Sign in to follow this  
removed

Time Travel

Recommended Posts

Discuss Time travel? Only if you want a quick course on how to drive yourself insane. This is one of those subjects that can really alter your thinking patter. I've read many stories about time travel, both in the fictional realm and theoretical papers. If we're talking about this just for fun, which I'm sure you are, we could go for hours about how cool it would be to go back and relive personal life milestones, or points in history or even have the chance to relive your life over again, provided you keep the memories of everything you know up to today. We could also go on for hours about the dangers and implications of time travel especially if you go into the past and change history even slightly. One of the best stories about this possibility is "A Sound of Thunder", a short story by Ray Bradbury, one of science fictions most prolific writers. But just thinking about the possibilty of changing history via time travel opens up the possibility of wiping yourself out of existance and if that happens, how could you possibly be born to travel back and make the change? These time paradoxes are what really could drive you mad if you attempt to dissect them in depth. Something I would be very happy to do with you sometime over a pitcher of marguaritas. But I personally think that this is a somewhat volatile subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic really belongs in the Science and Technology Board. It has already been discussed quite thoroughly there:

 

"Timeline" - on SciTech Board

 

My Comments were:

 

Anyway, first, before we work out paradoxes, we have to determine what type of time-travel exists!  There are a few theories:

1. Nonexistent Time - "Time" does not exist as an actual substance - it is an entirely man-made concept, therefore, time travel is impossible - there is nowhere to travel to!

2. Static Time - Time exists, however, due to physical laws - time tavel is impossible

3. Editiable Time - Time is sort of "set in place" - changes don't affect many things and you can go back in time and change little.  When you go back in time you edit the already existing time.  This is the type of time favored in most time travel scenarios - For Example: "Back to the future"

4. Resetable Time - When you travel back in time, you "reset" the future - all the decisions and chance events reset.  So, for instance, you travel back to World War II to historically observe it, right?  To you great amazement Germany Wins!  This could happen because the decisions of the pilots and troops and commanders are reset and perhaps this time Germany fights better!  This is obviousy really bad! Time travel is very dangerous!

 

What is also interesting is that there are really some subsets of 3/4.

Subset A: Sequential time travel - Time travel happens in sequence - You can't tell yourself to leave you some money! The future hasn't happened yet!

Subset B: Simultaneous time travel - All time travel happens at the same time - you can tell yourself to leave some money for you (supposing you aren't broke in the future!)

 

------

 

Whether the quantum world "dances" the same way or not depends on whether we have time version 3 or 4, Master Q.  If we have version 3, then if you "repeat" it will work the same way every time.  If we have version 4, then it will be a chance interacton each time - could happen differently.

 

Also...

 

How the paradoxes are solved

 

Supposing the "time scenario" is 3 or 4 (really doesn't matter), then the paradoxes are solved differently...

I'm using the "Grandfather Paradox"

 

Subset A:

1. You travel back in time and kill yourself

2. Since you killed yourself no one grows up to travel back and kill you

3. So ... You don't exist in the future to go back in time and kill yourself

4. Your younger version therfore grows up

5. You then go back and kill yourself

6. Since you killed yourself no one grows up to travel back and kill you

7. etc.

It just keeps repeating until...

(big #). You go back in time to kill yourself but a capacitor blows on your time machine and you can't go back in time and kill yourself - the timeline is stable!

All you would remember is a freak accident kept you from going back in time to kill yourself!  (you don't remember any "looping")  You would notice every time you tried to make a paradox a freak accident would stop you!!!

 

This phenomenon is called a "temporal loop" and the conclusion is called "chance compensation"

 

I don't really know how it would work in Subset B where all time travel is simultaneous - you would both be dead and alive at the same time???  It doesn't make sense!

 

There is also the theory of Quantum Realities

 

In this theory, each time you time-travel you create an alternate time line.  In this case, if you traveled back in time to kill yourself, you would succeed and you would still exist but your younger version would not.  You would have, in effect, "jumped" realities.  If you went back to your time no one would know who you were because in their reality, you don't exist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suddenly feel very stupid. B) :wow::laugh:

 

Well anyway, the way I see it four hundred years ago people would have said that the internet would be impossible. Four hundred years from now people will look back and wonder how we got by with such primitive technology. You never know what will be possible in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

I think we need to separate science fiction from fact here. Sometimes that can cloud our judgment and our logic for something like this.

 

Let’s say you wanted to use a black hole to your advantage in a “one-way time machine”. From this edition of Star Trek & Physics Weekly I talked a little bit about that the wavelength of light is inversely proportional to its frequency and the frequency of light is proportional to its energy. So if we connect the dots there we can say that light that went close by a black hole lost energy and lost its height in frequency and that its wavelength is more. And so on . . .

 

As you know we define time and our calendar from the Earth’s rotation and orbit. 60 seconds in a minute, sixty minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day. We can say from that the length of a second is 1/86,400 times that of the length of the day. One thing that you have to remember is that in certain parts of the Earth’s orbit a day is not equal to another day. Everyday will not equal exactly 24 hours. So then we actually replaced “time” with the principal for how an atomic clock works. A atomic clock works by measuring the atoms & molecules frequencies of radiation when they are going in 2 energy states. Therefore for a better accountant for time we say that a “second” is in terms of the frequency of a particular pure wavelength of a radiation emitted by atoms. (the frequency of vibration of electromagnetic waves) And like I said before the Earth is not a good accountant for keep track of the time and so we have leap years and all of that so the atomic clock will match up with how it looks outside.

 

Now I know you are asking “Why am I talking about this?” Well I’m talking about this because it connects into one way we could use a black hole as a one-way time machine and would kind of be like Caption Picard wants.

 

We are going to go by a black hole! Of course we have our good old clock with us (more specifically a based one caesium). Now let’s say the radiation from these atoms (caesium) was shot out from the black hole and then using our instruments we recorded them (We are not too near the black hole so the space-time around us is more flattish). So our instruments would read that the atoms have a longer wavelength! In fact this is because of a gravitational redshift (the vibrations of energy go up)!

 

Now let’s take a steep back. If you have read this week’s edition of Star Trek & Physics Weekly we can connect some dots that would tell us that the energy would be a blueshifted (from the other case not the direct variable of the gravitational filed). So we will have shorter and a higher wavelength/frequency in our two case comparison with the redshift and blueshift. So if we look at the light with our clocks we would see that time seems to be going faster outside the universe. (Remember general relativity and casual relations & structure)

 

So the person in the black hole would experience slower time then the observer from a more outside frame of reference. (Of course we could just reason that little fact with general relativity it self) In fact if you traveling around the black hole long enough and in the right way (and making sure you don’t fall in . . . LOL) time would slow down so much that hundreds of years could pass!!!!!! That is if you deep into free fall where you are accelerating around and around the black hole (up to the closet approach). And so on . . .

 

But there is a problem. First of all you need to find a very massive black hole. A regular sized black hole would not really get the job done. As long as you connect to the facts of the redshiftings and the blueshiftings and how they are in the overall connection and not just the casual structure connection of general relativity then I think this whole process seems pretty simple. But like anything there are some more complex ideas out there. And also remember that this is only a one way time machine. If you would like I could talk more about the other ideas.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interresting! However, I ment a black hole being the power source, not the means of travelling... :D

 

What about using matter and anti-matter? Mix the 2 substances in a controlled reaction. This massive and explossive cancellation of each other would then be forced through 3 emitters equally space apart, say on a large metallic ring or something, firring at a center-point, then creating a black hole (or find something else powerful enough to do so), then modify it so it could be a means of time travel, then rip this "hole" in time open large enough for people to travel through.

 

This is simply an idea. Is it at all plausable? :tear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interresting!  However, I ment a black hole being the power source, not the means of travelling... :D

 

What about using matter and anti-matter?  Mix the 2 substances in a controlled reaction.  This massive and explossive cancellation of each other would then be forced through 3 emitters equally space apart, say on a large metallic ring or something, firring at a center-point, then creating a black hole (or find something else powerful enough to do so), then modify it so it could be a means of time travel, then rip this "hole" in time open large enough for people to travel through.

 

This is simply an idea.  Is it at all plausable? :tear:

Well again I think you need to separate science fiction and fact.

 

Truthfully (and no offensive indented) what you said is almost gibberish and more in the lines of science fiction because it is maladapted (not completely but to a degree).

 

And if you want a black hole to time travel with why not just go to one and then use it as a time machine? Or go to a star that that will have its next stage or evolution become a black hole and try to speed up the process?

 

Like I said there are easier ways them making a black hole.

 

And like I said to have a good one it would have to be a very super massive (like I said in my above post) and I don’t think we could possibly do that conventionally using the means you suggested or something along those lines.

 

When I have some more free time we could expand on the idea of a mini black hole or something to that nature which is much more open to discussion then creating a very large one. Or how a regular one forms . . . . . .

And we can talk about things along the lines of exotic energy (“negative” energy) and things to that nature, but that would have to be for another day. (of course we would tie that into time traveling and black holes / wormholes / . . .)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm writing a time travel trilogy called FUTURE'S END.

 

In the story, there's a time machine called a "timegate" Basically, it has 3 emitters equally spaced apart that fire at the center of the gate, creating such tremendous force, that a "hole" is ripped in space time, almost like a black hole, only microscopic. The gate then fires a quick burst from the 3 emitters, shifting the "hole" to a temporal rift, the gate then pulls it open into a full temporal rift, ready for time travel.

 

Now, put science aside for a moment.

 

If you had the right technology, would that be possible to create a temporal rift?

 

I mean... forcing the right form of matter from 3 directions into a center point, thus creating a tear in space time, then shooting that tear with a specified type of energy, then using a specialized field to pull it open?

 

Don't worry about offending me. If I'm completely off, please tell me. :tear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm writing a time travel trilogy called FUTURE'S END.

 

In the story, there's a time machine called a "timegate"  Basically, it has 3 emitters equally spaced apart that fire at the center of the gate, creating such tremendous force, that a "hole" is ripped in space time, almost like a black hole, only microscopic.  The gate then fires a quick burst from the 3 emitters, shifting the "hole" to a temporal rift, the gate then pulls it open into a full temporal rift, ready for time travel.

 

Now, put science aside for a moment.

 

If you had the right technology, would that be possible to create a temporal rift?

 

I mean...  forcing the right form of matter from 3 directions into a center point, thus creating a tear in space time, then shooting that tear with a specified type of energy, then using a specialized field to pull it open?

 

Don't worry about offending me.  If I'm completely off, please tell me. :blink:

Anything’s possible (especially in a novel) so if you want to work off that then that’s fine the only thing that really manners is what you want (or if you publish it what your publishers want)

 

I actually helped (just a little bit, not that much in an overall sense) with someone who is writing a ST novel and is still in the progress of doing so. I told him science fiction should be kept science fiction as long as it has some parallels to reality. {And his book is coming off great from what I hear. I only have read parts of it trying to help on some of the science, but it seems great! It most definitely will be published!}

 

At this point I can’t really offer any major suggestions because you have not really defined your system

 

But if there is every anything specific, then I would be more then happy to give you a hand when I have some free time.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm writing a time travel trilogy called FUTURE'S END.

 

In the story, there's a time machine called a "timegate"  Basically, it has 3 emitters equally spaced apart that fire at the center of the gate, creating such tremendous force, that a "hole" is ripped in space time, almost like a black hole, only microscopic.  The gate then fires a quick burst from the 3 emitters, shifting the "hole" to a temporal rift, the gate then pulls it open into a full temporal rift, ready for time travel.

 

Now, put science aside for a moment.

 

If you had the right technology, would that be possible to create a temporal rift?

 

I mean...  forcing the right form of matter from 3 directions into a center point, thus creating a tear in space time, then shooting that tear with a specified type of energy, then using a specialized field to pull it open?

 

Don't worry about offending me.  If I'm completely off, please tell me. :blink:

Captain Jean-Luc Picard, I believe you are mistaken about the differences between black holes and Temporal/Spatial Rifts. A black hole is not really a hole and it is not a tear in space. A black hole tremendously bends space with its powerful gravity. A rift is something far more powerful. A rift is where the very fabric of space tears. The time machine you are talking about is diffidently possible in SCI-FI, and may be possible in real life. We need to know if space can truly be torn. Space might not be a substance, and time might not really exist! If this is true - all this is false. More experiments are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would not say that time does not exist.

 

It is nature’s way from preventing everything from happening at once. Frame of reference and all of that could be argued and pulled out of portions to make it seem that way (in saying that it does not exist) and I could think of a few ways someone might do that, but even with that . . . we are relevant with our frame of reference (of course I’m not defending a Newtonian view or a classical physics view of absolute motion or I’m not using that as a main frame of reference because absolute motion does not exist in the first place) . . . but if it is relevant to our frame that it is relevant to other perspectives . . . . all the way to that fact that mass creates gravity to electrodynamics of moving bodies (well as you know with mass and energy can be transformed which is a great connection with the electrodynamics of moving bodies to our great general relativity friend creating a nice loop or chain to fit it all together). And so on (I don't want to go on and on if I don't have to) Time is the 4th d

 

 

But you can use a black hole to your advantage when we look at our red shifting effects and blue shifting effects when referring to things like quantum gravity. But we are talking about supermassive one. They are the only ones that will do.

 

If I personally wanted to create a novel about time traveling, then I would use a mini-wormhole it will give us problems but even with laws of quantum gravity I think in the way way future you could find a way around the rules even in something as rand. as the quantum dance (But you can use something like a black hole)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I would not say that time does not exist.

 

It is nature’s way from preventing everything from happening at once. Frame of reference and all of that could be argued and pulled out of portions to make it seem that way (in saying that it does not exist) and I could think of a few ways someone might do that, but even with that . . . we are relevant with our frame of reference (of course I’m not defending a Newtonian view or a classical physics view of absolute motion or I’m not using that as a main frame of reference because absolute motion does not exist in the first place) . . . but if it is relevant to our frame that it is relevant to other perspectives . . .  . all the way to that fact that mass creates gravity to electrodynamics of moving bodies (well as you know with mass and energy can be transformed which is a great connection with the electrodynamics of moving bodies to our great general relativity friend creating a nice loop or chain to fit it all together).  And so on (I don't want to go on and on if I don't have to) Time is the 4th d

What??? I didn't understand what you're saying there! Can you be clearer on why you think time exists. (also - I mean by existing as something that can be directly modified)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I would not say that time does not exist.

 

It is nature’s way from preventing everything from happening at once. Frame of reference and all of that could be argued and pulled out of portions to make it seem that way (in saying that it does not exist) and I could think of a few ways someone might do that, but even with that . . . we are relevant with our frame of reference (of course I’m not defending a Newtonian view or a classical physics view of absolute motion or I’m not using that as a main frame of reference because absolute motion does not exist in the first place) . . . but if it is relevant to our frame that it is relevant to other perspectives . . .  . all the way to that fact that mass creates gravity to electrodynamics of moving bodies (well as you know with mass and energy can be transformed which is a great connection with the electrodynamics of moving bodies to our great general relativity friend creating a nice loop or chain to fit it all together).  And so on (I don't want to go on and on if I don't have to) Time is the 4th d

What??? I didn't understand what you're saying there! Can you be clearer on why you think time exists. (also - I mean by existing as something that can be directly modified)

I’m sorry that I did not expand on what I said, but I will here a little bit.

 

First of all you have to know that time is not just some kind of illusion. It flows (just not how Newton saw it). If I look at an object it has length, width, height, . . . it is not some kind of illusion. I could classify many things as some kind of illusion. All the way back to the debate of “I or we” as in if someone is the sole creator of the universe and they perceive it completely individually from someone else in the sense of not of ideas, but of personal or individual reality. But that’s a philosophical discussion and one that I’m not here to go on and on about. I’m talking about real science here . . . real physics.

 

Time exists and even if no one knew about something like relativity it still should exist to someone’s eye. If we just look at time as completely linear (which of course it is not), then we can say time is a passage or moment at which something takes place.

 

In fact it is dimension which enables two (same) events to happen at some point in space (of course at the same location) to be verified and measured by intervals between the events. When relativity kicks in we see it as a dimension (“the fourth dimension”).

 

Let’s expand on the issue that

 

In fact it is dimension which enables two (same) events to happen at some point in space (of course at the same location) to be verified and measured by intervals between the events

 

From what we know in relativity and such that simultaneity occurs (where an event that occurs can occur at different times from different frames of reference) and that if we can connect the dots we can build the idea of a space-time cone. That gives us this dimension! That gives us this whole perception that one time is not a absolute. So the classical Newtonian Physics of absolute motion is wrong, but of course you can’t {because we are talking about a billionth of a decimal off} tell the difference between the #s when we talk about the difference between a relativistic look and a classical look. As you probably know the beta factor will not see the light of day light until we reach c in the electrodynamics of a moving body.

 

One of the main points is the building up to an idea of the space-time cone. From that space-time cone and working down (or up to that) it is partly the idea of simultaneity and time dilations. But something like a time dilation is not an illusion. That’s way off to think other wise.

 

Let’s look at talk about the classics! Let’s say that A saw lightning and during that time A saw B (lets pretend that A and B are two people). Now lets turn our light bulbs on (LOL) and be ‘relativistics’. So A experiences such a behaviour of B as brings the behaviour of B into relation with its own experience . . . (as A/B say “it is lightning in the sky!”) . . . A associates with B saying “it is lightning in the sky!”. When they say that to each other (/experience that and so on) we can definitely say that “it is lightning!” is not an exclusive personal experience, but as an experience of the other persons. The fact is that we have to interpret that “it is lightning!” which originally entered into the consciousness of an “experience” is now seems as an objective event.

 

It’s the sum total of all events that we ‘mean’ when we speak of the world around us. We talk about our temporal arrangement our events! So if beta is later then alpha and gamma later than beta, then as you can see gamma is also later than alpha. We have a sequence of experiences! I guess by first sight someone can say that a temporal arrangement of events exists which agrees with the overall temporal arrangement of experiences. This ties back into that philosophical point, but now we are throwing in a non-Euclidean look!

 

During a build up process to understand something like relativity and to understand time to its greatest you have to tie in the concept to space. Making it a variable not some kind of illusion!

 

But as I go on and on about time connecting with space and so forth and trying to show that “time” is not a illusion is the building up to the central role in special relativity of the electrodynamics of moving bodies.

 

Ok

So as you know space is 3D (x,y,z), but knowing to Lorentz / special relativity transformations (and our connection to beta) is that when a body moves its co-systems get transformed also (hey its not Euclidean! LOL)! By this means we can build up to that we can describe something that is at rest by the means of the regular and ordinary (x, y, z) and that there is indefinite # of points in the area of this one, the position of which can be described by co-ordinates (x1 {x sub 1}, y1, z1).

 

From Minkowksi (I think that’s how you spell it. Is it xeroc?) and the build up from people like Lorentz of beta that this requires and results in time dilations when we look into something as the electrodynamics of moving bodies. So we have four co-ordinates. I underline co-ordinates because this is not just some abstract variable just like when we talk about independent and dependent variables directly or indirectly (even thought they are mostly not). So we have x, y, z, and t and do we have x1, y1, z1, and t1.

 

Lets connect some dots and make what I said have meaning (of course I skipped a lot, but I think you know what I skipped and you probably known this already) . . . The co-ordinates x1, y1 , z1, t1 differ by an indefinitely small amount from regular x, y, z, t when dealing with speeds not close to c, but when we moving into something close then they become apparent. And without going into depth of the co-ordinate systems and equations t has its dilation to t prime (t’)! So this is in fact the reason that simultaneity occurs because t goes to t prime and so fourth . . . . . with having dilations and of course they all go back to the systems of co-ordinates (x1, y1, z1, t1 . . . . x, y, z, t). . . . They connect! In a grand loop! No illusion! Reality!

 

And if time travel is possible it would actually come down to simultaneity (and that of course ties into everything else I said)

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhhh...that was still pretty confusing, but I think I get your point(s).

 

What, however, is keeping time from being just a convienent thing that we made up. I'm not saying all that stuff about time cones and simultaneity etc. doesn't still pertain.

 

Velocity (similar to speed) is equal to distance/time, right? So, couldn't we re-write it as: time = distance/velocity? Then that means that time is a convienent way of relating velocity to distance!

 

This means, in a time dialation, instead of having time itself moving slower, all the particles just move slower!

 

Is there something wrong with this idea? I read somewhere this was a viable hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhhh...that was still pretty confusing, but I think I get your point(s).

 

What, however, is keeping time from being just a convienent thing that we made up.  I'm not saying all that stuff about time cones and simultaneity etc.  doesn't still pertain.

 

Velocity (similar to speed) is equal to distance/time, right?  So, couldn't we re-write it as: time = distance/velocity?  Then that means that time is a convienent way of relating velocity to distance!

 

This means, in a time dialation, instead of having time itself moving slower, all the particles just move slower!

 

Is there something wrong with this idea?  I read somewhere this was a viable hypothesis.

Yeah it is confusing, but that’s relativity for you (and sorry to say I’m going to go into a bit more detail and so it will be more complex)

 

 

No I don’t think that it is a good argument.. Math is not the answer for everything in the sense and only in the sense of understanding certain concepts. The math is describing the terms it is not the other way around.

 

Using that kind of logic it would be like saying c = (e/m)^.5, but c is really just a constant (in the equation it self not that c means ‘constant’ . . . . like when we add a constant term during each series / sequence or in a function . . . ) and that does not really tell you what c means in an overall perspective. So you can’t use that as an argument in this case.

 

And using that kind of logic I could mess up derivates in physics/calc (like if you have a position vs time graph and we have a curve that is increasing and an increasing rate. If we take that same line and look at its derivate so we see a velocity vs time graph we then get a linear line in m/s and if we take another derivate we get a acceleration vs time graph where we get a constant line because we have constant acceleration . . . . ) messing up those would . . . well never mind you get my point

 

But the point is that if delta v = delta distance over delta time just because you solve for another variable does suggest something that you are suggesting. All that that is saying that the if delta v equals such in such and delta distance then time must be such in such. That’s all! No time traveling there (well I know you that at least) or shattering to our understandings of time.

 

The systems of co-ordinates by them self suggest that it is time

You can’t just flip the variables around and say “its speed!” or “its positive/negative acceleration!”. Like if point A in space there is a clock and an observer at A that can determine the time values of events of A by looking at the clock hands (which of course are simultaneous with the events in question). There is also a point at B of space with another clock. It in fact is possible for an observer at B to find the time values of events in the immediate area of B, but you can’t compare it without other and future data. Because we have not defined a common time for A and B we can’t define it! There has to be a solid definition that the time required by light to travel from point A to point B equals the time it requires traveling from B to A. So if we apply that we can say that a ray of light that starts at the “A time” t sub a, from A towards B, “B time” tb which is reflected at B in the direction of A, and will arrive again at A (“A time”) at t’a.

 

(I’ll just put a bit of math . . . the easy stuff)

So from that and by connecting the dots more

 

tb - ta = t’a - tb

And also and not to go over board in making a big report (I don’t feel like doing that at the moment) is that

(2AB)/(t’a – ta) = c

 

And the thing about this is that light is a constant and we know that light will NOT go slower and as a result time is still valid in this case and that time is the one that is slowing down and not the light ray.

 

So just that takes what you said off the bat and it goes away.

 

So that proves otherwise to the statement “This means, in a time dialation, instead of having time itself moving slower, all the particles just move slower”

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm reading something wrong or missing something, but that was still really confusing. :blink:

 

So maybe the math wasn't the best example.

 

Unless I remember relativity wrong, it said there is no such thing as two events being simultaneous. Since it all depends on frame of refrence - one person may say the events are simultaneous while another observer says they're not! Doesn't that argument istelf sort of defeat time being an absolute dimension - there would have to be an absolute time!

 

 

And the thing about this is that light is a constant and we know that light will NOT go slower and as a result time is still valid in this case and that time is the one that is slowing down and not the light ray.

 

So just that takes what you said off the bat and it goes away.

 

So that proves otherwise to the statement “This means, in a time dialation, instead of having time itself moving slower, all the particles just move slower”

What??? How does that prove that the particles are not moving slower???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I just read this entire board in one sitting. I think my head is going to explode. I always thought of myself as really intelligent, until now. I feel really stupid, I did not follow most, oh forget it, any of that.

 

 

LMAO

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time travel to the future would also have to be possible if travel to the past was, because time would have to be understood as a constant; which means that all of time past, present and future exists all at once. :o

 

Ktrek

WOW WOW WOW. too many brains in this subject. now to what ive seen in a movie before, and thought of as well. i beleive that if time travel became possible that one could only travel into the past and back where he came from. the thought. the past happened already so you know where, how, and when you can go back. but the future is everchanging. didnt happen yet. so how can you go into the future if it didnt happen yet. even if you wanted to beleive you could, lets say you went 1 year into the future. you seen how it was, what has happened, and so on. then came back to the exact time you left, and one year passed on without you traveling into it. the probability that it would be entirely different than the future you had seen a year ago is very high. because if the furture is always the future, and your always in the present, you cant control everything around you that affects the future. so i really dont see how future travel is possible in theory, but going back to see what has happened, i can. does this make sense to anyone of you EINSTIENS out there. if so or not let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I fully understand that it is confusing. It really takes a few looks at before you can really absorb any of it. For some reason relativity comes easily for me (of course there are other topics in physics that don’t come as easily).

 

But it is true that it is all about frame of reference for simultaneity (well almost LOL). From one frame of reference this might occur first and from a different frame of reference this might occur first . . . . . . simultaneity! Let’s try not to stretch that out of proportions.

 

Well that little theatrical experiment (which of course is 100% true and in fact is a classical look into relativity) is by using light as an advantage.

 

From Einstein we know that light is a constant (well of course there’s other ideas out there that says c has changed and has not always been equal to 3.0 x 10^8 but that’s another story and for another discussion / issue).

 

We know that one the velocity of light does not get affected by the motion of the object that emits the light and two that the velocity of light remains the same (or constant) in any frame of reference. This in fact is the key to the experiment that I was talking about. Because light is a constant according to special relativity it is the only (to quote a phrase) “absolute” that we can use in any of the frames of reference. So from each frame of reference c is the same and can be used as a guide.

 

Now take that guide (the speed of light) and turn that into your advantage! If you turn that into your advantage, then that would be help us a lot. And in fact what I was referring to was by using this ‘guide’ and knowing that it is some form of an ‘absolute’ to prove that the light that is traveling in this does not get effected in the overall results of the experiment.

 

One of which we and deduce that

tB - tA = t’A - tB

(two clocks synchronized)

 

So expand on the idea of the ray of light that starts from the “A time” t sub a, (from A towards B ), “B time” tb that is reflected at B in the direction of A, will then arrive again at A (“A time”) at t’ a. This is of course uses the co-ordinate systems of (x, y, z, t) and (x1, y1, z1, t1).

 

We have to have time defined by manes of the stationary clocks (in there stationary system of course) and so in this case we would define it as the stationary system in our theoretical experiment. In our experiment c would of course remained constant and because that was our only real test we had a template. For one we have our clocks and two we had c (as the ‘template’). The beta factor tells (and in simple terms . . . I’m just giving the basic idea of) us and shows us the difference between classical physics and relativity. (It was first used to try to show some difference in what classical physics predictions were and what happened in an experiment called the Michelson’s Morely experiment, but let’s leave a long story short). Ok anyways (sorry I’m tired so forgive me and my brain is freezing a bit) . . . . if what you said was true (or if anyone), then it would force in the central perspective that light would adapt to its co-ordinates (constant or not the co-ordinates stay just like you don’t just move the x axis to the y . . . it just would not make any logical sense to do so and if by some chance that it just takes something just moves slower and slower and time does not exist, then the co-ordinate system in this would have to transform or hinder the results. Just like in topology if I have a ball in space and then make just one axis out of a standard #ings then the ball dimensions would change! Like if I stretched the x axis then it would look like a football. It is the same exact thing here and the reason why your last statement was false).

 

And it is kind of funny that the idea of it moving slower and slower *kind* of parallels to that one paradox I was talking about in this topic before. (Like I said it *kind* of parallels . . . I know that there are major differences) But even thought they are major differences the negative acceleration would have to be parallel to the beta factor and its systems of co-ordinates. And again if the co-ordinates were really the result from what your statement said, then it would have deformed the light movement and it does not. So even that throws it away.

 

Don’t you just love physics? LOL

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I haven't read all the posts, since there are so many.. But i have a quick question..

 

I might just remeber this incorrectly.. But isn't time just something that depens on velocity..

 

For example, we age at a certain velocity and live about 70-80 years because earth rotates at a certain velocity.. And if that velocity would increase to light speed, than time (as we know it) would be standing still..

 

So if, for instance, a man travels in the speed of light to the nearest star, wich still is a long way, he would be able to return in his lifetime, but when he returns to earth generations of years have past..

 

so if we travel faster then the speed of light, we should be able to reverse time.. or?

I might just be remembering it wrong :bow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I haven't read all the posts, since there are so many.. But i have a quick question..

 

I might just remeber this incorrectly.. But isn't time just something that depens on velocity..

 

For example, we age at a certain velocity and live about 70-80 years because earth rotates at a certain velocity.. And if that velocity would increase to light speed, than time (as we know it) would be standing still..

 

So if, for instance, a man travels in the speed of light to the nearest star, wich still is a long way, he would be able to return in his lifetime, but when he returns to earth generations of years have past..

 

so if we travel faster then the speed of light, we should be able to reverse time.. or?

I might just be remembering it wrong :bow:

Basically and to keep it brief (don’t worry I won’t go on about co-ordinates) is that special relativity says the following

 

Time Goes Slower When You Go Faster

 

Time Goes Faster When You Go Slower

 

So it is true if I was traveling close to the speed of light, then time would be going slower compared to an observer and all of that.

 

But when it comes down to gravity and something like a planet (and its gravity) then we are talking about general relativity, but it is true in the contents that you were talking about a faster Earth, time would therefore go slower.

 

But you can’t go faster then light or equal to it. It is impossible according to special relativity. So it is an impossibility to even consider time going backwards as you go faster then light. (There has been ideas ranging on sending a message faster then light to send a message back in time, but that’s another story . . . but I would be more then happy to elaborator on it)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok master_q i joined here after reading your post's.......your a freakin genius :o , so plz answer these 2 questions of mine that are killin me:

 

1. we can not travel fast as light coz of our mass and the faster u travel the more your mass increases and the more mass the more power required to move it so 2 travel at the spped of light u need infinte energy (i think), so if we do get a infinite source of power will we be able 2 travell fast as light, or if we create some sort of feild around us which nulls our mass?

 

 

2. THE MOST IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!, i hear all these thing that theoretically happen when u travel at the speed of light, i.e. time slows down, my question is that this happen to light itself?

 

thxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll be more then happy to try to answer your questions.

 

Well first I’ll answer the second question because it's really an important factor in understanding relativity. In equations like “e=mc^2” the variable ‘c’ is considered the speed of light in a vacuum (3.0 x 10^8 m/s). Light is considered a true constant of the universe and therefore the variable is “c” for constant. It is considered a constant because from any frame of reference the speed of light will always, in a vacuum, be 3.0 x 10^8 m/s.

 

The velocity of light does not get affected by the motion of the object that emits the light.

Pretend that a Federation Starship is standing still and shoots out a beam of light. Also pretend that another Federation Starship is moving and also shoots out a beam of light. Both beams of light would be going the same speed! Before relativity it would have been thought that the speed of light would be going faster, then the ship not moving. It was thought that if you added the speed (in this case) of the ship and that of the speed of light that is shot from a source that is not moving, then you would get the actual speed of light in a case like this.

 

The velocity of light remains the same (or constant) in any frame of reference (or from any observer).

One experiment that was conducted before relativity even existed was called the Michelson-Morley Experiment. When people performed this experiment scientists were trying to figure out how fast the Earth was moving relative to the sun, but when conducting the experiment it seemed to say that the Earth had zero velocity. This experiment actually showed that the speed of light © does not change. Before this experiment was done it was thought that both beams would be going at different speeds according to classical physics. The velocity of Earth plus that of the sun (and with other variables) might give you the total velocity of the Earth, but when they did the experiment the velocity came out to be zero. They thought this because by applying the logic of the mathematics (or additions) of the velocities. This also ties into my last paragraph.

 

Knowing that . . . . the speed of light from an observer that is moving close to the speed of light would still see light (if it’s the speed of it or something to that nature) the same.

 

However, there is an interesting thing that also happens as a transformation. Length detracts the closer and closer you go to that of the speed of light.

 

For the second question that really brings me to Star Trek it self! One of the neat things about ST to me is its integration with technology and science (of course ST is not perfect, but there are several things that ST tries to get right). To try to get rid of gaining mass or anything to that nature somewhat parallels with ST because of its use of subspace; the compression of space and time. And that in fact goes into general relativity. It uses general relativity to get around special relativity limitations! But to create something of ‘infinity’ really could not be reached. We could reach a large finite # (a # that is not infinity) and do something like ST. But it seems that we have a long way to go until we can really reach anything to the magnitude of the ST Universe

 

 

I hope that I helped you a bit or at least get you on the right track!

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is an interesting topic but way out of my league. However I have had a couple of questions if anyone cares to respond. (the math part eludes me)

 

1. Wormholes - at least in the SciFi world generally connect distances - you can go from point A to point B without passage of time. Does this mean if a person from a distant galaxy took a wormhole to Earth and looked back at their galaxy they would be looking at their own history ie the light from their galaxy? If I understand the previous posts then - points A and B could be points in time rather points in space. So in other words they transverse time rather than space and stay in the original location?

 

2. The passage of time slows the faster you approach the speed of light. If it were possible to travel the speed of light does the mean time would "stand still". I understand it is theoretically impossible to travel faster than the speed of light but in theory would doing so take you forward in time or backward in time.

 

3. Does time exist independent of an observer?

 

4. I've heard that space was curved - is this a function of velocity or just a characteristic of space. If it were possible to continue in the same direction for a sufficient length of time would you end up back where you started. If this is so does that still mean space is infinite?

 

5. I'm curious about the backgrounds represented here. Are you physicists or mathematicians; academia or private industry. Just general info if you want to share.

 

6. When Mr. Paris achieved Warp 10 in an episode of VOY did that mean he had achieved the speed of light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Wormholes are not timeless, they are just shortcuts. Like if you are traveling from point A to B, a womhole is a shorter distance path.

 

2. At the speed of light = time would stand still. Faster than the speed of light there are many theories - like tachyons - they are created traveling faster than the speed of light and as the gain energy they slow down!

 

3. It is still being debated about what time really is.

 

4. Again, many thories, but if the most popular theory were true (of a 4-D sphere being are universe) then yes, ytou would end of where you started. Think of it as traveling on a balloon (yet +1 dimension), it is "boundless" yet not infinite.

 

5. I won't really say much, but I am involved with Quantum Physics.

 

6. IMO - That episode was REALLY bogus. :laugh: He had supposedly achevied infinite velocity. Warp 1 is the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of what I'm saying goes off and expands on certain issues so I wont just be repeating things that have been stated before

 

1. (Besides just repeating what has been stated . . . )

Theoretically if you entered a wormhole you might enter and then exit to the future at a certain point in space-time according the general relativity. You also might enter and exit to the past. Or there might be no delay. (So if you successfully entered one you would travel to the end point at the very same second, there might be a time delay, or you might be already there)

 

2. To a certain degree and is often a major misconception on special relativity . . . .is that some people figured that if you somehow went faster then light time would be then going back words. But the reasoning of such is really based on the fact that imaginary #s come out of the equations. However, you can’t go faster then light. (There are counters to that like sending a beam using quantum tunneling, but that’s another story).

 

3. Well time is really not debated in the overall sense, but it is still a big unknown. No one can really say what it is. I always think of it as the thing in nature that prevents everything from happening at once. Newton always thought of it as a flow and thought of it as an absolute. But in reality it is not an absolute.

 

However your question can be answered. In the contents of your question there really is no debate! An independent thing is considered the input of an event or equation and a dependent is considered an output of an event or equation. Because time can’t be in nature controlled in relativity (besides changing the inputs) and because it is an output it is a dependent on the variables of space-time and the electrodynamics of the motion of an object.

 

But please know when I looked at your question I’m just looking it as a whole system and not going into anything else. (As in the co-ordinate system)

 

4.

is this a function of velocity or just a characteristic of space

Both in a way. If I’m going at a high velocity close to c, then I have more mass and so there is a greater dent in space-time. Space is bent because of gravity. (Gravity is given off by any object with mass)

 

And like Xeroc said there are ideas that the universe it self is just a hyper-sphere . . . .

 

5. I do research focusing on kinematical statistics in physics.

 

6. I never saw that episode (so I can’t give good input)

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this