The Interval Conservation Theory of Time Travel

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Blue Shift

That's the general idea I propose, indeed. You have your own history, your own past.

But how do you jump from one perspective, one point of view, to another where you see and experience something different that could be called the "past" (obviously not your past, you already lived that) or the "future" (which only exists as a cloud of probabilities)? I'm not sure that's possible.

a reply to: Blue Shift
Traveling to the future is in theory at least, "easy". It was the plot of the Andromeda Sci-Fi TV show where the spaceship orbited a black hole where their clock ticked very slowly. 300 years passed by on Earth during the same time maybe only a month passed by on the spaceship orbiting the black hole. Then the spaceship left the black hole orbit (someone helped them out) and it was 300 years in the future as perceived by the spaceship crew, away from the black hole, and time is passing normally again. So the captain's wife had been dead for over 250 years, along with everyone and everything he knew.

It's traveling back in time that's problematic.

Good to see you here again, swanne. When reading the OP, it looked to me to be another multiple-universe idea, and I then checked the comments to see if that came up, and I see that Arbitrageur had already mentioned that, and the comment of Moebius is somewhat along the same lines as well.

Arbitrageur also mentions forward travel into time. About 30 years ago I came up with the thought that as we travel through space we also travel through time, with a realization that such a concept might lead to the Lorentz transformation equations. I was fortunate to exchange letters with the great John Steward Bell concerning this concept. His reply back to me was that he didn't see how one could get the Lorentz transformation out of time dilation alone. I went ahead over the next few years and published my work as "An Absolute Theory Based on Coupled Spatial and Temporal Travel”, D.J. Larson, Physics Essays, Vol. 4, 373-383 (1991) and later my more complete work which is available online as The Absolute Theory.

My view is that one cannot go back in time, and that time is simply the universal parameter ordering events chronologically. I accept causality as an axiom. One can of course question axioms and have fun doing so and get some good science fiction that way, but my view is that there is one single reality and not a multiverse. Returning to an absolute time allows a retort to Einstein:

Surely, Al, God knows what time it is!

But such kidding aside, once we set relativity aside we can understand quantum mechanics without bringing in a multiverse or other nonsense, as described in Absolute Quantum Mechanics.

It was cool to dig a bit online to get you that original 1991 reference, as I noticed it has actually been cited, although the citation expanded DJ Larson to David J Larson. Recently I found that The ABC Preon Model has now picked up a few citations as well. I always was somewhat surprised that my works, rather revolutionary and published in a reviewed journal, never got any notice. Maybe that is slowly changing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Quasar Quasar by Asimov was interesting in the 70's but It didn't evolve much. I liked this version of the Michelson–Morley pipeline that evolved into what appears to be exploring the consequences of temporal displacement. Its consistant with the many worlds theory when applied to the macro scale.

www.dailymotion.com...

a reply to: delbertlarson

It's always good to see you Del! I'm glad to see you're still very much active.

This is an interesting concept you bring up. It paradoxically reminds me of Einstein's introduction to special relativity; but with a more in-depth exploration of the theory. I will definitely take a look!

a reply to: Slichter

"The speed of light" that term seems more redundant lately. What is time and space stop at the zero point (C) and then there is motion and expansion. So the speed of light and how it interacts with space time hasn't fully been explained yet. Can you tell me how light interacts with a black hole (apart from lensing)if the photon has zero mass. I know... The energy is so immense near the event horizon that it slows the photon, converts it to something else and becomes mortal so to speak, a half life.

It's plausible

a reply to: delbertlarson

That time is 1123 always at zero point (C) constant. Change the velocity measure to zero. Time stops. Fibernachi and the golden ratio.

Just hazarding a guess

In all seriousness, you might like this thread and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Negative Time Dilation, Eternal photons and other specualtion

a reply to: Havick007

There may not be an event horizon for an observer falling into a black hole, the (light from eart) is traveling with them not away from them and both towards the gravity source together. Can't be proven in the laboratory is what they said back in the 1930's.

Time spirals, like a parking garage ramp. How do you time travel down a spiral ramp? You better have someone with a mattress waiting..

a reply to: swanne

You said in the third paragraph (or 4...), “Everything is in constant motion...”, and if are expanding outward from the Big Bang, then to go “go back in time” would mean all particles throughout Universe would have to “rewind” back to the spot in time (and therefore, space at that moment), it would take more energy than, well, I can conceive!!

Backwards physical time travel seems totally impossible.

But what about the “imprints” or “memories” on the quantum world?? This is Astr0’s claim in his last thread. If you can “rewind” the quantum equations far enough, can you “witness” the past?? A crazy idea but should be considered in the whole “time travel” convention.

See, that kills the paradox stuff, because we can only “watch” the past and not interact with it.

Anyway, just a weird thought after a beer or two on Boxing Day!!