Physicists Claim Time Travel Is Impossible (This Time, They Mean It)
from the in-case-you-were-hoping... dept
Discussing the physics of time travel has come into vogue recently. Even Stephen Hawking -- who admitted he used to fear being labeled a "crank," if he discussed the physics of how time travel might be possible -- has explained how time travel might work (and revealed his desire to go back in time to see Galileo... and Marilyn Monroe). However, some new research states what most of you probably already thought: time travel is a physical impossibility. While I agree that seems likely, I have to admit that I'm a bit amused that the LA Times article about this seems to assume that because it's in a "peer-reviewed scientific journal," that makes it the unquestioned truth. And, while I, once again, tend to agree that it's likely that time travel is impossible, there have been plenty of other things declared impossible by scientists that later proved possible. Remember, Lord Kelvin declared "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," just eight short years before he was proven wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: physics, time travel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Science of Today
Doesn't mean a pile of dog crap for Tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science of Today
No - if you read the article they demonstrate some fairly obscure stuff about the speed of photons - which happens to close off one particular mechanism - no-one in the proper articles said time travel was impossible in general - just his one route.
What they are doing here is to try and get greater impact for a fairly dull and obscure research program.
If you want a respectable (sort of) physicist who thinks time travel might be possible you should try Holger Nielsen!
ps if you ever get to meet him = or attend one of his public lectures a pair of earplugs is advised!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Science of Today
I disagree. This research is fascinating -- which is not to say that it's correct or incorrect, but it's certainly interesting.
Contrast with "trending now" on Yahoo: Kim Kardashian, Mila Kunis, Mike Tyson. Drivel and dreck, utterly worthless celebrity worship, gossip and rumor.
My point is that we live in a culture which has devalued exploration, mystery, wonder, enlightenment, learning, discovery...in favor of Jersey Shore, American Idol, and The View. No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Yeah, 'cause the Chinese are so well-known for their wonder and enlightenment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Bring back the cold war! Everyone was working then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
if you forget things !!!
Papermaking, compass, gunpowder and printing, astronomy, argriculture, engineering, nautics,
Paper money
Fire Lance
Land Mine
Rockets
the Rudder (for steering ships)
Abacus
higher math
metal working and creation
the plow
medicine
printing and paper I guess are the biggies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
can't remember if the Internet was a US thing or a joint US/other countries thing.
the US does have a long history of nicking other people's ideas and turning them into useful things though. (you know, that thing patents are designed to stop you doing?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Science of Today
Mean while could some explain to me is time digital or analog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_dualit y
Caveat: not a pshysicist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Remember, matter and energy are the same thing, E=MC squared.
Since light itself exhibits both particle and wave traits there must be a matter/energy state that is in between where the photon can exhibit traits of both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Saying they are "both" strictly implies a set of properties which includes all of the properties found in both particles and waves, which can actually be conflicting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Water is comprised of discreet particles, H2O molecules.
But, water exhibits wave behavior as well.
So, which is it wave or particle?
It may be that everything is comprised of particles but it is my belief that both particles and energy are merely observed states of the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
"So, which is it wave or particle?"
Water? It's a particle. Individual water molecules do not exhibit wavelike properties, the way individual photons do. Photons have associated probability waves that describe the probability of their location at every point in the universe. The probability waves of individual photons can interfere with those of other individual photons, creating interference patterns that could not otherwise exist (wavelike property), while still existing at a specific point when directly observed (particle property).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
yes they do,
and in exactly the same way, you can have a particle of water that acts like an individual molocule, or atom, and you can have many water particles acting as a wave.
You have never seen a wave in water ? you need to get out more.
It's not only photons that have this duality of wave and particle at the same time, matter does this as well !!
exactly as light does, you can perform the double slit experiment with photons of light, electronics or individual atoms and you will see the wave effect and therefore the wave/particle duality.
The fact there is interference that occurs on the target, not in one of the two slits, means that the photon or atom passes through both slits at the same time, and interferes with itself.
so you fire a single (ONE) photon at two slits, that ONE photon travels through BOTH slits at the same time, which means two photons are passing through the two seperate slits, (when you only sent one in the first place), those two photons then interact with each other to create an interference pattern.
all matter and light have the same wave/particle duality.
as matter cannot travel at the speed of light, it is not speed that determines this duality.
Its not "science of today" its science, it's the same science today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Yes, I've seen waves in water. Those happen because trillions of molecules are acting together; it's a fundamentally different discussion than the behavior of individual particles, atoms, etc. As for testing molecules in the double slit experiment, give it a try, see what happens. You're correct that it's theoretically possible, but a molecule, or even a single atom, is a vastly complex system, with numerous probability waves to account for, compared to the simplicity of a single particle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
I tend to agree with you, but what is a 'probability wave function'? to me its just a name, the effect observed is that the photon appears to pass through both slits.
If the photon does not have a descrete location, then by definition it must be in many locations (as shown in double slit), so if it does not have a descrete location then it's location is more than one, as you probably know quantum theory shows that the same photon of light travels ALL possible paths, but the first one to arrive destroys the rest of them.
And it can be shown to be a physical reality that this occures and that nature uses this multiple path's thing.
Photosynthesis, is a highly efficient process, over 95% using classical physics it is not possible to achieve this efficiency. But if quantum tunneling is included it matches perfectly.
Plants have learnt to use the particle/wave and no specifc known path of travel to acheive the very high efficienies that are measured.
but thanks for your input, you have a clear picture of what is happening, (with the appropriate degree of uncertainty).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
This is fairly well proven as part of the theoretical basis for quantum physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
Einstein was not that big on quantum theory stating something like "god does not play dice".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
"Stop telling God what to do!"
and
"Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded." (admittedly, the latter is from Alpha Centauri :D)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
is there a 'theory of weight ?"
or a theory of length ?
or a 'theory of cheese'
because Newtons laws does not say "theory of gravity" does that make it any less valid ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
^THIS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
There are testable theories, and repeatable theories, and theories that work within specific limits. But there is no such thing nor will there ever be a 'proven' theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science of Today
There are testable theories, and repeatable theories, and theories that work within specific limits. But there is no such thing nor will there ever be a 'proven' theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Science of Today
What I can never get him to accept is that science is a process. What is thought to be known currently is always subject to revision. Scientists are continually trying to be less ignorant.
And I don't believe it is arrogant to make statements claiming this is how this thing works. That's just the process. A claim is made and others test it's validity.
No one can say for a fact whether or not we can ever figure out how the universe works. Maybe we can. And I don't consider that thought to be arrogant (although it is most definitely ignorant). I'm just trying to limit my assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science of Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once upon a time
Humans will never travel over 50 miles per hour. (in 1700 or so)
Head of Patent Office declares everything possible has been invented. (in 1830-something +- 30 years)
...and so on. I need more coffee before I can begin a good research-fueled rant. Anyhow, generally anytime a bloke claims something is impossible later some other bloke comes along and says "no, it's easy, see?" and that settles it.
Consistently, humans have declared all their forebears idiots and claimed to have the only correct view upon the universe. In a century or so, our descendants will declare us to be idiots and claim they have the correct view of the universe. Odds are, we're wrong in both statements--our ancestors weren't idiots and our view of the universe is FAR from complete. The same will likely be true in a century and in a millennium.
Nothing is impossible; it's all just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once upon a time
That of course includes the statement that you just made (the one that said you can't predict that something will be impossible).
More seriously - we forget the predictions that turned out right - we make a big thing of the failures. The problem is that from here it is impossible to tell which is which and in general the ones that lots of people want to be wrong turn out to be right whilst the ones that everyone thought were obviously right are the ones that turn out to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once upon a time = "in the begining"
If you are on the ISS or the space shuttle (if you had one) you time would go faster compared to someone on earth.
Therefore we see the people in the space station going forward in time FASTER, therefore they see out passage through time as going slower.
To them, he have traveled back in time, to us they have traveled forward in time.
Time travel backwards is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Once upon a time = "in the begining"
Therefore we see the people in the space station going forward in time FASTER, therefore they see out passage through time as going slower.
You're saying time moves slower for the people on the space shuttle. This is true, but I don't think that's what most people think "backwards" means.
Time can not move in a "reverse" direction. You can never go into the past, just change the rate at which you're going into the future.
At least according to these scientists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Once upon a time = "in the begining"
they have gone back in time, and are re-living their past, relative to ours.
so if you started at 1pm and went fast enough to gain 1 second of time and you stopped after 1 hour (your time), you would return at 1:59pm, and you have traveled back in time 1 second.
Because your watch says 2:00pm, but the 'real' time is 1:59pm, you have travelled back in time. and you can 're-live' that second you get to travel back in time to the past.
Just because it 'takes more' forward time to travel back in time does not mean travelling back in time is impossible, or even difficult, it just means it's relative.
you cannot arrive before you leave, but you can arrive before you are supposed to arrive before (the) time.
so what you arrive at 1:59pm instead of 2:00pm, you have arrived before the time that it is possible for you to arrive, before the time, is another way of saying 'in the past'.
therefore time travel, either forward or backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once upon a time
> Head of Patent Office declares everything ...has been invented.
You left off one . . .
RIAA says business innovation in music is a physical impossibility. Must stick with the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But since they haven't changed their statement then that means time travel is impossible.
Peer review that shit, I win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you tried to order parts for a DeLorean DMC-12 lately? Space exploration would be cheaper.
Not to mention the cost of flux capacitors today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently the REAL reason plutonium isn't commonly sold is because people would use it for time travel. Back to trying to harness lighting I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: keiichi969 on Jul 26th, 2011 @ 7:41am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothings impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothings impossible
Are you saying that one cannot create a perfect vacuum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothings impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothings impossible
"Acceleration on earth isn't 9.81 m/s^2" Oh noes!
Obviously that isn't a negative... using math you can certainly prove it. Being lazy I didn't read the article, but I assume they did something with math...
A negative statement is more along the lines of "Bigfoot doesn't exist" - i.e. no one's seen him, so you make a conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Challenge Accepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
The whole claim that time travel is flat-out impossible is complete bullshit. We are traveling through time right now, always. GPS satellites have to compensate for the fact that time passes at a different rate in orbit as it does on earth. The LA Times article doesn't even explain why the speed of a photon even matters and how it affects the possibility of time travel. I can only conclude that the article is making a false claim based on the lack of real explanation of why it can't work. The article doesn't say the cited study says time travel can't work. It only states that photons cannot exceed the speed of light. That's not the same thing as "time travel is impossible". If they did find that in the study, they sure don't explain their reasoning in the Times article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
I just re-read the article. I see that their reasoning is that superluminal travel is impossible and, by extension, time travel is impossible. That completely ignores the effects of gravity and speed though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
But as everyone knows, if you go forward in time far enough, the universe starts over, identical to the previous universe. So you just need to travel to the point you want.
Then you can get home again easy enough. Just don't overshoot or you gotta go around the horn again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Travel is possible, just not backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time is but an illusion
This does not negate the possibility of backwards time travel, nor does it negate the possibility of FTL travel. It just means we can't do ether in that specific way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time is but an illusion
Gravity can affect time travel as well. That's why black holes are considered the ultimate time machine, if you can manage to not get sucked into it. The stronger gravity is, the faster you move forward in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
Neither do I, but I think I can point out some things you appear to be misunderstanding.
Space 'moves' faster than light because we can observe two things from a 3rd viewpoint, each moving directly away from the other at near the speed of light. The space between them will grow by the addition of the speeds.
OTOH, if we observe from either one of the objects moving directly away from each other, they will always only observe themselves as moving away from the other object at near the speed of light.
This difference in observation between the 'neutral' observer and the two ships is achieved in lorentz transformations, namely time dilation and space contraction.
What that means, is that no matter how fast I gun the pedal, if that star is 1 light year away, I can arrive no earlier than 1 year after I set off.
BUT, I can gun the pedal REALLY hard, and arrive in what seems to me, to be a single second. Because I perceive the space between the planets as becoming much smaller the more I gun the pedal. That's space contraction.
On the other side, all observers on either planet would observe my ship as taking a year. That's time dilation.
The GPS satellites have to account for relativity & time dilation, yes, to be as precise as they are.
Time doesn't pass differently; it's just the observers disagree on how time is passing.
As it is, unless we can go past that limit that requires infinite energy to even reach, the speed of light, there is no way in the current model to use speed to travel anywhere but forwards in time.
TL;DR: We haven't disproved time travel the same way we haven't disproved, say, ghosts. We HAVE disproved time travel in one way that it seemed it would work within the current model, (superluminal speeds). That being said, there are physicists with other ideas of how time travel could be accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
That's incorrect.
The lorentz transformation is the equivalent of the . . . are they called newtonian transformations? of ordinary relativity.
That is, I have 2 moving objects and an observer. Say, I'm on a train, walking, and I want to know how fast I'm moving relative to the earth, (an observer standing by the train station, say).
Normally, I would add my speed to the trains & voila, very simple.
But if both me and the train are moving near to the speed of light, this is wrong. So instead of adding the speeds, (newtonian), we use a crazy formula, (lorentz).
Now it's about time for a real physicist to come along and correct me again, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
in special relativity you add velocities by the expression
(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2)
so no matter how big v and u are (remember the most they can be is c) the result can never exceed c.
However when you talk about "space" moving I think you must be referring to the expansion of the universe - in which case you definitely need a general realtivity formula - not a special relativity one.
(Yes I'm a proper physicist! - I even gave a seminar with Hawking in the audience once!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
It makes sense to me that the universe can be growing at 'faster than the speed of light', since the universe is more than one entity, and things at opposite sides can be moving at near the speed of light. Is that wrong?
Thanks, Richard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
I was going to reply to some of the earlier posts with something along the lines of: "Well, yes, some earlier pronouncements by people in science were proven wrong. But saying 'You can't exceed C' is along the lines of 'Can't divide by zero'. Or 'You can't violate the Uncertainty Principle - at least without collapsing the Universe'.
Your answer has the benefit of also saying: "You need to do more reading, y'all..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
I believe this was what I was thinking of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
That sounds more like using gravity to change aspects of space near the gravitational field, and not so much like portioning off an area of space.
But y'know, that's well beyond my ken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
The problem with warping space is that it would require prodigious amounts of energy to do it - and again there is no known way of making it happen in a useful way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
It's called "mass"
All matter changes time, the more of it the more it is changed you change time, you change space, as they are one and the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
And under warping space, he does address the energy and utility of current methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
What is "space".... Answer "NOTHING".
Therefore nothing travells faster than light.
if space moved 'faster than light' then light would be travelling backwards !!!! and that could well be the case, and we would never know it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
Or a bullet train with a racecar in it moving forward, and you move from the back seat to the front seat. except bigger with more steps and in a vacuum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
"You can never go faster than the speed of light away from an observer" is more correct.
"You can go never go faster than the speed of light relative to an observer" is most correct, but that involves explaining relativity correctly.
Due to time dilation, if an observer on earth was witnessing you walk on a spaceship going near the speed of light, he would observe you moving very, very slowly. The faster the ship, the slower you would be moving, and no matter how fast you are moving relative to the ship, the observer would observe your speed to be less than the speed of light.
In fact, if the ship was moving, and you are moving down the ship to the captain's seat at exactly the speed of light, the same observer would witness your speed to be exactly the speed of light. The slow-down from witnessing you move on a moving object exactly matches the difference between the movement of the ship and the speed of light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
So your comment about "relative to an observer is very important".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
""
No, he is exactly correct, it is not overly simplistic, your following statments are overly wrong.
does not matter if you are going away from the observer or towards him, you will still never exceed the speed of light.
The speed of light is dependent on the observer, or his 'frame of reference'
You are trying to say that if two observers are travelling towards each other at over half the speed of light the total speed would exceed that of light, it does not.
The reason why it does not is because time changes, instead.
Time is relative, not illusional,
"You can go never go faster than the speed of light relative to an observer" is most correct, but that involves explaining relativity correctly"
Then perhaps you may need someone to explain relativity correctly to you !
Relativity, is just that, it says you can never go faster than the speed of light..... period.
That is WHY time travel is possible..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time is but an illusion
what happens when you shoot a laser pointer out the front windscreen ???? :)
Or look at it from another way, there is NO space, there is ONLY TIME !
When you are travelling at any speed you are travelling in time, but not necessarily space.
If you are travelling at the speed of light, your frame of reference (how you see the passage of time) is the same, you're watch does not appear to be going faster or slower.
From from an outside observer, from a different frame of reference, you're time is zero.
Things out of your window are not going faster, they are going at the same rate they always do, but your time is going slower, so it appears to you (the observer) that things are going faster when you look out the window.
If you are just under the speed of light a second for someone on earth could be billions of years for you on your fast spaceship.
So running from the back of the ship to the front does not make you exceed the speed of light, it makes you appear to be GOING SLOWER from an outside observer, until you are running at the speed of light, then you are STOPPED !!!.
get it ?
So the person in the spaceship is NOT travelling in time at all, but everyone else around him IS.
this is 1950's physics, we live in a quantum world now and it is clear there are far more dimentions that the 3 space and 1 time classic TOR goes too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time is but an illusion
If you were able to exceed the speed of light it would appear (again from your POV) that Effects start to precede the Causes i.e. time in the rest of the universe would appear to be running backwards. In principle, you could then slam the brakes on and be in the past.
As you correctly point out - no-one has believed for decades that time travel using this method was possible - Special Relativity itself predicts that you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
What most physicists (including Stephen Hawking) are betting on as being more likely is the possibility of being able to "warp" spacetime in such a fashion that you could bring a more distant patch of space (or time) closer. You could then travel to it at a speed less that that of light and then let it "snap back" to it's previous position. This would, in theory, allow FTL travel and in certain cases possibly time travel.
Although there are indications that this might be exceedingly difficult (AIUI you need to borrow a massive amount of "vacuum energy" to make it work), it hasn't actually been disproved yet - and it doesn't sound as if this paper even addresses this method of travel.
(Whew, step away from chalkboard David, step away... ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, having said that, I think the way scientists are looking at time travel may be wrong. They're assuming that time is linear. Now, with quantum physics, string theory and the idea of multiple universes/parallel dimensions gaining traction, it could be that time is parallel and not linear.
If these dimensions exist, perhaps it might be possible. But it wouldn't technically be "time" travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of which boils down to the concept of time tavel via wormholes - problem is wormholes destroy themselves by feedback before they can get big enough to travel through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What good is parallel time travel imbecile.. if you merely effected change in another dimension/universe? Do everyone a favor and shut the f-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pfft
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pfft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pfft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pfft
"Sorry, TIMEMACHINE will have been removed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you trying to say there is things that exist that does exist in time ?
Everything travels in time, including time itself.
Nothing also travels in time, including time itself.
As time dilation is ether a part of the everything group or a part of the nothing group it therefore travels in time.
Try going back in space, instead of back in time ?
same thing, its a positive vector (like entropy), you cannot travel 'back' in space either, when you are travelling from one location to another you are always going forward, in whatever direction you are going, you are going forward.
But I guess that will too much for you to get your head around as well :)
When God said "let there be light" before he created the planets or the starts, then what did that light shine on ?
What would of happened when he said that (let there be light) (who too???), NOTHING WOULD OF HAPPENED !!!!
It would still be dark, and there would be no light, no source of light, and no destination for light.
It would have make more logic for him (or her) to say, let there be something that will show up if light hits it, before he created light !!!.
Where was and were is that light now ?, and where did it come from ? and where did it go ?
Even the 'big bang' did not create light first off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s all a ploy to goad scientists into proving time travel is possible.
Before:
1 - Time travel is possible.
2 - Yeah, I guess.
Now:
1 - Time travel is impossible.
2 - Fuck that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems To Me
"A scientist said it, so it must be absolute truth."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems To Me
That doesn't guarantee it is correct. It is just that the scientists' track record and their process gives it a lot more credibility.
Nothing is more exciting or sets off a bigger flurry of scientific activity than someone disproving a well established theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems To Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems To Me
People with at least two brain cells to rub together to produce a thought see through you.
-----
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Jay Gould
But the truth is, Gravity is only a theory. It is not fact. No one can prove an apple will not float up. We can just show that in the trillions of times and apple is let go, it always falls. This is a science fact. Very different from mathematical or logic facts.
Speaking of logic, is it even possible to prove a negative? I mean can anyone here even prove I don;t have a live mermaid in my pool? I dare ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems To Me
"It wasn't a dig at science, it was a dig at people who take everything a scientist says as absolute, unquestionable truth."
Atheists can be so touchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems To Me
Science 'theory' is a much higher level of proof than a meere 'fact', facts in themselves have no relevance to science.
A theory carries far more weight in science than a fact will ever carry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems To Me
Jesus said "I am the Truth."
Therefore, science is pursuing Jesus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seems To Me
may be what he said was "I am the Truth, but everything I say is untrue!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Kelvin
Actually 50 years after he was proved wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_flying_machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lord Kelvin
It is heavier than air when it is on the ground, but once a certain speed is reached, lift is created, that means the air under the wing is heavier than the air above the wing (burnulli principle).
An aircraft wing producing 'lift', is the same as a ship producign 'float'.
So an aircraft is lighter than the air below it when it is flying, and heavier than the air below it when it is not.
I guess that is a bit to complicated for you guys.
Lord Kelvin was also interested in cold, sniffing nitrus oxide, and soap bubbles. But not the physics of flight.
I am quite sure he was a long time after galeao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lord Kelvin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time travel
You can read more similar stuff here
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/timetrav.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Trek fans are going to have to do more than ASSERT
By the way: so you think nothing's impossible? Just try this: stand against a wall with rear and shoulders touching it. Now bend over and touch your toes without falling over. -- But I bet most of you Cheetos munchers can't even SEE your toes when standing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Star Trek fans are going to have to do more than ASSERT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@AC: Re: Star Trek fans are going to have to do more than ASSERT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Star Trek fans are going to have to do more than ASSERT
It is also possible that you are full of it when you claim that anyone here is asserting that movie style time travel is possible. Though, time dilation as I've described above is not only possible, but has been proven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Star Trek fans are going to have to do more than ASSERT
Or stand on a wall in space !! with no gravity ? will you fall over then ?
Do you think it is impossible for a photon to be in two places at once ? or two atoms at two places at the same time ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I AM traveling through time
As They Might Be Giants wrote, "You're older than you've ever been and now you're even older."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike: someone else being wrong does not make you right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike: someone else being wrong does not make you right.
1. Send astronauts to moon, one female, one male.
2. Make them have a kid.
3. ???
4. profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike: someone else being wrong does not make you right.
It is. I'm travelling through time right now as I sit here and write. I only travel forward though, because apparently you can't go backward according to some scientists. Which is a bummer because I have a deadline and this is really eating my time...oh well.
"Or matter transports"
My car transports matter. So does my wheelbarrow.
"Or bipedal aliens who all speak English"
Don't some of those cross your border (assuming you have easily crossable borders) illegally every day? Granted most of them probably don't speak English very well, but some probably do.
"Or light sabers"
I think you can buy those. They do crazy light and sound effects. You can also get Darth Vader masks to pretend that you are as cool as Lord Dark Helmet.
"Or "The Force""
That one is easy: just multiply mass with acceleration.
"Or that William Shatner can act."
Better then you can. Your act isn't very convincing or funny. But I guess we can't all be stars :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike: someone else being wrong does not make you right.
Get the hint ???
If you could not travel in time, how could you travel in any other dimention ?
Look at something, and you are travelling back in time, look at something far away and you are travelling far back in time.
What the hell is your education system teaching you these days ?
In a world of knowledge and information how come most appear here, to know so very little ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For that matter, I would go back in time to make my time machine the very first patent.
Oh, wait, there's a boardgame based around that . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing to remember here is that theoretical physics is all about descriptive models, not iron-clad reality. A different view could well shine a light (sorry) on a relatively (sorry) straightforward method of time travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time travel impossible, watch makers revolt !!!!!
I am a time traveller, I travel at the rate of 1 earth second per earth second.
Put an atomic clock on a photon of light and it would travel the total length of the universe in ZERO time (by it's clock) and about 14 billion years by our clock on earth.
Hawking was a good physists of his day, but they day ended a long time ago, and is more often shown to be wrong than right.
I guess it is therefore far more important for you guys to know how to rip off music and to find torrents and talk "the net" than it is to have a basic understanding of why you can even exist, or what reality is ?
May be you should start or "war on ignorance!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time travel impossible, watch makers revolt !!!!!
So now darryl knows MORE than fucking stephen hawking? Yeah right.
"I guess it is therefore far more important for you guys to know how to rip off music and to find torrents and talk "the net" than it is to have a basic understanding of why you can even exist, or what reality is ?"
Disproving Hawking and Einstein is now a "basic understanding" of the universe? Wow you just dont exist in the same reality as the rest of us, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time travel impossible, watch makers revolt !!!!!
I know one thing !!!! that physics is not about who knows more or less than someone else.
It's not a fucking competition.
Um who here has disproved either Hawking or Einstein, most certainly NOT ME !!! If anything, I am stating here clearly that Einstein was CORRECT, yet he did not PROVE anything.
So 'disproving' him is both wrong, and incorrect, Einstein has nothing to 'disprove'.
Einstein's TOR has been proven consistant with observational science for a very long time, If I agree with Einstein as does most other scientists, then how can you say I disproved anyone ? or even tried too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are plenty of other theories to achieve time travel that didn't involve them, like flux capacitors!
Superman and Star Trek IV are fully disproven now. Why science!? Why did you do this to us!?
At least we still have Back to the Future and Hot tubs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah, im traveling into the future 8 years, where time travel is already possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike version 10, stating in 2525, "even Hawking said time travel was impossible" those idiots !!!
Next we will be told "there are no more scientific discoveries to be made"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time travel...
A day, Earth spins once
A year, Earth circles the Sun once.
Cesium clock, cesium atom vibrates back and forth generating a signal that the atomic clock can detect.
All units of time are nothing more than a measure of distance divided by velocity.
The faster you go the shorter the apparent distance.
What we are really talking about is the space time continuum that is represented as an energy structure moving like a wave through what we perceive to be the universe.
Just as you can never walk down the same path the exact same way you cannot traverse the continuum the same way so, time travel is impossible both forwards and backwards.
Also, time does not exist in a black hole. Why? Because a black hole is a point singularity with no size hence no distances. Without distances to traverse there can be no time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time travel...
No, the faster you go the shorter the apparent time.
Also, time does not exist in a black hole. Why? Because a black hole is a point singularity with no size hence no distances. Without distances to traverse there can be no time.
A black hole is not a point singularity, with no size.
Black holes are quite big, (and heavy).
A black hole is just a bunch of stuff that is so heavy that the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.
or if you like, that distance is compressed so much that light cannot 'go the distance' in time.
(distance = space).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time travel...
Now, in reality, no one knows what is inside a black hole since no one has gone into one to study it and returned to tell the tale...
It may have distances inside but strictly speaking, if you do the math then everything inside of it is crunched down into a point that has no size. Hence the name 'point singularity.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time travel...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget time, lets talk IP, patents, 'ideas' and copyright
Does that apply with time, after all you cannot 'put it in a box' or call it a physical thing, (like you're definition of copyright) you are not taking anything physical off them so it's ok to download their song.
How does that apply in your mind to time ? does it have value ? because it is available to everyone does it make it any more or less valuable ?
if an 'idea' has no value until you make something of it, does that imply that time has equally no value unless you do something with it ?
(time and/or space) its all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...a peer-reviewed article stating something we already knew but have observed directly for the first time (which is important--observational support of theoretical predictions means we're on the right track)...
...a press release relating that information to the public which mentions, somewhat offhand, that it means that a certain very specific phenomenon that was once considered a possible manifestation of time travel has been disproved...
...an LA Times article misreporting on that press release ("this proves that all time travel is impossible")...
...a techdirt article that propagates the misinformation, and directs its (somewhat justified) incredulity towards science and the peer-review process in general rather than a simple case of shoddy reporting...
...and the entire blogosphere scrambling to clean it all up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For whatever reason, we are all traveling at speed "c" through the dimension of time (or slightly less than c, because of the Earth's gravity and whatnot, but close enough). When we travel at any speed through any of the three visible dimensions of space, we're diverting our motion through time into motion through space. Our speed relative to absolute spacetime is constant; it's just a matter of which direction we're going in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose there's more to it, but that's my first impression from the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can a boxcar travel faster then the train it is connected too ??
This is right, a boxcar cannot travel faster than the train, light cannot go faster than the speed of light, nor can it go slower.
Light is not strictly a particle, it is a quantum state, a quanta of energy.
If a train cannot exceed a certain speed, then the components of that train cannot exceed that speed either.
when you put more energy into a train (turn up the throttle), you go faster, when you put more energy into a photon, it does not go faster, but had more energy.
If there was a law of physics that said a train could not travel over 100mph no matter what you did to it, if you put more energy into it, (turn up the throttle) when you were going 100MPH allready, the train (not being allowed to go any faster), would use that energy somewhere else, so the train might be going 100MPH and the wheels would be spinning at a rate to equal 200MPH, but the train cannot go faster than 100 so no matter how much extra energy you put in you cannot exceed that speed.
So you could have a train going at it's max speed of 100MPH but it's wheels might be spinning at a much higher rate (equivalent to 1000Mph), and the more energy you put in the more the wheels spin, the the train (and the boxcar) will not increase in speed.
Same with a photon, it travells at c no matter how much energy you put into it.
Same with a spaceship, no matter how much energy you put into it, you cannot exceed a specific speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can time travel forward not backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Industry and time travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, some scientists claim neutrinos can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1269288/STEPHEN-HAWKING-How-build-tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time
Does this make sense to anyone? Time is a measurement so in essence i am referring to the pendulum motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
best plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]