Who believes that time travel is possible?

Bohm (early 1950's), de Broglie (mid 1920's) and others brought forward theories challenging the Copenhagen Interpretation before Davies was born.
Click to expand...


The only other serious contender these days is the 'many worlds' interpretation. Depending on who one listens to, either many worlds or Copenhagen are the most widely accepted versions.

I do not like the many worlds version at all. It seems to me even more outrageous than your truck converting into a carton of cream cheese.

I myself tried to come up with a many worlds version that did not require whole new universes to be created for every probablistic outcome for any particle. After all, as the effects spread out at the speed of light, most of the universe does not 'know' yet that any change has occured here. But of course...eventually it will do, and you cannot have some particle millions of light years away responding to two or more different outcomes and still have just one universe. So the many worlds theorem does indeed imply entire new universes.

There seems to me something very outrageous indeed about any theory that requires entire new universes.....zillions of them....every millisecond just in order to get round the observer effect.

You then get down to the REAL problem with many worlds......just exactly what constitutes an 'event' ? The whole thing runs into Zeno's paradox......and also the curious Quantum Zeno Effect ( the act of observing can not only affect the outcome...but also prevent an outcome from occuring...forcing 'no change' ). One is left having to define some period of time that seperates one 'event' from another....this MUST be the case as one surely cannot get discrete new universes from some purely analogue progression.

This would imply a basic unit of time, probably defined by the Plank limit. But even then, one has the problem that the Plank limit is so small that one could have different time 'frames' even within a single atom. To my mind the problems for many worlds just become insurmountable. It seems to me more to be a scientific 'cop out'.....for scientists who refuse to accept the full implications of the Copenhagen model.
 
I believe time travel is possible. The question is how much evidence do we need to establish proof? For example, if I say the economy is getting worse. However, someone else says we are in a recovery. Who is right, and who is wrong?

Can I use this as evidence?

Taken from http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100818/D9HM3KHG0.html

Democrats are keenly aware that they face strong headwinds; 60 percent of people say the country's headed in the wrong direction. And it's hard to overstate the importance of the economy to voters; 91 percent of Americans say it's a top problem, with unemployment close behind.

A whopping 81 percent of people now call the economy poor or very poor, up from 72 percent in June, and just 12 percent say it has improved in the past month, compared with 19 percent in June. Both are record measurements since AP-GfK started asking those questions.
 
Greetings, from a Time Travel nihilist. I doubt I’ll make any friends here since most of you seem to believe in time travel and as I know that it doesn’t exist, we certainly won’t have common ground to begin from. I read these posts for a couple months before I felt I should reply and perhaps I still shouldn’t but what the heck. It would appear the moderators here are skeptical also and challenge posters claims of TT as such claims should be. I too am prepared to have my opinion analyzed, considered, criticized, critiqued, examined, investigated, and judged by my peers on this site but it can not and will not be altered because of one simple fact that everyone, for whatever reason, ignores or refuses to consider perhaps because it would shake their very foundations in physics, something I have no problem doing because I am not restrained by a rigid mindset. Yes, I am bound by the Laws of Physics but not by archaic ideas whose time is well past. Remember we once thought the world was flat or that man couldn’t survive at speeds above 25 mph, that the sound barrier couldn’t be broken. All were proved wrong. So will Einstein’s “special theory of relativity” be. What was he smoking in that pipe?
TIME my friends is a human concept. Not a Law, not a theory, not a hypothesis. It serves to define the occurrence of an event, something that is meaningful and crucial to us but of no consequence to the Universe. Our finite existence compels us to consider time as relevant but we are the only thing on this planet that does so. Additionally, the simplest way to prove time doesn’t exist is the fact that everything in the Universe is either energy or matter. Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST. It isn’t something you can travel in like air or water or even space because empty space really isn’t “empty”.
In the most basic sense we do time travel but only in one direction, forward, and at a self defined speed of one second per second. You cannot travel into the past because there is nothing there to MOVE into. You cannot travel into the future any further than your present because the future occurs as you experience it, as your present, and since we have defined the passage of time to be one second per second you cannot accelerate it to experience it any faster. This allows me to segue to the special relativity theory. It doesn’t matter how fast you are traveling. We have defined the rate at which time passes. A year is a year is a year and it is the same measurement at the speed of light as it is at 65 mph. If and when we are able to reach the speed of light or as close as we do and someone’s twin comes back 1 year older just as the twin that remains behind this abstract premise will be disproved.
Sorry if I’ve burst anyone’s bubble. Time Travel is still one of the favorite concepts of sci-fi. It does make for some interesting plot lines and I will continue to enjoy movies with the concept but it is just a movie.
I look forward to the assessment of my post by others that disagree or agree and would be intrigued if I am proven wrong (In part, possibly. In total, not likely.). Perhaps someone will reply yesterday and really prove me wrong. Thanks to the site owners for providing a place to express these opinions.
 
TIME my friends is a human concept. Not a Law, not a theory, not a hypothesis. It serves to define the occurrence of an event, something that is meaningful and crucial to us but of no consequence to the Universe. Our finite existence compels us to consider time as relevant but we are the only thing on this planet that does so. Additionally, the simplest way to prove time doesn’t exist is the fact that everything in the Universe is either energy or matter. Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST. It isn’t something you can travel in like air or water or even space because empty space really isn’t “empty”.
Click to expand...


Hmm. You are both right and wrong.

From a physics perspective, 'exist' means to interact. A particle that did not interact in any way with our universe, might interact ( and exist ) relative to particles in some other universe.....but relative to our universe such a particle does not 'exist'.

Clearly, time is not composed of interacting particles, so in that sense one can argue that 'time does not exist'. A universe with nothing in it would be a timeless universe.

However, that is not the same as saying that time is an illusion. Rather, it means that we should CORRECTLY define time not as a 'thing' but as a process.

So, we talk about people 'growing old'. Clearly, growing old is not a 'thing' that one can poke and prod and shove into an atomic accelerator and watch bits fly off. It is not a 'thing'....it is a process that happens to things.

But it does not end there....and this is the TRUE bizzareness of our universe. Particles 'exist' because they interact with each other. But that interaction ( the exchange of virtual particles ) requires TIME in order to occur.

People often imagine that without time, the universe would just stay stuck in a frozen state. NOT TRUE. Without time.....nothing would exist at all ! Absolute zilch. Physical existence is meaningless without time. That is why the term 'spacetime' was devised.....and people often use it without grasping that it's not just a handy buzz word but actually expresses the true nature of reality. Space and time ( or more correctly, energy and time ) are inextricably linked. Time is not simply something superimposed on space.....but is an intrinsic part of it.

Thus, time is by no means an illusion, or something that our brains made up. It is a process built into the very fabric of the universe....and without which nothing would exist at all.
 
Gpa,

Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST.
Click to expand...

Though I somewnat agree with you there is a bit of a flaw in the above logic. Define what "energy" is as an object of substance.

I'm not indicating in any way that energy does not exist, but as to having some substantial existence I know of no one who has ever held a handful of energy, seen energy or in any other way "saw" energy. Likewise, no one has had a handful of "mass". Matter, yes. Mass, as defined in physics, no. Mass is a property of a substance, not the substance itself. Same-same for space.

Dismissing time as being unreal because it has no substance does not logically follow from your thesis.
 
Debunkers come to this forum to make fun of time travel. They remind me of Terry Jones the man who wants to burn a quran. He freely admits that he has never read one. However, he wants to burn them and says they are evil from the devil.

How would he know? It would be one thing if he read one cover to cover. Then he could give his opinion.

Debunkers are all about hate and destroying that with which they do not agree. For example, moving threads to the HOAX section that talk about time travel because they claim it is nonsense. I have found that no amount of evidence can convince one. Yeah, they always ask for proof, but no amount of proof can ever be the amount necessary.
 
For example, moving threads to the HOAX section that talk about time travel because they claim it is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, most of what you spew actually is nonsense. But I have a question for you, Kid: Could you please enlighten me as to where, exactly, at this site is the "HOAX section"? I seem to have misplaced it..


RMT
 
The Kid is barking at the moon because the site that did move his thread several years ago no longer exists. Paranormalis moved his thread to the Proven Hoax forum.

Silly Evil Debunkers.
 
Hello again. Twighlight and Darby, thank you for your input and showing me where I lack clarity. I see that I may have come on too strong in my first post and now I have hdrkid thinking I hate the Quran. I don’t and I don’t think it’s my place to judge any religion but, I have read and studied science for many years and I know a little bit about that. I won’t ask for proof of time travel because I don’t think any will be forth coming. I would like to hopefully expand on my first post. I didn’t want it to be too long winded and I don’t know how to work that universal consciousness thingy thing.

I start by apologizing again for coming on too strong with a flat denial of the existence of Time. That is incorrect. I do however maintain that Time is not a physical substance and therefore non-supportive of physical travel in or thru it.

Having said that, I must say that I time travel forward and backward in time everyday. When I’m going somewhere I plan the trip in advance knowing when and where I will turn, often visualizing the entire trip in my mind and when I arrive at my destination if everything went as planned I realize I had in a sense traveled forward in time or at least had seen into the future at the start of my trip. I can also go back to the Thanksgiving weekend at my Grandparents home. I see the homemade noodles drying on the back of a chair as I race thru the house and out the back door. I stop and look into the chicken coop. I could never get the eggs from the chickens. They would always peck my hand but grandma could just reach in and grab them. I get the tack from the shed and saddle the pony. I go to the old corn bin and by the Cemetery and then turn to race home. There’s a slight hill in front of the house and as the pony lurches sideways the saddle slips and I fall headfirst on the gravel skinning my upper lip so bad I can’t eat Thanksgiving dinner.

In my mind, where the concept of time actually exists, I can time travel. If I could physically time travel I would certainly go back and tighten the saddle either at the old corn crib or by the Cemetery and I would not have fallen off the pony. Let me see. Nope, I can still see the scars on my upper lip thru the mustache I grew to cover them. What? Someone said I can’t go back yet because time travel hasn’t been discovered yet. If we are talking real time travel it doesn’t matter “when” it is discovered. Someone will travel back and those of us “back here” will be made aware of it too. What? They keep it secret. So you think “everyone” in the future will keep it secret. As I said, once it is discovered someone sometime will use it that has less scruples than everyone else.

In a more direct response to Twighlight, I see where you are going but I don’t see why we MUST equate time with a process except for our own edification. At the Big Bang, Time had nothing to do with it unless you feel it was “time” for it to have happened. Yes, time began “after” the Big Bang. It would seem nothing existed before that but for time to matter it would have had to be the first thing. Instead it is a “measure” of everything since. The emergence of the four fundamental forces happened at the beginning smallest measure of “time” so a lack of “time” can not preclude the formation of the Universe. Yes, it took time to develop, from OUR perspective. But it would be the height of arrogance for us to assume the Universe can not exist without our ability to perceive time.

Darby, I define the “substance” of energy as the ability to physically quantify its effect on everything else. We can hold energy or at least it’s potential in our hand when we hold a battery. We see energy when we see heat waves rising from a road or desert sands. I apologize for interchanging the terms mass and matter but often, in conversation, they are interchangeable in that inference of one implies the other since they are linked as mass is the measure of matter.
I hope this isn’t too long and I hope I made my view of time and time travel more clear.
 
" In a more direct response to Twighlight, I see where you are going but I don’t see why we MUST equate time with a process except for our own edification. At the Big Bang, Time had nothing to do with it unless you feel it was “time” for it to have happened. Yes, time began “after” the Big Bang. It would seem nothing existed before that but for time to matter it would have had to be the first thing. Instead it is a “measure” of everything since. The emergence of the four fundamental forces happened at the beginning smallest measure of “time” so a lack of “time” can not preclude the formation of the Universe. Yes, it took time to develop, from OUR perspective. But it would be the height of arrogance for us to assume the Universe can not exist without our ability to perceive time. "
Click to expand...


It's impossible to properly conceptualise time....all the while one sees it as a 'thing' in it's own right.

Imagine a rotating sphere. One can imagine a sphere without rotation........but rotation without something to do the rotating is meaningless. And that is precisely the nature of time.

So to ask about time 'before' the big bang is somewhat like asking about rotation without the sphere. I think this is a rather good analogy...as it helps one grasp that time is a PROPERTY of things ( just as rotation is ) and not an independant thing in itself.

The whole question of what 'caused' the big bang is similar. It's sort of like asking what causes a piece of string to have two ends. The big bang is simply a 4 dimensional 'edge' to spacetime......in other words one could view the entire universe across it's entire history as a single entity ( that is precisely what spacetime is ). Looked at from this perspective....the 'cause' of the universe need not be 'at the beginning'. The beginning is simply an artefact of spacetime.....like the end of a piece of string. What causes a piece of string to have an end ?

Some of your points suggest that you are still ( mistakenly ) looking at time as an entity in it's own right.......which is similar to trying to envisage rotation without the sphere to DO the rotating. Time is a meaningless concept without physical objects.
 
I start by apologizing again for coming on too strong with a flat denial of the existence of Time. That is incorrect. I do however maintain that Time is not a physical substance and therefore non-supportive of physical travel in or thru it.
Click to expand...

Gpa,

Whatever the fabric of time, as such, actually is is a subject that physicists themselves contunue to debate. One thing to consider in the debate is the modern definition put forth by Minkowski in explaining the impact of Special Relativity. In that debate he offered that time alone and space alone are incomplete definitions. Space-time, taken as a whole more correctly defines the situation. More completely than that, as John Wheeler proposed, matter tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to move (General Relativity).

Trying to define time without considering matter and space is not going to work.
 
How can spacetime have mass? Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. Time does not consist of any matter, that much is clear. Time may be matter in another dimension, but not in this one.
 
Matter is something that occupies space and has mass. Mass is how much matter is in an object. Circular logic seems reasonable until closely examined. Of course, mass is a pretty arbitrary way of defining how quickly mass responds to an applied force. Change mass and you change time. Relativistic speed does both. But I wouldn't count on that for going to the past.
 
The Big Bang was created roughly 15 Billion years ago in an improbably measurable omni universal implosion then Explosion this all caused by a previous absolute entire universe (far larger than our current one is now.) full of every type of mass, matter and energy in existence sentient, non sentient, omnipotent and everything in between. All of this mass, matter, energy, and even the energy/mass/matter/unknowns science does not know exist. All of these had finally reached critical omni universal critical mass and all merged cause an implosion far greater than that of the big bang which would promptly follow as all of that combined mass/matter/energy and everything that ever was expelled itself recreating itself into the very beginnings of the universe we live in today.

In roughly another 15 Billion years we too shall be part of recreating the universe again renewing it as it has done so for what seems to be an immeasurable amount of time. Humanity is so confident in our laws of physics and what we know. But history will prove how juvenile and laughable scientists before the 22nd century really were.

Also they will teach in education centers of the 22nd century and beyond those centuries of how close humanity came to causing it's own extinction in World War IV (2099-2101) with the use of the Fusion Core Bomb.

The World's Population in 2099 is approximately 7.8 Billion people. In 2103 The World Population is approximately 100 Million. I have seen our future and it is very grim and horrific. I also now know how I able to see the future. I never wanted to be able to see the future, but I am forced to. But if I am forced to see such horror then I think the best course of action is to help forge a better future if I can, but I cannot do it alone. It takes Millions of people to make a difference to such a large event such as World War IV.

World War III already began in 1991 and is more like another version of the Cold War. It's what you are not seeing or what is not being reported that matters. World War III will also be over in a few more years if not sooner than that. So far it seems world war III will never be officially declared.

It is the 4th World War that will end all wars because once that is over the earth will have more miles deep and miles wide craters in it than the moon. However if we, the ancestors of these people do something now. At the very best outcome we can prevent that from ever happening, or at least desirable outcome minimize the fatality rate.

If all possible prevention of the Fusion core bomb from ever being created/developed would help a great deal too. I believe it's inventor may not be born for another few years as he appears to be about 65 years old when he creates what it will become in the early 2080's an alternate power energy source that appears to be an unstable and highly volatile artificial sun. Now this technology is not new at all as you most all know.

This Inventor succeeds in keeping an artificial sun about the size of a pinhead continually active within a specially contained room. Unfortunately for this inventor, better means for power creation already preexist that have proven themselves to be more stable and cost efficient maintenance wise.

But as always Military of world are always on the lookout for a bigger and better weapon. They see this Artificial sun flops potential as a weapon they can redevelop. Redevelop they indeed do after acquiring the invention and eventually transforming it into the greatest and most destructive weapon ever created by humanity. The Fusion Core Bomb. It sounds to me like a stupid name to call it, but that is what it is called.

I have also dedicated a large amount of my time to try and prevent this horrendous device from ever being invented so that roughly 7.7 Billion people do not have to die meaninglessly in a greed driven, resource and land grab war of what little to squander over is left.Also if nothing is done to even try and stop this now the earth will be full of so many craters that it will become structurally unsound and practically unlivable to survive on anymore.

There may not be such a thing as real time travelers, but there are such things as present day future viewers like myself who can see the future as if it is happening right now. Everyone who is not a time viewer is a time manipulator if they realize it or not.

Every large and small action you make today causes ripples in time that effect your future and futures of all things that are associated with you. Everything you say and do matters even if you think it does not. For example this website is slowly dying due to a paradox of it's own. You are a website that is all about time travel and discussing matters that are beyond current science. Yet at the same time you have longstanding members Like RainmanTime and Darby who seem to like nothing better than to berate members discredit ideas and possibility of time travel that do not fit your pro scientific views of how time, space and matter etc should work. The Laws of Physics are just that. Laws that can be broken just like any other. The reason why they are not broken is simply because humanity likes laws and rules far too much. Humanity feels safe when they have comfort restrictions put in place. A safety harness you could say, that they place on themselves in what they perceive to be reality in their narrow limited minds.

In roughly 300 years humanity will discover how to create and manipulate every type of element, energy, mass and matter in the then known universe, from it's base value to it's highest value. This will be done with a single handheld device used individually and slightly larger than an apple iphone.

With such technology we will be able to create anything. We will then and are now only limited by our imagination. So next time you start science bashing people about what you think you know, be mindful. Because in the years to come what you know now will no longer be deemed valid. It is good to debate, but do not belittle people and act all superior because they are not of a science background. It is easy for a scientist to talk in their language but I have noticed that scientists can and do have great difficulty explaining their concepts, theories and Laws they have in very simplistic terminology without being belittling or having in degradingly imposing manner towards their audience. We all have our own stregnths and weaknesses and anyone who denies that is a highly ignorant and arrogant individual

That is why it is best to never rule out anything, however impossible you may think it is. For impossibilities exist primarily due to human limitations in knowledge, wisdom, understanding, imagination and of oneself that are usually self imposed or given into via peer pressure.
 
MIchael,

How can spacetime have mass? Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, that definition is incorrect. Mass, in one definition, is the property of matter that resists a change in velocity. That's inertial mass. In the other definition, mass is the property of energy that warps spacetime - gravitational mass in general relativity. In general relativity spacetime is the gravitational field of all of the mass in the universe (normal matter including photons and all other particles with zero rest mass, dark matter and dark energy). Spacetime is an energy field. E = mc^2 - mass-energy equivalence...energy is a form of mass.

RE. "Velocity" - remember that in physics speed and velocity are not the same even though they are closely related. Speed is a scalar - it only has a magnitude. Velocity is a vector quantity. It has both magnitude and direction. So when mass is defined as the inertial component of resisting a change in velocity it means resisting a change in speed, direction or both.
 
I do believe time travel is possible, Corcoran. I believe it is possible to both astral/mental time travel and to physically time travel as well. It seems though that an awful lot of the members here do not at all believe in time travel and I don't understand why they frequent these boards. It seems strange to me that on a site called "Time Travel Institute", you would have to post the question: "how many of you actually believe in time travel?"
 
bowtiesarecool said:
It seems though that an awful lot of the members here do not at all believe in time travel and I don't understand why they frequent these boards. It seems strange to me that on a site called "Time Travel Institute", you would have to post the question: "how many of you actually believe in time travel?"
Click to expand...

First, my friend, it might seem strange to you because you've been a member of the forum for about two weeks. Stick around for 10-12 years and it might not seem so strange. ;)

Second, this is a discussion forum. If everyone automatically bought into Astral, Mental, New Agey Touchie Feelie Time Travel then there would be nothing much to discuss, nicht wahr? As to the other aspects of time travel you'll notice that many of, if not most of, the discussions become science oriented. The physics behind time travel is very much open to discussion especially on the General Relativistic front as it relates to travel to the past. The answer to the question, is time travel to the past possible, is very much in doubt. Not dismissed out of hand as impossible, but doubtful for many, many well founded reasons.

Therefore, asking on TTI whether one believes in time travel is absolutely a valid question. Rarely, however, will a simple yes or no be accepted by the forum. In a debate you have to support your position with something other than feelings and emotions.

So, why do you believe in time travel?
 
Back
Top