Time Travel

[______]

Ahh...... :duh: Time travel..... My head is still spinning from thinking about this for too long.

I've seen all these time travel movies such as "The Time Machine", "Butterfly Effect", "A Sound of Thunder", etc. and have noticed many flaws in their line of thinking about time travel.

In "A Sound of Thunder", something very small is altered and the entire future is doomed. But changes in the "present" come in waves. First vegitation, then insects, then the more complex organisms. This was by far the more "farfetched" idea I have heard of. On some level however it makes sense.

Now, time travel as a possibility. If I were to go back in time to before I was born, this travel would itself take time to do, so would I get younger as I travel? Likewise for the other direction in time: Would I get older? If not, and I encountered a younger version of myself--see "Back to the Future"--wouldn't that encounter be a memory I would have as I traveled back? I would've known ahead of time that I would encounter myself so nothing could be changed? :wallbash:

:duh: Ahhh..... My head hurts again..... :knockout: This must be why man could never utilize time travel much less develop it..... I'm going to go lie down for a while now...... :zzz:

[cybereaper]

the relativity of time is still a human creation. Try this: Haley's comet. Every 75 years, it travels around the solar system, making a stop by our little planet. Now, although light travels fast, light that is on the move, affected by other elements, factors, etc. means we should see Haley's comet in two different places at one time. Once in our atmosphere, and once at the opposite end of the solar system, where the light would have taken time to travel to reach us:

00000--------- Comet in close proximity 0000-----------Comet far away
<-------------------------
--------------------------- Path of the light as we look through a telescope
Earth

Now I know what you're thinking. That's just plain silly as the comet itself does not travel faster than the light. Of course not. On its approach...
But, as it's heading away, there should be, given everything we know about physics, a point it reaches in which its light at a distance will not reach our viewing site until it is actually physically at the Earth. Remember this, light bends, and it is not necessarily in a straigh shot toward us like a laser beam. So now, the question is: is this time travel? The ability to see something in the present, and in the future? What about solar systems billions of light years away - it has taken a considerable amount of time for that light to reach out this far... which means that we are looking into the past. So, is that time travel? As you travel at light speed toward a galaxy that is billions of light years away, and (for the sake of argument), let's say that galaxy physically burnt out twenty years ago, and it's light takes thirty years to reach us (so the light we see is thirty years old), when you pass the point of the last bit of light that the now extinct galaxy had shone before it burnt out, and all you see is infinite blackness, is that time travel?
There are realistic questions in time travel to be asked that are just as difficult to phathom as the science fiction ones. A particle accelerator spins particles at 99% of the speed of light. But, if Einstein is unquestionably accurate in his theory, then at a certain point, the molecules would be traveling at a speed in which we would appear to be standing completely still because of the time differential. So, if time is literally standing still for those particles, wouldn't it make sense that the second we fired them, they would also simultaneously collide as it happened so fast, we were in a literal time warp and unable to witness it - yet, we do...?

I think the best theory in time travel I have ever heard is this: The person who asks what would happen if they went back in time and killed their grandfather: never did. Pure and simple. If they had, they wouldn't be alive to ask the question (much like the sound of thunder - which it's nice to hear of another person who has read that since it's be over 16 years since I've read it). So, there is no paradox. Now to say, I AM going to go back in time and do it, just to prove everyone wrong - the result of that little expedition (based on the current theory I present), is that you failed. For, if you had succeeded, you wouldn't be here to go back in time.

And, ultimately, look at it this way: You are already traveling in time. In fact, you're traveling forward toward the future. Don't let life slip by so fast that you miss the adventure you're on already. Time could be standing still.. it could be going backward, but it's not. It's moving forward, and we are watching the events around us happen, one second at a time. Remember, time is a man-made invention. It's not the same measure that the universe uses, or even other species of this world. For a dog, their clock moves much more incredibly faster than ours, as their lives are shorter. Ten of their minutes, to one of ours, and 100 years of our life to 15 of theirs. So you see, time is relative - and you're already a traveler within it.

[______]

:blink: Maybe I should've thought twice about bringing this issue to light.... :duh: :mellow: My head hurts when I think about and much more so when I read theories on it.......

Okay...... Let's see what we have here.......
So you see, time is relative - and you're already a traveler within it.
Oh no... not relativity again... :lol: just kidding!

True, we are currently traveling forward in time (I thought that was a given). But the question of traveling through time to the future is, "Can we speed up our travel?" Or even, "Can we put ourselves in reverse?"

But what real implications does time travel hold for mankind other than, say, visiting the late Jurassic to see/study dinosaurs? Why would mankind need to see their own future when we're headed that way anyhow?

Look, I have more questions than answers. Which I suppose is a good thing, but I need a break from this one.

[abaris]

Time is a measure for change. And change is always moving forward. How can you travel back in time, lets say 5 min to the past, unless you are able to reset the entire universe to the state it was 5 minutes ago. Move back the earth, the moon, the stars, the waters of the rivers, the winds, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the cars on the roads, the people in the streets....

Impossible.

The mistake of relativity and the time travel theory is, that relativity mistakes perception for reality. A change in the perception of an observer does not change the reality of the things around him. And you can not change the entire universe.

[______]

...you can not change the entire universe.
Says who?

[abaris]

Says who?

says every single verifiable experience ever made.

[______]

Well then, it seems to me like we have yet to try everything! :D ;)

[Smurf]

I just thought I might add this to the discussion

We wouldn't have the past if we didn't have memory, what are the implications of this?
In reality there is no time, only what we percieve to be so.

[______]

We wouldn't have the past if we didn't have memory, what are the implications of this?
In reality there is no time, only what we percieve to be so.
See: "Butterfly Effect" (Good movie!) :D

[abaris]

Well then, it seems to me like we have yet to try everything!

True. And we'll never get to that point. But still, no matter how limited our experience is. What else is there to go by?

[cybereaper]

There is another possibility to this entire equation as well:
I once wrote a very long article on the existence of 'heavenly' beings as being in a place without time. Where there is no past, nor any present. Of course, that takes a lot to explain - far more room and time than I have here. But, it is just as possible that some beings can exist in a dimension/plane of existence (whatever you wish to call it), where time does not hold a function. This is not immortality, but much more complex than that. For creatures with no end, nor any beginning, that is where they would exist.
Sorry - a bit of a tangent there, but:

In regards back to time travel, what is the basis for 'time' travel actually existing? Mere imagination perhaps? Perhaps a founded basis in reality where moving at the speed of light allows time to slow down for you while others age, and you have "seemingly" moved forward in time. But, you haven't. You have not progressed through time, just through space. There is a very clear disctinction between time and space.
So, what if there is no going back, the same as there is no going forward? We define time for ourselves by "our" mortality. But, many of the same people who define time by our mortality believe in an eternal hereafter (heaven or not). That being said, how do they measure time then? Does time no longer exist? And, if so - if they go to the plane where time has no meaning, and they exist in the past, present and future - then what happens to the definition of time?

To make this all easier - allow your imagination to soar - because that is the basis for all discovery in the universe. But, never forget, that there is an eternal constant: the circle of life. If, in fact, we could travel through time, than the circle of life would have no purpose. Take for example a tree.
It grows, it bears seeds, the seeds give life to new trees and the old ones die.
This is how it is for all life. When you think of 'time' traveling, you are thinking within finite borders of existence. But, as new life is born, existence does not end. It continues on. The reason: time travel does not exist. Nature cannot go back in time and expect the dodo to be reborn. It creates what it must in a circle - and destroys what it must infinitely. It is somewhat sad to think we can't physically go back in time, but as it stands, we have been given the wonderful gift of knowledge to allow us to explore and learn about what came before.....

Just more food for thought.

[abaris]

Perhaps a founded basis in reality where moving at the speed of light allows time to slow down for you while others age, and you have "seemingly" moved forward in time. But, you haven't. You have not progressed through time, just through space. There is a very clear disctinction between time and space.

I fully agree to the above. But what is the distinction betweenTime and Space. Or better how is time related to space?

[Smurf]

Hey! I saw the butterfly effect!

WOW!

That was a very interesting movie indeed!
So many questions, so many complexities.

[amadman]

One way that I see time travel would be possible is if the diffent scales of existance were at different times of the same existance. Moving up in scale would have time going slower and be in the past. Moving down is scale time would be faster and in the future. The more scales you moved the farther in the past or future you would be.


Though I do believe that the up and down scale does effect the speed of time, I have never considered the idea that it could be the same existance in each scale untill now. Though I have no idea how you would be able to move in scale even if it was the case.

[millipodium]

Madman, what is a scale of existence? ANd if there are many of them, how do they differ?

[amadman]

millipodium - Pretty much just something I believe.

abaris pointed out to me that the self-similarity hypothesis is similar to my beliefs:

http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/NOF.HTM

Basicly what I believe is that there are diffent realities/worlds at diffent scales of size. For example we could be a mustard stain on someones shirt. And at the same time there would be other worlds in the mustard stains on our shirts. I also believe that the difference in scale would affect the speed of time passing. Where moving up in scale time would be slower and moving down in scale time would move faster.

How much the same they would be I have no idea. The thought just came to be before posting my first reply that if they were the same then it could maybe relate to time travel some how.

But again it is just what I think.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

I don't know weather it's possible to time travel but clearly we have never done it. Otherwise we would see people coming into the past all the time and things would be very differnt. Or we figure out how to do it in the furute and can only figure out howto go forward.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No, time is fixed. By the way, Einstein was wrong about his theory that time passes at a different rate when moving faster. That is ridiculous and every experiment done to "prove" his theory has been flawed by one missed concept - the forces on a body in motion increase (even at atomic and sub-atomic levels) as the speed increases. Just because atoms move more slowly (slowing clocks and even the aging process) does not mean that time moves more slowly. That's like saying that time stops when the battery in your watch goes dead.

[Smurf]

Yes, time does not have a speed, how can time be a variable in the speed equation and have its own speed at the same time. That's like saying distance has varying speeds, which is not logical.

[abaris]

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:


No, time is fixed. By the way, Einstein was wrong about his theory that time passes at a different rate when moving faster. That is ridiculous and every experiment done to "prove" his theory has been flawed by one missed concept - the forces on a body in motion increase (even at atomic and sub-atomic levels) as the speed increases.

Thank you! I'm trying to argue this point for years but most refuse to see the obvious: Special relativity is completely static.

No forces!
No exchange of Momentum!
No exchange of Energy!

Time is a scale for the measure of potentiality. And potentiality exists as a diferential in the spatial distribution of energy which results in forces. Hence the correct, Thermodynamic definition of time. Einsteins time dilation is nonsene.

[amadman]

I think you guys are missing my point on scale.

I tried to explain my belief in the time post:
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...=5&t=1033&st=30 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=1033&st=30)

If you were so big that you looked at the earth in a miroscope would the earth spin fast? After all the earth does spin at hundreds of miles an hour. If so then earth days would go by in seconds at that scale.

Of coarse the earth would not be spining at miles per hour in that scale because it would be so small. A mile at that scale would be a whole other thing. So speed would be different, time would be different, measurements would be different, etc...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If you were so big that you looked at the earth in a miroscope would the earth spin fast?

Well, electrons seem to go pretty darn quick, and the solar system goes kind of fast, too. Actually, I saw a slug that moved surprisingly fast once, too. Nevertheless, even high speed internet can seem slow. Fast or slow is just an opinion.

Whether it it's miles per hour or hours per mile, the size of the clock doesn't matter, either. Time is still fixed.

[amadman]

Well, electrons seem to go pretty darn quick, and the solar system goes kind of fast, too. Actually, I saw a slug that moved surprisingly fast once, too.

You are looking at it from your own perspective and scale.

Fast or slow is just an opinion.
Yes that is relitive but is not what I am talking about.

Time is still fixed.
I would say that is in opinion.

the size of the clock doesn't matter
What if our universe was a building block of the clock? Or the electicity that runs it?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Originally posted by amadman
What if our universe was a building block of the clock? Or the electicity that runs it?

The point is the same - a clock is not time.

[amadman]

My point is the same too. I only used clock because you had used it in your post. It could have been a tv, radio or even a p&j sandwich.

But anyway..... I was thinking about it today at work and I think we are talking about two different things.

What I am talking about you would probably call ageing or something else.

I am not saying that time speeds up or slows down. And I am not trying to say that there is more than one time. Only that the passing of 'time' is different at different scales (for example things from different scales age different amounts in the same 'time').

Now all I was saying in this thread was what if (not that I think this is the case) the different scales were all the same reality? Then there would be different times of the same reality at the same time.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Originally posted by ,--
What I am talking about you would probably call ageing or something else.

Ah, now your point of view makes more sense to me. You are right that we were talking about time as a cosmic event, but now that I see that you were talking about local time, that is a different paradigm.

what if (not that I think this is the case) the different scales were all the same reality? Then there would be different times of the same reality at the same time.

I think I understand your concept. Yes, that is theoretically sound - if all the scales were synchronized then local "time" would be different.

To conceptualize it a little easier, an example would be that time-wise, a day on Mars is different from a day on Earth or a day on Neptune. That does not really make it time travel though any more than flying from someplace with eastern standard time to someplace in the Pacific is really time travel, even though you would have to re-set your watch.

[amadman]

Ah, now your point of view makes more sense to me. You are right that we were talking about time as a cosmic event, but now that I see that you were talking about local time, that is a different paradigm.

Cool! Glad we are on the same page now. Sorry that my communication skills are so weak.

[______]

Okay, I think my heads done spinning, and I can take in your positions.

Of course.... Time travel is theoretically impossible..... hmm..... <_< Wait... :mellow: No.... I was wrong.... My head still needs some more time..... :knockout:

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay, I think my heads done spinning
It's okay; when I was trying to mentally re-size chrono-physical existence for multiple planes of reality to see if it could work on a cosmic scale, it felt like my brain spasmed. :blink: :knockout:

[Ranma]

Time Travel........sound sci-fic, but this may be true. Human are crazy, they invented alot of things, but in movie like 'Stargate' give us a very good idea of what time travel are. u never know it happens or not but there is a possibility of this could happen but not now it may be in the near future.

Time in fact are created by human too, in actual time could not be measure by any equipment that we have on earth today. The clock is just a measuring device/machine to refer to time of the day. Not actual 'time' that refering to. Matrix is also one of the point that we can actually venture into to know more about time travel. Matrix as not in the movie, I mean the actual theory of Matrix.


Cheers.....!

[sonrisa]

I was watching the Science Channel the other nite & they aired a program about the origins of man from Lucy on up to homo sapiens (us)

if I remember correctly, this show claimed that it was homo erectus who first developed an awareness of time, that before him no other species of man was aware of it.

which makes me wonder again if time is simply a man-made measuring device, & not an actual thing

[______]

which makes me wonder again if time is simply a man-made measuring device, & not an actual thing
Oh no! :duh: I made a topic for that type of discussion! :lol:

[schrodinger]

What I am talking about you would probably call ageing or something else.

I am not saying that time speeds up or slows down. And I am not trying to say that there is more than one time. Only that the passing of 'time' is different at different scales (for example things from different scales age different amounts in the same 'time').

Now all I was saying in this thread was what if (not that I think this is the case) the different scales were all the same reality? Then there would be different times of the same reality at the same time.

I should begin by informing you of the fate of Georg Cantor, an accomplished 19th century German mathematician, who tackled the formidable mathematics of proportionality; he went stark raving mad! But I suspect you already know of the dangers of this type of thinking (from your sign-in name). I believe the first formal writings on this subject are contained in Euclid’s The Elements, so the basic idea has been around for some time. I hope that thought gives you some comfort.
At the risk of my own sanity, I would like to propose a simple mathematical analysis of your hypothetical Giant, who is caught in the act of observing the Earth. As most of us agree, there is a fundamental property to our Universe, we call Time, and at some level this property is absolute. However, it has been demonstrated in countless experiments that time can be relative in regards to space, particularly when two reference frames of space are in motion to each other. Your example of the Earth spinning while the Giant is watching fits such a criteria. However, to avoid the involved mathematics of general relativity, I will operate on a much simpler, but still mathematical, basis to show that time is indeed a relative to scale or proportionality:

First, we need to define some basic terms:
A Human eye as considered here has an exposed diameter of 2 centimeters, in Human measure. (All measurements here are taken very roughly, as this is in no way an exact analysis).
A Human blink of the eye as experienced by a Human, takes 1 second of Human Time. In this time the eyelid moves down, then returns up to its starting position covering a total distance of 4 cm.
The velocity of the Human blink is then 4 cm/sec.


The Giant has an eye roughly the same size as the Sun, approximately 1,392,000 Kilometers, or 139 Billion centimeters.
The Giant experiences a blink of his eye in exactly the same way we Humans do; it takes 1 second of Giant time.

However, because of the laws of physics the Giant eyelid cannot move in an absolute way any faster than the Human eyelid, that is 4 cm/sec in Human time. (Any speed gained by much larger eye muscles is countered by the much greater mass of the Giant lid as well as much greater friction)

Therefore, the time of the Giant blink is (2 x 139 Billion cm.) / 4 cm/sec = 69.5 Billion seconds in Human time!
That is roughly 2200 Human years, or 804,000 Human days.


The Giant, looking at Earth, sees it revolve about the Sun 2200 times and spin on its axis 804,000 times in one blink of his eye.

As you can see, this correlates very well with your idea of proportionality or relative scale of time. However, I don’t see any implications for time travel, or even information transfer from the Human Earth to the Giant, or vice versa. In fact, if it did take 3 Billion Earth years for Humans to evolve from the primordial soup, it would take the Giant over 6 Trillion years to reach the same stage of evolution. This is older than the age of our Universe, so the Giant will stay forever a hypothetical exercise of the intellect.
On the other hand, if we are the Giant, could there be tiny Universes that are much more advanced than we?
Possibly, but they would only last for a few micro-seconds of our time so we can never receive any information from them. (A form of cosmic censoring)
For a more detailed analysis you will need to ask Georg Cantor! :lol:

[amadman]

Cool! That is exactly what I am thinking about.
Thanks schrodinger for the details and reference point. I could not express it like that myself.


Yeah... I did not really think time travel was possible this way either.

what if (not that I think this is the case) the different scales were all the same reality? Then there would be different times of the same reality at the same time.

Even if they were all the same reality then how are you going to physically change scale? Other than death/birth that is. But then again maybe there could be nonphysical ways. :think:

Again thanks for the reference point. I will do some searching on Georg Cantor.

[schrodinger]

Again thanks for the reference point. I will do some searching on Georg Cantor.

I’m glad you found the information useful. Good luck with developing your idea.
Personally, I would be very careful in going down the fractal road, especially in light of Georg Cantor’s fate.
Tread carefully! :uhoh:

[Michael]

To Daffodils by Robert Herrick

FAIR daffodils, we weep to see
You haste away so soon;
As yet the early-rising sun
Has not attain'd his noon.
Stay, stay
Until the hasting day
Has run
But to the evensong;
And, having pray'd together, we
Will go with you along.

We have short time to stay, as you,
We have as short a spring;
As quick a growth to meet decay,
As you, or anything.
We die
As your hours do, and dry
Away
Like to the summer's rain;
Or as the pearls of morning's dew,
Ne'er to be found again.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Originally posted by @--
I’m glad you found the information useful. Good luck with developing your idea.
Personally, I would be very careful in going down the fractal road, especially in light of Georg Cantor’s fate.
(bold added)
:rolleyes:

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Originally posted by @--
time is indeed a relative to scale or proportionality

(yet)

at some level this property is absolute.
I agree that both of these are true. Your example was far more illustrative than mine; perhaps I finally oversimplified something.

Doesn't this still show that time travels at the same rate, and it is just the perceptions of the beings under the influence of time that is variable?

[schrodinger]

time is indeed a relative to scale or proportionality

(yet)

at some level this property is absolute.


I agree that both of these are true. Your example was far more illustrative than mine; perhaps I finally oversimplified something.

Doesn't this still show that time travels at the same rate, and it is just the perceptions of the beings under the influence of time that is variable?

On some level it is absolute, but that level must somehow be preferred over all others. In the analogy, it is easy for you, the reader and I, the writer, to place ourselves in an absolute preferred frame which is higher than the Giant’s frame or the earth’s frame. By choosing this frame, we create an absolute reference for ourselves. In Nature, such an absolute reference ceased to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. Since the BB all times must be considered relative, there is no absolute preferred time that is special to any other time. For the Giant, time passes exactly the same way as it does for the human. It is only when the Giant compares his time against the human time, that he can see the relative difference. As a third party, reading the story, you naturally prefer your time and consider it to be absolute, but it is absolute only according to you! Try placing yourself in the story. Now, you have to choose to reside either with the giant, or with the humans. Either way, there is no longer any absolute preferred time, all is relative, with only the propagation velocity of light staying constant. It may be that some day we will adopt a universal “light time” as an absolute time frame to which all other relative times can be referenced. However, I don’t really see the point of doing this as keeping the velocity of light as constant accomplishes the same thing. :tao:

[schrodinger]

I’m glad you found the information useful. Good luck with developing your idea.
Personally, I would be very careful in going down the fractal road, especially in light of Georg Cantor’s fate.
(bold added)

The daVinci was not intended! :lol: