became unsuccessful by helping others out

    #2
    By the way I think this rambling has something to do with me watching the new Denzel Washington movie and how it reminded me of some of the conversations and readings I had in the past...
    No one ever became unsuccessful by helping others out

    Comment


      #3
      I saw a program about the Philadelphia experiment. Very interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment
      Last edited by antiquity; 27 Nov 2006, 4:37 AM.

      Comment


        #4
        We can already look back in time to recognize light waves that were produced by the Big Bang - that's quite a few years ago and a start. Now we need to be able to fine tune the telescopes to see waves produced by occurrences that happened on Earth. It's not time travel, but close - a poor man's time travel. Safer too.
        Actually if String Theory does prove that there are infinite parallel occurrences happening along with ours then one must be the same as ours, but just at a different time. No black hole travel necessary, we just need to be able to jump into it (and back?).
        Bottom line is to stick to movies and science fiction books.
        My opinion,
        Carl

        Comment


          #5
          There is a good discussion about time travel by Carl Sagan, particularly concerning the Hawking's chronological protection conjecture [which holds that the laws of physics disallow time machines].

          I personally think that time travel is also very interesting from a psychological or biological point of view. Time passes because we have memory. If a person loses ability to make new memories, the future disappears for that person and the future stops happening for the person. On the other hand, if a person loses memories, the past disappears.

          Wise.


          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html
          Sagan: The grandfather paradox is a very simple, science-fiction-based apparent inconsistency at the very heart of the idea of time travel into the past. It's very simply that you travel into the past and murder your own grandfather before he sires your mother or your father, and where does that then leave you? Do you instantly pop out of existence because you were never made? Or are you in a new causality scheme in which, since you are there you are there, and the events in the future leading to your adult life are now very different? The heart of the paradox is the apparent existence of you, the murderer of your own grandfather, when the very act of you murdering your own grandfather eliminates the possibility of you ever coming into existence.

          Among the claimed solutions are that you can't murder your grandfather. You shoot him, but at the critical moment he bends over to tie his shoelace, or the gun jams, or somehow nature contrives to prevent the act that interrupts the causality scheme leading to your own existence.

          NOVA: Do you find it easy to believe the world might work that way—that is, self-consistently—or do you think it's more likely that that there are parallel universes?

          Sagan: It's still somewhat of a heretical ideal to suggest that every interference with an event in the past leads to a fork, a branch in causality. You have two equally valid universes: one, the one that we all know and love, and the other, which is brought about by the act of time travel. I know the idea of the universe having to work out a self-consistent causality is appealing to a great many physicists, but I don't find the argument for it so compelling. I think inconsistencies might very well be consistent with the universe.

          NOVA: As a physicist, what do you make of Stephen Hawking's chronological protection conjecture [which holds that the laws of physics disallow time machines]?

          Sagan: There have been some toy experiments in which, at just the moment that the time machine is actuated, the universe conspires to blow it up, which has led Hawking and others to conclude that nature will contrive it so that time travel never in fact occurs. But no one actually knows that this is the case, and it cannot be known until we have a full theory of quantum gravity, which we do not seem to be on the verge of yet.

          One of Hawking's arguments in the conjecture is that we are not awash in thousands of time travelers from the future, and therefore time travel is impossible. This argument I find very dubious, and it reminds me very much of the argument that there cannot be intelligences elsewhere in space, because otherwise the Earth would be awash in aliens. I can think half a dozen ways in which we could not be awash in time travelers, and still time travel is possible.

          NOVA: Such as?

          Sagan: First of all, it might be that you can build a time machine to go into the future, but not into the past, and we don't know about it because we haven't yet invented that time machine. Secondly, it might be that time travel into the past is possible, but they haven't gotten to our time yet, they're very far in the future and the further back in time you go, the more expensive it is. Thirdly, maybe backward time travel is possible, but only up to the moment that time travel is invented. We haven't invented it yet, so they can't come to us. They can come to as far back as whatever it would be, say A.D. 2300, but not further back in time.

          Then there's the possibility that they're here alright, but we don't see them. They have perfect invisibility cloaks or something. If they have such highly developed technology, then why not? Then there's the possibility that they're here and we do see them, but we call them something else—UFOs or ghosts or hobgoblins or fairies or something like that. Finally, there's the possibility that time travel is perfectly possible, but it requires a great advance in our technology, and human civilization will destroy itself before time travelers invent it.

          I'm sure there are other possibilities as well, but if you just think of that range of possibilities, I don't think the fact that we're not obviously being visited by time travelers shows that time travel is impossible.

          Comment


            #6
            I had a dream that I had traveled back in time and realized that I needed to let my old self know that I (he?) had to avoid getting in the accident that resulted in my SCI. Unfortunately I couldn’t find my old self and was running out of time before I would get pulled back to the future so I tried to leave a note. I couldn’t find a pen either so I cut my finger in desperation and started writing in blood. Unfortunately I always have trouble reading and writing in dreams (which is quite common) so whatever I tried to write kept coming out garbled. It was all very frantic and frustrating.

            Comment


              #7
              If it were possible to travel back in time, say to just before you had your accident, would you travel back with the knowledge that you were about to have an accident or would you arrive at that point in time having the same state of knowledge that you had the first time you were at that point in time, i.e. not knowing that you were about to have an accident? That question raises the question of whether you can travel back through time and arrive at a different point in time at the same age as you were before you set off on your travel and if not are you traveling through time or reversing time and are those the same things?
              If you could not travel back in time but you could travel forward, would you travel forward to a point in time when your SCI could be cured even if you arrived at that point in time at the same age you would be if you had not travelled there faster than waiting to get there naturally? This is part o f the question of can you travel through time without getting older at the speed you are travelling at and thus would it ever be possible to travel forward in time beyond your life expectancy?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Adrian
                If it were possible to travel back in time, say to just before you had your accident, would you travel back with the knowledge that you were about to have an accident or would you arrive at that point in time having the same state of knowledge that you had the first time you were at that point in time, i.e. not knowing that you were about to have an accident? That question raises the question of whether you can travel back through time and arrive at a different point in time at the same age as you were before you set off on your travel and if not are you traveling through time or reversing time and are those the same things?
                If you could not travel back in time but you could travel forward, would you travel forward to a point in time when your SCI could be cured even if you arrived at that point in time at the same age you would be if you had not travelled there faster than waiting to get there naturally? This is part o f the question of can you travel through time without getting older at the speed you are travelling at and thus would it ever be possible to travel forward in time beyond your life expectancy?
                There are two ways to travel forward in time. One is to go into deep freeze for 100 years. The other is to travel at close to light speed.

                Wise.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The worst part about the deep freeze method is that it takes about a month for your testicles to descend again after they thaw you out.

                  Also, your grandkids will have blown through all your savings and investments so you will also be poor.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I was told a long time ago, by my grandfather, that if I ever go
                    back in time, "don't step on anything; because even the tiniest
                    change could alter the future in ways you can't imagine".

                    So, keep that in mind.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I wouldn't mind knowing the future but I'd prefer to travel back in time, about 3000 years.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Hawking: Humans must colonize other planets

                        Hawking: Humans must colonize other planets

                        LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems traveling there using "Star Trek"-style propulsion or face extinction, renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking said on Thursday.

                        Referring to complex theories and the speed of light, Hawking, the wheel-chair bound Cambridge University physicist, told BBC radio that theoretical advances could revolutionize the velocity of space travel and make such colonies possible.

                        "Sooner or later disasters such as an asteroid collision or a nuclear war could wipe us all out," said Professor Hawking, who was crippled by a muscle disease at the age of 21 and who speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer.

                        "But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe," said Hawking, who was due to receive the world's oldest award for scientific achievement, the Copley medal, from Britain's Royal Society on Thursday.

                        Excerpts:
                        "Science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination," said.

                        "Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light."

                        However, by using "matter/antimatter annihilation", velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.

                        "It wouldn't seem so long for those on board," he said.

                        More

                        ---

                        matter/antimatter annihilation is very interesting. I've read some on it a few years back when it caught my eye, as it played a big part in how the universe began. Antimatter holds the answers to not only future space travel, but in the future hopefully unlimited energy for everybody here on earth.
                        Please donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org.
                        Copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

                        Thanks!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by antiquity
                          I wouldn't mind knowing the future but I'd prefer to travel back in time, about 3000 years.
                          Dear Antiquity (maybe better than Seneca), I think that travelling back in time is an unlikely scenario. However, what you can do is to create a time that you would be happy to live in. Isn't that a legitimate and honorable goal, that your forbears would be proud of? They had their problems in the times of Nefertiti, which you remind me of... Source) but of course you are much more beautiful than Nefertiti.

                          You have the power to change the world.

                          Wise.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I´m not at all sure that the light speed barrier cannot be surpassed. Haven´t there already been experiments showing faster than lightspeed?

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
                            "So I have stayed as I am, without regret, seperated from the normal human condition." Guy Sajer

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Mike C
                              I´m not at all sure that the light speed barrier cannot be surpassed. Haven´t there already been experiments showing faster than lightspeed?

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
                              That would be like switching off a light and being back in your chair before the lights went off. If we use light as the medium of time (meaning as you see images unfold before your eyes, you perceive time passing) then this would technically constitute going forward in time.
                              No one ever became unsuccessful by helping others out

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X