Time Travel

[Anglorfin]

I think fundamental flaw in this essay is that the author hints slightly upon the parallel universes theory. (Reader beware, this may become a bit technical.)

It is widely accepted that the basic law of the universe, E=mc^2 relates to all dimensions. This one equation puts all things in the universe into perspective, and also makes them relative and in many cases interchageable.

There are actually three stated constants here; Energy, Mass, and the speed of light in a vacuum. The first two are true because of the Law of Conservation of Mass, Energy, and Momentum. The third is true because it is accepted as the universal constant.

We were hopefully all taught in chemistry that each reaction emits some form of energy or matter. Then keeping in mind the balance that the LoCoMEM gives us, wouldn't it be possible to travel back in time provided that there would be some type of compensation for the additional mass traveling to another time zone? Likely in the form of heat, light, and/or sound. Just as in a chemical reaction.

So getting into the parallel universe part, suppose a person does travel back in time. This SHOULD of course violate the laws of space-time because this person would be creating paradoxes, but suppose those can be explained away by the creation of numerous other parallel universes. Using our own universe as a reference point, suppose somebody went back in time and killed Hitler, thus altering the future as we have come to know it. That doesn't change the fact that whether or not a person came back in time he MAY OR MAY NOT have killed Hitler. That is a branch right there. Who is to say that in other universes there haven't been countless other cruel dictators INSTEAD of Hitler. We just happen to be living in a universe where Hitler was not shot, but perhaps somebody else from some other country was . . . thus eliminating that thread from the progression of our own universe. All in all the presence of the multiple universe theory brings a lot to the table concerning time travel. If any event creates countless other universes, then who is to say that a paradox cannot be solved, because the outcome would be different in different universes both equally REAL.


I hope I have explained well enough to at least make some sense. Keep in mind all of this is speculation and half a rebuttal of the essay.

[jerseydevil]

Anglorfin I had already started a Time Travel thread a while ago. It's linked here - not sure if this one will get closed or what.

[Anglorfin]

Oops, forgot to search. I thought it highly unlikely that anyone would have started one. Sorry JD. Sorry mods.

[azalea]

I went ahead (in time! j/k ) and did a merge, so Anglorfin wouldn't have to retype his posts!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
I went ahead (in time! j/k ) and did a merge, so Anglorfin wouldn't have to retype his posts!

That's good. Thanks.

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by azalea
I went ahead (in time! j/k ) and did a merge, so Anglorfin wouldn't have to retype his posts!

Thanks!

[Insidious Rex]

I like your thoughts on multi dimensional approach to time. If you went back in time you wouldnt actually be following the same time structure as we are on right now. you would instintly start a new one which would branch off from that point and follow its own structure. that way you could live in this new time even if something you did caused you to "not be born". It would also deal with bops point about why is it you dont see time travelers all the time.

[azalea]

Although I love the idea of it, I don't believe time travel is possible, but regarding that theory, what if there ARE time travellers, but we just can't see them (don't ask me how that would be, it was just a random thought! )

[Khamûl]

Here's a thought: what if time travel is possible, but only into the future. I'm not even going to try to get into all the technical mumbo-jumbo behind this idea, mainly because I don't understand it. Basically, you can't go back in time and change what's already been done, but you can go forward and affect what hasn't happened yet.

[Anglorfin]

Future travel does seem the more likely, there aren't as many confounding circumstances to look at. Besides, the natural direction of time is forwards in the first place. Theoretically it would be easier to accelerate that a little bit or possibly do something like cryogenic freezing than totally reverse the flow of time.

It's like paddling a boat with the current versus paddling a boat against the current.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Basically, you can't go back in time and change what's already been done, but you can go forward and affect what hasn't happened yet.

Isn't that what we do all the time?

[Ararax]

yes starting now i will travel exactly 20 years into the future, it will take me exactly 20 years to do that unless i am on a plane then it will take me less time. because time is relative to speed spending 75 years going at 700 miles an hour will take you 20 minutes into the future

[cassiopeia]

Actually, the faster you travel, the slower time passes for you relative to somebody else who is not moving. But you would have to attain a speed close to the speed of light (ie about 300,000 km/s) to notice such a difference.

[Anglorfin]

I would like your thoughts on this.

Time is relative, but what do we relate time to? We guage the passing of time by the positioning of astral bodies, most notably the sun. Also the universal constant is a light year. Basically our system of time is based on the speed of light. If this definition is correct (and assuming that we had the means to travel at the speed of light) it would be theoretically possible to travel through time by doing nothing but accelerating away from or towards a star.

It takes light from the sun 8 minutes to reach the earth. If light is the constant in which we bring all stellar distances into proportion, then by travelling at a speed close to light we would be able to regulate the idea of what we view as time travel. For instance, if we had a craft moving at exactly the speed of light AWAY from a star, that would be the equivalent of freezing time. We are staying in the same pocket of solar energy. On the other hand if we accelerated any faster away from the star that would be slowing time down because the light energy from the star takes progressively longer and longer to reach us. Similarly, if we were to travel towards a star, we would be speeding up time because light waves would reach us more quickly.

Of course this has nothing to do with the normal effects we associate with time. I can't imagine metabolism coming to a standstill because of this, nor growth or decay. it is just one flaw in how we as humans on earth segment our time into different periods of length. But by this definition time travel is very much possible, however unproductive or dissapointing this definition of it sounds. Though it is only appropriate to think of it in this way because it is what we have been doing for ages anyway.

[cassiopeia]

You have to remember the time effects are relative to somebody else. If I were travelling near the speed of light, everything would be normal for me. My heart would beat the same number of beats as normal. To people watching who are not moving, I would appear to be slowing down.
And I think that we don't actually base the passing of time on the speed of light. I think the idea of time travel this way is flawed, because time would flow the same inside the craft. If it attained a speed close to that of light, it would appear to others who are watching that time has slowed for those in the craft.

[wahine]

Okay, is time travel possible? Don't know, probably will be in about 2000 years when the science that we have today is considered a chisel and rock.

Ramifications? None.

Why I think there can be no technical ramifications of going into the past....

Say today, I make a time machine and go back 20 years...I technically already did it, and whatever I may change or correct has already been changed or corrected when I went BACK through time. The conundrum is, if I already went back through time to change something, and it has already been changed...why did I go back through time?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by wahine
Okay, is time travel possible? Don't know, probably will be in about 2000 years when the science that we have today is considered a chisel and rock.

Ramifications? None.

Why I think there can be no technical ramifications of going into the past....

Say today, I make a time machine and go back 20 years...I technically already did it, and whatever I may change or correct has already been changed or corrected when I went BACK through time. The conundrum is, if I already went back through time to change something, and it has already been changed...why did I go back through time?

You always seem to think like me. I said basically the same thing when I started the thread. i would go back in time however to see how things are - if I could.

Although I think time travel may be possible - I've given reasons why it may nt be in the beginning of this thread. I however think that in the future we may even be able to overcome those obstacles of bringing back viruses and bacteria that humans and animals would not have the immune system to fight off.

By the way Wahine - did Hawaiians have any problems with coming into contact with Europeans from diseases and stuff? The Indians were devestated by the diseases that the European's immune systeme had developed defences against..

[gollum9630]

cant we time travel already, i mean, i went to montreal, which is a 5 hour flight, and when i arrived there, 8 hours had passed

[gollum9630]

then, when i came back, it was a six hour flight, and when i arrived in Vancouver, only 3 hours had passed. So we can travel backwards and forwards in time

[GrayMouser]

As to why we don't see time travellers, Larry Niven explained it:

If there is only one time line (no alternative worlds) and it's possible to change the past, then there is a (very large, but finite) number of possibilities the course of history can take.

In some of these, time travel is invented, in others it isn't.
Say a time machine is invented, and you go back and change the past. The course of events flows on until somebody in the altered timeline invents a time machine, and goes back and changes the past, and so on and so on.

Eventually, however, your going to end up at a timeline where the time machine is NEVER invented, and then you're stuck.