SCI: Time Travel 101: A How To Guide

page: 19
162
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Hahaha ... don't get me wrong ... I was using the word "spirited" in a good sense meaning a constructive and passionate exchange of ideas, thoughts and beliefs. Thats after all, what we're striving to achieve in this thread and judging by the responses, posts and compliments we must be heading in the right direction.
So well done, to all !


Now, why does time and it's apparent variability, be so obviously dependent on and inherently linked to velocity ... is a very good question and one that I have occasionally thought about ... though admittedly not too deeply.

Even with our constantly expanding knowledge and understanding of the universe and how it comes together and works, I still have this strong feeling deep down that we (our current physics, that is) have managed to miss something extremely significant and fundamental regarding space and energy.
It's as if we have somehow managed to work out how to construct sentences, paragraphs, even entire books without completely understanding how the basis of all this works e.g. the alphabet.

This next example is slightly off topic but illustrates my point strongly.
How we KNOW how something happens, can duplicate it BUT have absolutely NO idea HOW it works on a fundamental level.

I know (and any physics text book will tell you), that photons (including visible light) are created by electrons within the outer shell of an atom gaining energy (from another incoming photon) and moving to a higher energy level, then at some later time spontaneously dropping back to a lower level once more and in the process releasing that gained energy as a photon.
Simple, huh ? Not so fast .....

As far as I can tell, no one is able to explain the PRECISE mechanism by which the incoming photon and electron coordinate this energy transfer ... whether this energy transfer occurs IMMEDIATELY (no time involved) or whether it takes a measurable amount of time ... is there's a minimum distance between the photon and electron before energy exchage occurs ... does the photons energy get transferred gradually or in one hit ... how does the photon zipping past the electron at light speed affect the transfer ... does the electron jump between levels INSTANTANEOUSLY or is there a time invoved ... when the elctron drops to a lower level, what triggers the drop and what triggers the release of the stored energy ... what mechanism takes this released energy and how does it "build" a photon from it ... does the photon get built before, during or after the electron has dropped levels ... etc ... etc ... etc

Sorry to be so long winded but I wanted to use what is supposed to be an "understood" process in our physics to illustrate that deep down, we don't have a CLUE as to what the universe is actually doing and how it does it.

Back to your question ... sure we have Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell and a host of others who've managed to MODEL (and incredibly sucessfully, mind you) some aspects of the way the universe works e.g. how time slows under extreme velocities right down to the nth decimal point .... but deep down in the nuts and bolts of HOW time slows under extreme velocities ... we're technological imbeciles !

I'm going to have to give further thought to your "simple" question




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by veles77
 




As to the impossibility of Alcubierre drive and other warp drives (post by tauristercus): this is an ongoing discussion, and none of the arguments seems final to me, because we still lack a consistent theory of quantum gravity (at least in "public" science). All warp drive designs including Krasnikov tubes are classical in nature, they don't consider any quantum effects. Most opposing claims of impossibility are quantum in nature, they use concepts of Hawking radiation and other effects which have never been observed, let alone measured. And, of course, they formulate them in terms of low-speed quantum mechanics known to us today which still cannot incorporate gravity in any consistent way.


Point taken ... and understood !

But please don't offer me a seat on the 1st experimental Alcubierre Dive equiped ship ... unless there's complimentary lead underwear provided



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by veles77
 


But please don't offer me a seat on the 1st experimental Alcubierre Dive equiped ship ... unless there's complimentary lead underwear provided


I'm afraid lead pants or even signing off the ship may not help you, my friend, since according to this article warp drive can destroy the universe by compressing dust ahead of it to the state of quark-gluon plasma that existed microseconds after the Big Bang, and you know what it means from all the fear mongering around the LHC - strangelets, jump to the lower vacuum energy state etc.
So all you have left is to pray

(Just kidding)

[edit on 11-8-2009 by veles77]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by tauristercus

But please don't offer me a seat on the 1st experimental Alcubierre Dive equiped ship ... unless there's complimentary lead underwear provided


You know I hear you can get that in China....( Out dated joke maybe... but it fit)



Anyway, yeah, that drive just does not work... It is not compatible with reality and as I have been saying all along the theory of relativity forbids going the speed of light or faster... At least now I know there was a thought process behind the drive and not just some national enquirer style BS... if you will.

But yea, Like I said originally I will take Einsteins word over Bob Lazars' any day.. when it comes to relativity that is...



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by tauristercus

Anyway, yeah, that drive just does not work... It is not compatible with reality and as I have been saying all along the theory of relativity forbids going the speed of light or faster... At least now I know there was a thought process behind the drive and not just some national enquirer style BS... if you will.

But yea, Like I said originally I will take Einsteins word over Bob Lazars' any day.. when it comes to relativity that is...


Wait wait wait... don't bury it yet, it's very much alive! The warp drive idea is very well compatible with reality and it's the theory of relativity in its most general form that predicts the possibility of such drive! Most impossibility claims here arise from the area which Einstein did not like at all: quantum mechanics (remember his "God doesn't play dice" sentence). Unfortunately there is not enough popular explanatory material on this issue, so I may consider to write some, to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

Let me reiterate again: there are no theoretical or experimental evidence of impossibility of any types of the warp drives. The only reason there were no construction attempts is a bunch of engineering problems, like condensation of exotic matter (which appears in a well-established Casimir effect). These problems are not easy to overcome right now, but we need to work in this direction. I'm sure Einstein would say: by all means, do it!

And one of the reasons behind the costly LHC project is I'm sure the desire to test existing quantum gravity theories (especially loop QG) and probe the feasibility of warp drive construction. It's a long process, so don't hold your breath yet, but with enough funding and enthusiasm, one day we'll be able to boldly go where no one has gone before.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by veles77
It's a long process, so don't hold your breath yet, but with enough funding and enthusiasm, one day we'll be able to boldly go where no one has gone before.


Now THAT is the truth. One day, my friend, we will, or rather should be able to finally test it all out and this theory/ both theories will be either proven wrong or right... With all due respect to that drive idea... as has been pointed out, there are so many flaws in the theory that I would not expect it to be proven right.

That is what I meant, You are welcome to keep discussing it as it does fit loosely with this thread. I just personally believe that Einstein is right on this one... But please, do not let my beliefs stop you from having a great conversation.


I was only throwing it out for myself... not for everyone!


[edit on 12-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Excuse me for being stubborn, but I would like to explain again what I mean and why Einstein wouldn't be against faster-than-light travel as we imagine it in the future warp drives, and, therefore, against the FTL-based time machine.

I think it's very important that you and other readers of this thread get a clear picture of this very important aspect of reality because it has many philosophical implications.

Einstein/relativity says: there is no local faster than light travel. Locality in physical jargon means objects with which the observer (the one who tests physical laws) may interact. Indeed, if it were possible, the observer would register absurd values of infinite energy and imaginary time from this superluminally moving object.

Well, the warp drive designs use a bit of "cheating" here: they try to circumvent locality. And since the normal spacetime in the universe is "smooth", and all objects can send and receive signals through this smooth medium, there seems to be no place in the universe to "hide" from the observer. No place, except, maybe, an isolated pocket of spacetime, which is not casually connected to the rest of the universe. Is this kind of pocket possible? It appears to be, and the first mathematical expression for the geometry of this pocket (also called metric) was found by Miguel Alcubierre, out of Einstein's equations, and them alone. No 'God playing dice' quantum mechanics ever mentioned.

(side note: Here we see again that the physical laws somehow depend on the observer, and the observer somehow can influence the outcome of physical experiments. Einstein resented this feature in quantum mechanics, but, it appears, it has returned to his theory with warp metrics.)

Let the reader understand very clearly: due to the causal isolation of this warp pocket, it is no longer a part of our universe, along with objects contained therein. No interaction with our universe is possible from inside this pocket or vice versa. No paradoxes appear if this pocket is moving superluminally in our spacetime - it does not have a mass, nor electric charge nor magnetic moment and cannot exert any forces on anything.

A simple analogy is a light spot that you project on a distant wall with your flashlight. If you move your flashlight fast enough, the spot will appear to move faster than light in its linear motion along the wall. This doesn't break any laws of physics, since that spot is not a physical object, it's a geometric area where photons from your flashlight hit the wall. The same way, the warp bubble is not a physical object since a physical object by definition must interact with something to be detectable.

And what about the enormous tidal forces on the edges of the bubble. you may ask? They cause real effects on particles in our universe. Yes, but these are technically not part of the bubble. The outer edges of the bubble are the edges of our universe, beyond them another universe begins which is inside the bubble. And these outer edges are just defects in our spacetime, same as cosmic strings or event horizons of black holes. They are permitted to move faster than light because they are not real physical objects, they are just defects in spacetime. They have no mass, no charge, no magnetic moment, but they can exert forces on other objects which are gravitational forces. This is perfectly legal according to the general relativity (the g-tensor components cause these forces to appear in the equations). In other words, massless objects (which have no T tensor components) may move at the speed of light or faster. Indeed, in case of photons we observe them moving at exactly the speed of light, and only because they are massless.

Hope this helps, please don't hesitate to ask any questions if something is not clear.







[edit on 12-8-2009 by veles77]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by veles77
 


Ok, let me say that I'm a firm believer that if the human mind can conceive of something, even hypothetically and no matter how strange or incredible it may be, then at some point in time (perhaps 100's or 1000's of years away), science will be able to "make it so". I don't believe in "it's impossible and could NEVER be made to work or happen" because NEVER is a looooooonnggggg time ! Today, tomorrow or next year might make the concept impossible to do ... but in a 100 years ... or a 1000 years ... perhaps not quite so impossible after all.

I can concieve of imploding stars to create tailor made black holes ... or allowing one solid object to pass undamaged through another solid object. Both IMPOSSIBLE by todays knowledge but in the future ? I wouldn't be prepared to bet against it becoming reality.

Anyway, the reason for that preamble is that the Acubierre Drive currently is a potential technology that at the moment has many technical obstacles in it's way preventing it from being even a remotely potentially viable solution to FTL or time travel into the future ... for that matter so is worm hole travel into the future as well as event horizon skimming a black hole to get that "boost" into the future.
All the above have some degree or measure of "potentiallity" but all are currently "flawed" and "impossible" because we simply don't have sufficiently "advanced science understanding" to overcome these limitations ... but some where down the track, we WILL gain the necessary science and overcome these limitations.

So, lets not dwell unnecessarily or fixate on just one potential aspect of achieving restricted or unrestricted time travel, and instead return to the original spirit of this thread and examine as many options and possibilities as our imaginations can come up with !



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by veles77
 


Ok, let me say that I'm a firm believer that if the human mind can conceive of something, even hypothetically and no matter how strange or incredible it may be, then at some point in time (perhaps 100's or 1000's of years away), science will be able to "make it so". I don't believe in "it's impossible and could NEVER be made to work or happen" because NEVER is a looooooonnggggg time ! Today, tomorrow or next year might make the concept impossible to do ... but in a 100 years ... or a 1000 years ... perhaps not quite so impossible after all.

I can concieve of imploding stars to create tailor made black holes ... or allowing one solid object to pass undamaged through another solid object. Both IMPOSSIBLE by todays knowledge but in the future ? I wouldn't be prepared to bet against it becoming reality.

Anyway, the reason for that preamble is that the Acubierre Drive currently is a potential technology that at the moment has many technical obstacles in it's way preventing it from being even a remotely potentially viable solution to FTL or time travel into the future ... for that matter so is worm hole travel into the future as well as event horizon skimming a black hole to get that "boost" into the future.
All the above have some degree or measure of "potentiallity" but all are currently "flawed" and "impossible" because we simply don't have sufficiently "advanced science understanding" to overcome these limitations ... but some where down the track, we WILL gain the necessary science and overcome these limitations.

So, lets not dwell unnecessarily or fixate on just one potential aspect of achieving restricted or unrestricted time travel, and instead return to the original spirit of this thread and examine as many options and possibilities as our imaginations can come up with !


You have just summed up perfectly exactly what I was trying to say with out saying... If that makes sense.. Lets get back to the old spirit of this thread and explore all these wonderfull possibilites



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
OK, so when contemplating the theory of relativity, I am often awestruck at how complex, yet so amazing this theory is.

I mean, within this theory lies the possibility of "time travel"... within this theory lies the explanation for gravity( A curvature of time-space due to a mass simply existing in space)... I mean think about that. A mass actually warps space! Is that not really cool to think about the fact that you can bend space?


And bending space is exactly what utilizing a worm hole does. If we were able to open, stabilize and loop a worm hole on itself we actually would be looping space and time!

That is truly cool.

My article only explored a very small portion of the special theory of relativity. There are so many amazing things to contemplate and I focused in on merely one.

All that said, I was actually a bit surprised to see how many people still thought of an HG Wells style time machine when the word time travel is mentioned, considering how long the theory has been around and how it is probably one of the most widely known about theories...

I must admit that I too sometimes picture crawling into a machine and punching in a year and just some how magically removing myself from the present and just appearing into the year I want to see.

That is not quite how it works in real life though. As I illustrated in my article the way to travel in time, is not the stereo typical way seen in books and movies, and really is only time travel in a sense... What is really being done is you are slowing down time for your self so you age less... so to speak while every one else continues at a normal time rate and age rate...


That is so truly amazing... the special theory of relativity that is...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Ahhh...right..i didn't realise that it only applied to light in space.

Thanks for that.

With everything about our universe that we still DON'T know about, i would think it was hard to produce a credible theory regarding the speed of light through a medium we know almost nothing about?

Exotic matter, dark matter, antimatter, boson particles, gravitational anomalies, etc etc.

I know it's only a theory (STR), but it has come to be regarded as pretty much factual.

Maybe the 'known unknowns and the unknown unknowns' (ewww...rummy..) have a significant bearing on the physical properties of matter and our understanding of the interactions that occur.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Don't they already have technology that will create miniature black holes? Could that be used to create a worm hole?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by meanmotorscooter
Don't they already have technology that will create miniature black holes? Could that be used to create a worm hole?


Fortunately (or should that be UNfortunately
) we don't presently have any technology capable of generating and focusing the incredible energies required for miniature black hole creation.

Currently the Large Hadron Collider located beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland is the most powerful piece of technology available but even that still falls way short of the sort of energies required.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by meanmotorscooter
Don't they already have technology that will create miniature black holes? Could that be used to create a worm hole?


Actually that is a good question. I was thinking they had managed to "build" microscopic black holes... but I am not 100% sure on that...

As for using that to create a worm hole... I am not sure, It may bring us closer to being able to build a worm hole.

If I am understanding correctly,With a black hole you have a cone shaped hole that pinches off at completely at one end. Gravity is the force that sucks all matter into it. It is stretched out into what I like to refer to as spaghetti and ultimately the matter is ripped apart.

Worm holes, on the other hand do not pinch off at the end, the remain equally open on either side... While I am not aware if gravity would act as a force in a worm hole, I can see perhaps, ( or at least imagine) opening up a black hole on the closed end so that perhaps matter could get out of the other side...?

Of course I am not sure how possible such a feat would be, right now, at this point in time it is not... one day though... who knows...

(Keep in mind that I do not know much about black holes, especially the man made ones, so the above may not be entirely accurate.. If it is not, I invite anyone who DOES know more to correct anything I have gotten incorrect.)

[edit on 12-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I was thinking about this last night and can we conclude the following:

If we pick that example of 99% of light speed spaceship and slow down until 1.000km/h (which most planes can do), this means when we go by plane from one place to other that we are traveling to the future more than one person than is stooped at the ground during the flight time?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I present a new thought.
So theoretically, the universe splits into other universes based on every possible event that could happen.

So, if you were changing channels on the TV, it is supposed that you could pick any channel, and for every channel there is an alternate universe. Okay, whatever. Theoretically, we could all imagine that.

Now involve time travel. This would mean that not only is there a possibility of different channels, there is a possibility of someone coming from the future OR the past to disrupt the channel changing. Lets say an evil villian were to take a super-bomb back in time that would destroy the entire world. He does this right before the channel is changed. That would then become another possible existence, and would not evolve any channel changing whatsoever.

So what I'm getting at is - if time travel is possible, then tangent universes not only involve what happens in the present, to one second in the future, but it also involves things from the past and the future, making all the possible universe outcomes drastically increase, to the point of Infinity, rather than a determinable amount.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rsousa

I was thinking about this last night and can we conclude the following:

If we pick that example of 99% of light speed spaceship and slow down until 1.000km/h (which most planes can do), this means when we go by plane from one place to other that we are traveling to the future more than one person than is stooped at the ground during the flight time?


You're absolutely correct in a way ... travelling on a plane thats moving at 1000 km/h DOES cause your personal time to run just a very, very tiny fraction of a second slower than for someone on the ground ... so, yes you have in fact time travelled into the future ... but not that you'd really notice anything different.
It only becomes noticeable when your speed starts to get up into the region of light speed.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicvcer
I present a new thought.
So theoretically, the universe splits into other universes based on every possible event that could happen.

So, if you were changing channels on the TV, it is supposed that you could pick any channel, and for every channel there is an alternate universe. Okay, whatever. Theoretically, we could all imagine that.

Now involve time travel. This would mean that not only is there a possibility of different channels, there is a possibility of someone coming from the future OR the past to disrupt the channel changing. Lets say an evil villian were to take a super-bomb back in time that would destroy the entire world. He does this right before the channel is changed. That would then become another possible existence, and would not evolve any channel changing whatsoever.

So what I'm getting at is - if time travel is possible, then tangent universes not only involve what happens in the present, to one second in the future, but it also involves things from the past and the future, making all the possible universe outcomes drastically increase, to the point of Infinity, rather than a determinable amount.



Absolutely correct ... any course of action or decision that involves multiple outcomes should theoretically involve a split or branch being created at that point in time.
Also bear in mind additional possibilities such as :
You're sitting infront of your tv deciding which chanel to pick and even if you haven't decided on a channel at the moment and are still thinking about it, your universe has just split .... why, you ask ?
Because there's always a possibility (no matter how remote) that a meteor comes crashing thru your roof and kills you at that very moment in time ... or it crashes through your roof but misses you ... or it crashes thru your kitchen ... or someone knocks on your front door ... or you cough ... or you don't cough ... or ... or ... or ...
Do you get it ?
Anything that could POSSIBLY happen (whether it does or not) at every second of your life WILL result in a branching.

Just try to imagine your current timeline and in the next tick of the clock, it's just branched into an infinite number of alternate universes ... and on the next tick, every one of those new universes branches into an infinite number of NEW universes and so on ... and that's just YOU ... multiply that by every other person and every other potential decision that happens in the world every split second ....

Now, thats what I call MAXIMUM brain strain !



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Star and Flag for you!

I really enjoyed reading this!-

You are doing a great job! keep it up



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Dear tauristercus

Several times through this thread I have noticed that you say that you do not believe we can change history. In our time line not taking into account String or M theory.

I have come to the conclusion that you are right. I will try to explain why.

Simply put because what ever you do when time traveling the affects of such you knew before you left on your travels.

For example we know that JFK was killed in Dallas so let’s say it is our quest to alter that outcome. We jump into the TM and head back to a time before the shot was fired. If we where successful and JFK returned to Washington that is what history would reflect. Nothing happened. Therefore you would not in the future set out to change the event.

In other words what ever you do on your travels has become history and that is what we have grown up with. That is an example of deliberately trying to affect history.

Now time traveling just for instance which is something I would love to do would be to travel back to the time of Jesus and learn the reality of the time. Again no matter what you accidentally change it has become the history that you left 2009 with.

Now in this instance having returned you may indeed be able to alter the future. However what ever knowledge that you return with has already become history for future generations.

Therefore it is written, it is a plan free will is nonsense and all time has already happened.

String and M theories just don’t seam to take into account where all the extra MASS comes from.

I would love every one on here to let me know where I have gone wrong.





 
162
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def