A spaceship capable of travelling at some significant fraction of the speed of light *is* a time machine, since after a trip in space the traveler returns to an earth that has advanced through time farther than his body has. If his ship was fast enough and his trip long enough he would return to a world in which all his friends were dead. That's time travel. Some say the trick is getting back to the same time-frame from which one left-- but who in their right mind would want to do that? Beam me up, Scotty!
A matter of time
- Thread starter Graewolf
- Start date
if my own thoughts were correct, then it would be impossible to travel time unless you were going faster than the speed of light and not a significant fraction of the speed of light, the faster than the speed of light and the length of time you were travelling at it would then decide how much time in relation to point A you are going, point B would be time in relation to the traveller, and then there is the 3rd point of time which is time in relation to the both of, it could be very much related to a black hole in time.
Current theory has it that if you travel faster than light you will go backward in time. If you travelled at 99.999% of the speed of light for a year, you would return to Earth maybe a million years in the future. Thus, current technology allows one to only travel forward in time (we could probably manage a speed of only 15% of the speed of light at present; a small fraction but still a significant one). The problem is there is no national will to do even do this.
Time travel is a reality but you can't expect to develop a Testarosa before developing a Model T. We haven't even does the latter yet, even though this is easily within our technological grasp. Sad isn't it?
Time travel is a reality but you can't expect to develop a Testarosa before developing a Model T. We haven't even does the latter yet, even though this is easily within our technological grasp. Sad isn't it?
Is mathematics the answer, for those who want to time travel?
Is the problem - trying to find the right formula. Every formula seems to have only one answer , that is the one we believe to be the right one. And that answer is produced by inputs given to a formula during our time. So if we can only acheive 15% speed at this moment(like you said), the outcome would still be right, for that experiment.
So with any formula there is always a predetermined outcome. And if we change the variables the outcome will change 100% of the time.
So far we know what most of the variables are, but what of the variables we do not know of, will they help, maybe, maybe not. And one thing for sure is that variables in the future(or what I think is the past) will continue to change. The hardware will also change.
But what happens after we achieve time travel???? It maybe that trying to achieve it is better than the results!!!
I would like to know if anyone can produce alternative outcomes for a formula with the same variables, and original surroundings!!
If not then everything is predetermined!!!!!
Is the problem - trying to find the right formula. Every formula seems to have only one answer , that is the one we believe to be the right one. And that answer is produced by inputs given to a formula during our time. So if we can only acheive 15% speed at this moment(like you said), the outcome would still be right, for that experiment.
So with any formula there is always a predetermined outcome. And if we change the variables the outcome will change 100% of the time.
So far we know what most of the variables are, but what of the variables we do not know of, will they help, maybe, maybe not. And one thing for sure is that variables in the future(or what I think is the past) will continue to change. The hardware will also change.
But what happens after we achieve time travel???? It maybe that trying to achieve it is better than the results!!!
I would like to know if anyone can produce alternative outcomes for a formula with the same variables, and original surroundings!!
If not then everything is predetermined!!!!!
It depends on the nature of your variables, not to mention the values you place in these variables. If your variables are randomly generated, this will give you different variable "values" almost every time. Different values produce different results.
All we need is the will to build a spaceship for speed (not payload). Put a clock on board and let her rip through space-time and make sure it returns. If the clock returns and shows that less time has transpired aboard the ship than has transpired on earth, you will have proof of forward "time-travel."
You've got to start at the beginning.
All we need is the will to build a spaceship for speed (not payload). Put a clock on board and let her rip through space-time and make sure it returns. If the clock returns and shows that less time has transpired aboard the ship than has transpired on earth, you will have proof of forward "time-travel."
You've got to start at the beginning.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
The "Twins Paradox" is what you present in the first post and it is not time travel.
You mention getting back to the original timeline. But the truth is, you never LEFT it in the first place.
Try the analogy where the traveller NEVER loses sight of the Earth. He sees it go around the sun the SAME number of times the earthlings do.
The flaw is in the concept of the Twins Paradox itself (which is not a paradox at all, it's a real, already measured effect). It's in how we conceptualize and measure time.
The twin on the journey does not age as fast in the 1 million revs of the earth around the sun as the inhabitants of the earth do. His clock does not tick off as many seconds per rev, which we commonly call a year. It's still a year to him too, but the flaw is in thinking that a year is a given amount of time or specific number of seconds. In reality, a year is one rev around the sun. Period. Regardless of how many seconds it takes from another frame of reference. There's the difference.
The time dilation is an effect of relativity on speed and acceleration, not a travel thru time. By this definition, the returning twin IS actually a million "years" old. The dilation slowed his aging process, not the number of times the earth went around the sun.
If the speed were just right (and it is calculatable), the earthbound twin would count 50 revs, the travelling twin would count 50 revs, but the traveller would only age 5 years while the homebody would age 50.
No time travel involved in any of this.
The appollo astronauts all aged about 2 seconds less than the rest of us, but they never travelled thru time. Just because the effect becomes more pronounced at higher velocities does not mean it doesn't exist at lower ones.
It's not an issue solved by technology. It's a conceptual error in the first place.
Also, remember that even Einstein only ever admitted that any speculation as to reversing time beyond lightspeed was just something that existed in math formulas on paper. Not a situation he ever thought was do-able.
The "Twins Paradox" is what you present in the first post and it is not time travel.
You mention getting back to the original timeline. But the truth is, you never LEFT it in the first place.
Try the analogy where the traveller NEVER loses sight of the Earth. He sees it go around the sun the SAME number of times the earthlings do.
The flaw is in the concept of the Twins Paradox itself (which is not a paradox at all, it's a real, already measured effect). It's in how we conceptualize and measure time.
The twin on the journey does not age as fast in the 1 million revs of the earth around the sun as the inhabitants of the earth do. His clock does not tick off as many seconds per rev, which we commonly call a year. It's still a year to him too, but the flaw is in thinking that a year is a given amount of time or specific number of seconds. In reality, a year is one rev around the sun. Period. Regardless of how many seconds it takes from another frame of reference. There's the difference.
The time dilation is an effect of relativity on speed and acceleration, not a travel thru time. By this definition, the returning twin IS actually a million "years" old. The dilation slowed his aging process, not the number of times the earth went around the sun.
If the speed were just right (and it is calculatable), the earthbound twin would count 50 revs, the travelling twin would count 50 revs, but the traveller would only age 5 years while the homebody would age 50.
No time travel involved in any of this.
The appollo astronauts all aged about 2 seconds less than the rest of us, but they never travelled thru time. Just because the effect becomes more pronounced at higher velocities does not mean it doesn't exist at lower ones.
It's not an issue solved by technology. It's a conceptual error in the first place.
Also, remember that even Einstein only ever admitted that any speculation as to reversing time beyond lightspeed was just something that existed in math formulas on paper. Not a situation he ever thought was do-able.
The philosophy of your statement is correct, but the physics are not.
You've got to get your "beginning" right first.
See my first response to you above. Your are on track as to arguing the "predicitability" issue with Ali. I argue this one with him myself. But you need to get your physics and relativity a little more finely tuned on the time "dilation" vs. time "travel" issue. No offense of course, just trying to help.
Thanx.
You've got to get your "beginning" right first.
See my first response to you above. Your are on track as to arguing the "predicitability" issue with Ali. I argue this one with him myself. But you need to get your physics and relativity a little more finely tuned on the time "dilation" vs. time "travel" issue. No offense of course, just trying to help.
Thanx.
Sorry, no comprendo. If I leave earth for a subjective year in a fast spaceship and return to earth fifty earth years later, it seems to me that I have traversed both time and space. "Time" and "space" don't really exist independently (do they?); there is only "space-time."
Does it really matter that I haven't "time travelled" or whatever it is I'm supposed to do? I have still "gone" (whatever) into the future, haven't I? Where's the paradox. The only paradox the time-traveller can incur is if he travels back in time, which is impossible by any known or understood physics, since nothing can exceed the speed of light. Forward time-whatever or travelling at "relativistic" speeds on the other hand seems very do-able since it does not violate any (known) physical laws.
The best hope for backward travel may lie in a better understanding of dark matter, where 90% of the mass of the universe seems to reside. This is because the (so-called) light speed limit may not apply where light may not even exist!
Come back.
Does it really matter that I haven't "time travelled" or whatever it is I'm supposed to do? I have still "gone" (whatever) into the future, haven't I? Where's the paradox. The only paradox the time-traveller can incur is if he travels back in time, which is impossible by any known or understood physics, since nothing can exceed the speed of light. Forward time-whatever or travelling at "relativistic" speeds on the other hand seems very do-able since it does not violate any (known) physical laws.
The best hope for backward travel may lie in a better understanding of dark matter, where 90% of the mass of the universe seems to reside. This is because the (so-called) light speed limit may not apply where light may not even exist!
Come back.
I think we are a little more on track here this time.
If travelling produces time dilation from another frame of reference, it is only because it is measure from that other frame of reference in the first place.
As far as the physics is concerned, the traveller is not moving thru time any differently than we are. If you want to say that daily life, growing older, and progressing toward the future in the normal course activity is "time travel", OK. The we have a semantical difference. I don't call this time travel since we are never "travelling" thru or to another time. It's just the never ending procession of daily cause and effect, which is no different from what the traveller does. Even in our very same "timeline".
I chose the example of him remaining in sight of the earth since it clarifies the perspective for some a little better. It's no different if he goes far away to another galaxy even.
If he was gone a million earth years, and he travelled fast enough to make a return trip in HIS lifetime, he would still be a million "years" old. He just would not have aged that much and his watch would not have ticked off as many seconds.
Carl Sagan once calculated that at 99.9999 percent of the speed of light, an astronaught could traverse the known universe in about 54 "years" from HIS point of view.
The Earth would have long since been swallowed by the Sun and the Sun died out to brown dwarfism.
He would not have travelled thru time. He progressed along the same timeline as you and me, having been fortunate enough to outlive us all due to the effects of relativity on his acceleration and velocity. Thats all.
Maybe not so fortunate since all his friends would be long gone, and maybe even the human race if we did not colonize while he was away.
Your first post implied there was a technological solution to "time travelling" this way when we develop it, but it's really not the issue since it is not time travel in the first place. It's an effect of relativity, measurable only as a difference between frames of reference.
In the case of the guy who was gone 50 earth years but aged only 5, upon returning to earth, he would be 45 "years" younger (in aging) than his brother, but still the SAME number of years (earth revs around the sun) elapsed for both. Perhaps I should say philosophically, he travelled to the past not the future, since the remaining twin is definetely "ahead" of him.
They are both still the same age in actual years. Exactly. It's just that the travellers biological clock, as well as his wristwatch slowed down due to the dilation effect of relativity. It is not travel to the future, it is a remedy for aging.
It's a conceptual issue, not a "time travelling" in any sense at all.
Peace.
If travelling produces time dilation from another frame of reference, it is only because it is measure from that other frame of reference in the first place.
As far as the physics is concerned, the traveller is not moving thru time any differently than we are. If you want to say that daily life, growing older, and progressing toward the future in the normal course activity is "time travel", OK. The we have a semantical difference. I don't call this time travel since we are never "travelling" thru or to another time. It's just the never ending procession of daily cause and effect, which is no different from what the traveller does. Even in our very same "timeline".
I chose the example of him remaining in sight of the earth since it clarifies the perspective for some a little better. It's no different if he goes far away to another galaxy even.
If he was gone a million earth years, and he travelled fast enough to make a return trip in HIS lifetime, he would still be a million "years" old. He just would not have aged that much and his watch would not have ticked off as many seconds.
Carl Sagan once calculated that at 99.9999 percent of the speed of light, an astronaught could traverse the known universe in about 54 "years" from HIS point of view.
The Earth would have long since been swallowed by the Sun and the Sun died out to brown dwarfism.
He would not have travelled thru time. He progressed along the same timeline as you and me, having been fortunate enough to outlive us all due to the effects of relativity on his acceleration and velocity. Thats all.
Maybe not so fortunate since all his friends would be long gone, and maybe even the human race if we did not colonize while he was away.
Your first post implied there was a technological solution to "time travelling" this way when we develop it, but it's really not the issue since it is not time travel in the first place. It's an effect of relativity, measurable only as a difference between frames of reference.
In the case of the guy who was gone 50 earth years but aged only 5, upon returning to earth, he would be 45 "years" younger (in aging) than his brother, but still the SAME number of years (earth revs around the sun) elapsed for both. Perhaps I should say philosophically, he travelled to the past not the future, since the remaining twin is definetely "ahead" of him.
They are both still the same age in actual years. Exactly. It's just that the travellers biological clock, as well as his wristwatch slowed down due to the dilation effect of relativity. It is not travel to the future, it is a remedy for aging.
It's a conceptual issue, not a "time travelling" in any sense at all.
Peace.
As I understand it, Time is relative to or a function of speed, or more specifically, it is tied to the speed of light. Time is said to stop at the speed of light, which is why the closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the slower Time transpires relative to an object at (relative) rest. The key word is relative. So a guy who travels through space at near light speed ages very slowly by our reckoning only; at his own reckoning he's aging normally.
It sounds like you're saying that Time is something objective and constant. If this is what you're saying then I must disagree. Objective time does not exist; it's totally relative. If this is not what you're positing then I'm not quite following you. Sorry, I'm slow.
It sounds like you're saying that Time is something objective and constant. If this is what you're saying then I must disagree. Objective time does not exist; it's totally relative. If this is not what you're positing then I'm not quite following you. Sorry, I'm slow.
Excellent question.
Remember, I'm the guy who says we have a skewed vision of it in the first place so you're probably asking the wrong person this most "timeless" (pun intended) question of all.
We measure the passage between cause and effect but beyond that, I haven't the faintest idea.
To me, it is always "right now". Anything else is a figment of our imaginations.
Thanx,
Remember, I'm the guy who says we have a skewed vision of it in the first place so you're probably asking the wrong person this most "timeless" (pun intended) question of all.
We measure the passage between cause and effect but beyond that, I haven't the faintest idea.
To me, it is always "right now". Anything else is a figment of our imaginations.
Thanx,