Jump to content

Does anyone really want to talk about time travel?


Recommended Posts

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

And to disprove a theory you need to embrace new theories. You can't say: I will disprove relativity by following the theory of relativity. You need to have a different approach. And that is also how science works.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

You don't understand my point. You say: relativity theory does NOT implicate that you can travel to the future. I say that it does, because experiments have proven that at least this consequence of the relativity theory is right. Read again what I have said about clocks in planes compared to clocks that stay on the ground. And the faster you go, the greater the effect is. So how can you say that this very aspect that I'm talking about (not the whole theory, but just the consequence of this theory that you can travel to the future?) is wrong, when it has proven to be right? When it has been proven, it is not longer a theory, but reality.

 

And for the record: I was NOT talking about exceeding the speed of light. I don't want to make any statements about what happens to your time when you go faster than light. And I don't think relativity theory says anything about that, because relativity theory assumes that nothing with mass can go faster than light. So there wouldn't be much point in discussing situations that can never happen (at least according to the theory).

 

Furthermore I didn't mean that the whole theory necissarely is right, or that Einstein never made mistakes, I just mean that this particular consequence of the theory, time dillatation, allows you to travel to the future and this has proven to be right, so how can you say it's wrong?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes thats because when you are enjoying your self you are not focusing on time itself, you are focusing on what is stimulating you ie. Watching a movie. When you are bored or anxious you are always looking at the date / time and it seems to go on forever.

I know that, but why does it work that way? Like I said it was an abstract and perhaps even blunt reference to timetravel, but in a way it's both funny and interesting that one can almost control how fast time passes just by focussing on something else.

 

Gee wiz. Why dont you become the next Naustradamus ?

You're the second person on this board to misspell his name. Congratulations! ;)

 

I dont understand what you are trying to say in your last paragraph, try again

Do I have to? :)

 

 

Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
We will never be able to travel to the future because there are an infinite number of possible futures that could happen. Once we enter the future (hypothetically) we have caused an event to occur which makes the future become an inevitable event in history. This then causes fate to draw a line straight to the event we have created, removing free will from everyone, and drastically affecting life as we know it. I think.

I enjoy conversing about multiple futures. What exactly is your theory on how they are formed?

 

And by the way, what happens if one travels to the past? Can this person return to their present? Or is the relative 'future'(past - present) reset?

 

James

 

 

"What will be, has already happened"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Hmmm... well, Doctor. I highly respect your stance on science and it has been proven in the past that many so-called "facts" couldn't have been farther from the truth. I'm sure we still think the earth is flat. But what these "facts" lacked in the past was experiment, and for that reason, I think cyberjunk has a point. What I'm getting out of your arguement is that a truth is a lie, and lies can be truth. That seems more philosophical than anything else.

 

My opinion is that travel into the future is possible, but not according to our enchanted standards. By going around at the speed of light, we're not really "traveling into the future". Rather, waiting around as things go faster than us.

 

However, the science of time travel will forever be hindered by ethical questions and lack of resources.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Well, quite a bit to go on. To Cyberjunk, the whole clock experiment does not prove that it is possible to travel to the future, it proves that it is possible to alter the mechanics of a machine. A clock is not time, the workings of a clock is not time, and time is not seconds minutes and hours. Time is the progression of matter through dimensions.

 

To my friend asking about how the future would be affected by interaction with the past, I think the answer has to be that the future would be changed, maybe ever so slightly and unnoticably. I don't think that on your return you would know any difference because you would have learned to accept the differences as your self develops along the new time line. Curse you for making me think about this, it really makes my head ache and my eyes go crossed.

 

And to Conkulator, as much as I would love to travel to the future, I really can't see it happening. I can't see any ethical problems with it because we would not be do anything that would alter our past, and we certainly wouldn't be passing on any secrets that aren't already known about.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Curse you for making me think about this, it really makes my head ache and my eyes go crossed.

I think if someone posts here and doesn't have a sore head, someone else is not doing their job!! ;)

 

However, may I offer a solution to your 'travel to the future' problem - It's simply a matter of Schroeder's Cat. You know the cat being in a box with a bottle of poison designed to break upon the decay of a radioactive atom. There is only a 50:50 chance that the atom will decay - so how do you know the cat is alive or not? Quantum theory implies that the cat is both alive and dead but only takes one form or the other when an 'observer' opens the box!

 

Thus your travel to the future would result in the possibility of arriving in one of a multitude of possible futures. this one possible future only becoming the 'real' future for the period of time that you are an observer in this future.

 

How's your head :)

 

James

 

 

"What will be, has already happened"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Well, doctor, that is your point of view. Anyway, time dillatation is one aspect of the theory of Einstein. If you feel that there is no proof that such thing exists, that is your right, but I feel there is a proof.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

I'm with Cyberjunk as far as the clock experiment is concerned. The clocks in question are atomic clocks, both set to the exact time. As far as I know, atomic clocks do not gain or lose time- ever. They are *the* most accurate way of recording the passage of time as we measure it.

 

As has been said- one is left on the ground, the other is taken up into a supersonic jet. When the jet touches down, the clock that it carried is slightly off when compared to the one that was left behind- something ridiculous like .000000000000001 seconds- which is a long time for an atomic clock. It's not much- but it is an experiment that can be repeated. The faster the plane goes, the more time the clock loses.

 

It follows that if a man were able to be accelerated away from the Earth at a speed even far below that of the speed of light (which is still very, very fast), more time would have elapsed than the man could account for by the time he returned to Earth again. From *his* point of view, a journey that takes him three months might actually have taken three years for anybody outside (us, in other words).

 

That said, I'm not sure I'd class it as time travel in the way that I'd normally think of time travel (man winks out now, re-appears in the future). Sure- the guy's in the future- he's skipped over three years to get there- but he's still lived *through* the entire time. He's just experienced that time at a different rate to the rest of us.

 

My head hurts now...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Head aches really bad now.

 

But the point I'm making about the clock experiment is that they are still clocks. Atomic or not, they are mechanical devices. Mechanical devices that can still be affected by outside influences. Time is not measured by a clock. A clock measures an arbitrary scale that humans have applied to a certain phenomenon that is outside our control. The clock experiment THEORY is sound, that we travel wherever for a certain amount of time and back on Earth a different amount of time has elapsed, but it is only a THEORY that has been tested using a mechanical device. It was only in the late 1970s that scientists agreed how long a second would be, and that was something to do with a chemical vibrating or something.

 

Time as we know it is arbitrary. That's how we can travel to a different day in seconds by stepping over the international date line. The phenomenon that we call time is unmanipulatable and is constant.

 

Jelly baby anyone?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

atomic clocks are foulable like any other device. first thing to keep in mind, an atomic clock "is the general name used to describe any variety of time keeping devices based on the regular vibrations associated with atoms" modern cesium-133 clocks clocks are accurate to one part in 10,000 billion, or one second in 316,000 years. While being exceptional, it shows you that even left alone there is an inherant lag to them. Hydrogen maser clocks are more accurate, but still not perfect. Anyway read up on google about it http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm to start. acceleration and deceleration cause movement. This movement should be enough to slightly throw the readings off a fraction.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Hi Folks...I've been gone awhile (traveling thru space, not time!) ;)

 

So far, I am with The Doctor. But as to time travel and its relation to exceeding the speed of light: Naaaaah.

 

Abundant evidence in nature shows us that nature exhibits fractal, self-similarity at all levels (e.g. solar systems and galaxies both exhibit spherical structures and obey orbital dynamics of constant momentum). There is reasonable evidence to suggest that the speed of sound and the speed of light are also fractal, self-similar interphases. The speed of sound is an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a fluid (its density). The speed of light is (possibly) an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a "superfluid" which is (again) being called an aether, by some of the most reputable physicists of today.

 

If you are a being with no sight, but only hearing, you will set your "arrow of time" via sound. Hence, anyone/anything traveling faster than the speed of sound would simply appear to violate your arrow of time (causality of events). Therefore, if speed of sound is self-similar to speed of light, then traveling faster than the speed of light would ONLY have the effect of making us believe that the person traveling faster than the speed of light is violating our arrow of time. In this, we would see the "effect" of something the person did, and then we would see the "cause" that the person perpetrated the effect with.

 

Not the same as time travel.

 

Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

A being with it's perception based on sound, could still experience things 'moving faster than sound'. Electricity is not dependent on knowing that light exists, therefore these blind beings could still have a form of telephone which sends signals faster than sound.

 

They would know that sound is not a definative barrier.

 

We however have yet to prove that light is not a definitive barrier of speed.

 

James

 

 

"What will be, has already happened"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

While being exceptional, it shows you that even left alone there is an inherant lag to them.

Yes, but you seem to forget that the scientists worked out exactly what the time difference of the clocks should be, before carrying out the experiments. The results matched the expectations with a very small margin of error. The margin of error would have been caused by stopovers and the planes not travelling in a straight line.

 

James

 

 

"What will be, has already happened"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Hi James:

 

A being with it's perception based on sound, could still experience things 'moving faster than sound'. Electricity is not dependent on knowing that light exists, therefore these blind beings could still have a form of telephone which sends signals faster than sound.

I'm not sure I agree. I think you are projecting based on the benefit we have in associating the speed of current flow as approaching the speed of light (depending on the resistance of the medium thru which the current flows). How would these blind beings begin to conceive that electricity travels faster than sound? A shock would not provide this insight, as tactile information travels even more slowly than auditory.

 

Let me bring the analogy up to our level to help you understand what I am getting at. Since we have both sight and hearing, we know that sound has a lower relative frequency than light. We also know that sound is a mechanical (pressure) phenomenon whose actual speed is dependent upon the propagation medium (usually air). But for the longest time, we have classified electromagnetic waves, which is what light is, as not needing any medium within which to propagate. This lead to the erroneous thought that "all space is empty", which lead to the discarding of the concept of an aether medium. We are now beginning to correct this error, and admit that ALL waves must have a propagating medium. And so the concept of aether is back, and we refer to it as a "superfluid". However, we are still struggling with quantifying the inherent characteristics of this "superfluid". This is because our senses are much too limited to perceive its characteristics. We were easily able to quantify the characteristics of normal fluids, like air, because we had light to compare them too. We struggle with quantifying the "superfluid" because we do not have (or know of) a higher-frequency sense which can be related to light.

 

I propose the same problem would happen to a blind species. Their highest frequency sense is in the audible range. That frequency response range (to use a technical term), limits any measurements to that range. Because they could not sense in that range, they would not understand how to use high frequency AC to modulate and demodulate their voices on a carrier wave in order to build a telephone. We have the benefit of a oscilloscope for us to visualize waves we cannot hear or see. Since they are blind, an o-scope would do them no good. So you see, even though they could FEEL different air pressures (the medium for sound propagation) they would not be able to characterize that medium to exceed the speed of sound.

 

I maintain that gravity is the analogy of air pressures to the blind race. We can feel the effects of gravity, and are now beginning to postulate that it may be related to the "superfluid" medium, but our efforts to quantify that relationship are limited in that we only have a frequency response to light.

 

Thoughts? Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

I think that in terms of trying to understand time travel we have to broaden our horizons and not be blinkered by what we already know. There is so much that we don't understand and in stead of rehashing old theories we should concentrate all our energies into understanding things like superfluids. If we all want to unlock the secrets of time travel (and we do or we wouldn't be on this forum) then this is the way forward.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Isn't it interesting that the language/communication construct we call "analogy" is actually a form of fractal? Self-similarity seems to just show up in everything, physical or not!

 

Let's try to tie some things together, shall we?

 

There is so much that we don't understand and in stead of rehashing old theories we should concentrate all our energies into understanding things like superfluids.

So what do you think of my gut-feel that gravity is a resulting effect of mass-interaction with the superfluid? Do you think the self-similar premise appears reasonable?

 

Time as we know it is arbitrary. That's how we can travel to a different day in seconds by stepping over the international date line. The phenomenon that we call time is unmanipulatable and is constant.

I completely agree. There is a difference between the time a clock tells you, in its mechanical "precision", and the time you experience as an individual. Example: Ever notice how when you are not constantly watching a clock, the passage of time can SEEM to vary depending on how busy you are? When you are busy...doing things, reading things, not paying attention to the clock, time seems to fly. When you are bored, or otherwise unoccupied, time seems to crawl. What is the connection? Why, Matter in Motion, of course. When you are busy, there is a higher level of Matter in Motion being experienced by your consciousness. You are rushing around getting things done...or even if you are sedate and reading a book voraciously. There is "stuff" going on. When you sit and do nothing but stare at the clock, there is very little Matter in Motion going on. Your consciousness registers this as a "stretch" in the rate of time passage. And so which is "right", the mechanical clock, or your PERCEPTION?

 

And this brings us to another topic I have talked about: Should we blatantly trust our perceptions, or not? And if we blindly trust our perceptions as telling us the "truth", then we must realize that any physical measurement we make is also an act of perception. And so I again point out that one of Einstein's foundations to all of his work is that he believed we had no choice but to trust what our senses were telling us as being the "truth".

 

So in the case of "time flying when we're having fun", which of our perceptions are we to trust? Do we trust the measurement we make of the clock itself, because when we do, it is at odds with our "gut feel" perception...otherwise, that quote would not be so easy to relate to. Or, do we trust our perception of the passage of time, as somehow being faster than what the clock tells us?

 

This is similar (self-similar?) to the wave/particle "problem" of light. We know of the experiments where the SAME source of starlight was observed at the SAME time (by atomic clocks) at two different locations on the earth...one perceives that light as a photon, and one as a wave. Which measurement is "true"? How can they BOTH be right? This is, in itself, a paradox. The only real logical answer is: We don't have enough information. Our senses are not telling us the whole story.

 

Self-similar yet again is the magic trick. You know what your senses are telling you is going on when a magican cuts a person in half, and yet it just CAN'T be possible that the person appears to be in pieces, yet is still alive and comes out without a scratch. And the common thread is again INFORMATION. The magican is skillful at keeping ALL the information you would need to see thru the illusion from your senses.

 

I submit, for your consideration, that this is the same with gravity, light, the speed of light, and the superfluid. We've got to think BEYOND the paradox that our senses detect, to fill-in the missing information that will explain the paradox.

 

Comments? Thoughts? See my next thread to continue the superfluid/speed of light discussion.

 

Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

I think that we are now making progress. I agree fully with what Rainman suggests about matter in motion. We have more than 5 senses, the others are repressed by technology. By awakening the other senses then we will understand how to do more things. It is exactly as Rainman sugests with the analogy of the woman being sawn in half, we think its possible because we only see some of the facts. We understand it when we see more facts.

 

The Doctor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

I'm not sure I agree. I think you are projecting based on the benefit we have in associating the speed of current flow as approaching the speed of light (depending on the resistance of the medium thru which the current flows). How would these blind beings begin to conceive that electricity travels faster than sound? A shock would not provide this insight, as tactile information travels even more slowly than auditory.

I was thinking more along the lines of a telephone, or some other form of electronic speaker system. An exposion at one end would be heard on the other end but there would be a delay in the sound of the explosion which traves through the air. Granted, I wouldn't want a blind race experimenting with explosives, but the experiment would show that the speed of sound is surpassable.

 

This lead to the erroneous thought that "all space is empty", which lead to the discarding of the concept of an aether medium. We are now beginning to correct this error, and admit that ALL waves must have a propagating medium. And so the concept of aether is back, and we refer to it as a "superfluid".

If this aether exists, then we already have proof that it is not malleable by any current existing technology. We can artificially create vacuums and light can pass through these vacuums.

 

With the existance of this aether, there would be an entirely new dimension to how we perceive the universe - we would occupy the aether but the aether does not move.

 

As far as I would understand it, this aether would also have to be total uniform across the universe as light does not travel faster and slower depending where it is. If this is the case then the aether does not have much relevance to us - it is uncontrollable but it has no properties of movement itself.

 

Am I following you correctly?

 

James

 

 

"What will be, has already happened"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

If this aether exists, then we already have proof that it is not malleable by any current existing technology. We can artificially create vacuums and light can pass through these vacuums.

Ah, but if the aether escapes characterization from our limited human senses, then did you really create a vacuum? Honestly, this is the stuff that advanced physicists are struggling with. If the superfluid is related to gravity, and spacetime distortion, then the closest thing to a "vacuum" would be intergalactic space, FAR from the effects of mass-induced gravity.

 

With the existance of this aether, there would be an entirely new dimension to how we perceive the universe - we would occupy the aether but the aether does not move.

Yes, an entirely new dimension...I am with you on that. But as far as motion, again, it does not move so far as our senses can perceive. This is the tricky part. Does "empty space" move? Well, we seem to see the galaxies moving away from each other, and shouldn't their gravity pull them closer together?

 

As far as I would understand it, this aether would also have to be total uniform across the universe as light does not travel faster and slower depending where it is. If this is the case then the aether does not have much relevance to us - it is uncontrollable but it has no properties of movement itself.

Hang with me here. The concept is that the superfluid is what all Mass, Space, and Time is composed of. The fabric of reality. A sea of energy, if you will. We call condensed energy Mass, so this would say the superfluid is not totally uniform when it is in a mass state. It may be closer to being uniform when it is in its "empty space" state.

 

Now, when you say "uncontrollable", this is an interesting (synchronistic) choice of words. Because my field of expertise is closed-loop control systems, and there is a characteristic of such systems that defies explanation as to where its energy comes from: It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier. In my business, a closed-loop airplane control system that has a divergent oscillatory mode, when stimulated with a very small input, will continue to oscillate in larger and larger amplitudes, until the airplane tears apart. THAT IS AN AWFUL LOT OF ENERGY!!

 

The principle behind this is the same one we have discussed under the superfluid analogy thread: It deals with harmonic resonance, frequency, and phase lag. I can add NO NEW kinetic energy (i.e. thrust) to an airplane flying along, and merely by allowing the airplane to break into a divergent control oscillation, large amounts of energy are suddenly apparant in the destruction of the vehicle. While there is no restructuring of the atomic matrix of the mass of the airplane, this cannot explain where the energy comes from. So where does it come from? Given that the primary factor which amplifies (or conversely attenuates) divergent oscillations is FREQUENCY response, and since frequency is related to (inverse) of time....this could tell us that all this energy that is apparant in a divergent oscillation in a closed-loop system comes from the TIME domain.

 

Another aspect of the superfluid? And this is one that definitely appears to our senses, and yet we cannot truly explain it. We know how to evaluate divergent instabilities, and we even know how to gain/phase compensate for them. But can we explain their physical significance??? Not yet, but I think we are getting close!

 

Kind Regards,

 

RainmanTime

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

 

Quote -

 

It is called divergent instability. It is most often experienced as the screeeeeeech of positive feedback through a closed-loop microphone and amplifier.

 

My question:

 

I've experienced the screech many times. My question is can light follow the same sort of method… and maybe it does. What I'm asking is: Is there a method for light where the same phenomenon occurs (where does the extra energy/light come from?) :confused:

 

 

Teamwork! Adding value to our collective laziness is all we ask.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atomic Clocks are accurate and used for being about the same as the passage of time from astronomical observation. It is just that the cesium atom vibrates very close and more precise for measurement, but still is off from the actual time that the Earth takes to go around the Sun.

 

Mind you, it is not off very much, but if one has listened to the atomic clock on shortwave, one would find out, that corrections are made at the end of the year, when a second is added to the atomic clock to keep it in sync with the Earth. This happens on a regular scale, and is also shown at the NIST web site, where the corrections are made. Thus, the atomic clock is used because it can be sub-divided down to allow nanosecond type measurements, and is used for essentially that purpose, because nothing else can be used for a measurement source.

 

The measurement or passage of time is guaged always by astronomical events, as such.

 

When the universe is thought of as being around 15 billion years old, that is a passage of time that is thought about and tried to be improved on.

 

But, just as the speed of light is a limit, would there be the smallest wave (or particle) that allows a measurement for time.

 

There is a gravitational constant, and to me, there may be such a thing as a time constant.

 

But then, only experiment will prove it or not, and until some math comes around to determining what that may be, perhaps, only 'time' is the single most important dimension there is.

 

Curled-up dimensions below the Plank's Constant is like searching in the dark.

 

Of course, that is driven home by the fact that energy is always discussed as the most required event, but still, to me, energy also needs to have time!

 

If you open the switch, the energy stops, but where does a person place time? If outside the circuit, as we are, there is still passage of time. Inside the circuit, it is thought that time has stopped, but can we all be sure that entrophy still does not take place, for to me, it still will, so also to me, time has not stopped just because the switch was thrown open, and no energy is flowing??

 

:)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...