Physicists: Sorry, you can't travel back in time

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
I personally believe that time travel in either direction is an impossibility. To be able to travel into the past would require that all exsistence is somehow "recorded" and you could either "roll back the tape" or "jump" to a spot in "recorded" history and revisit events that happened in the past. Rolling back would in effect be reversing the earths rotation and all cosmic events including the "big bang" (if you believe in that), not possible IMO. And "jumping" to a point would require some type of parallel universe of recoreded history. I believe life and exsistence is spontaneous and once it happens its gone.

Traveling into the future is a more interesting prospect. As mentioned above if you could acheive some type of "suspended animation" by light speed travel, cryogenics or some other means that allowed you to travel through 100's or 1000's of years while maintaining your current pysical presence and health you could infact visit the future. But to me this also is NOT time travel. You would simply be a well preserved 1040 year old person:)
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: So
Put one really sensitive clock in LEO going clockwise around the earth and one going counterclockwise. Measure the times. Again and again and again, the clocks have shown a small but measurable deviation that matched relativity EXACTLY. There have been experiments of this type done that perfectly support relativity and forward time travel. Relativity is one of the most important theories (read:FACTS) of modern science. I'm not asking you to accept it on faith or because a lot of others have. It's a fact because it's supported by mountains of evidence and is perfectly logically coherent. My argument has nothing to do with time zones, and the parallel you attempted to draw makes me have to ask you to actually read up on relativity, because you clearly don't fully understand it.

Edit: Sorry if this comes off as insulting, because I realize it reads that way, but I don't mean to insinuate that you are stupid, so please do not take it that way.
Don't worry, after reading some of the responses on ATOT, I've learned not to take anything personally. As far as the clock goes, I don't think it's that simple, because it's doesn't take a lot of effort to travel through time, as you put it.

If that was the case, we'd all be in orbit trying to travel through time. Guess what happens when you land? Yup, you'd be right here in the present with us, regardless of what your clock tells you.

I'm not a physicist, so my understanding of the subject is very limited. I draw my conclusion from reading information that are widely available, which may or may not include the publications that proved this theory of relativity. By the way, why is it still a theory if it's proven? IMHO, time traveling would be possible when we learn how to bend the dimension, and this won't be accomplish with any speed.

Okay, you hit my biggest pet peeve:

THEORY = FACT
THEORY = FACT
THEORY = FACT
THEORY = FACT

theory is the scientific word for an that has been proven repeatedly by experimental evidence and never contradicted. A "LAW" is a formulation of a theory, it is not 'higher' than a theory, it's just a way of phrasing a theory for convenient use.

Two, you're claim about 'being right here in the present' makes no sense. You will be farther in the future than had you not traveled rapidly. If you step into a Delorian and step out 50 years later, and never go back (remember, time travel backwards is impossible) the future becomes your present. How do you think it's different just because there was no hollywood 'flash of light'? Even in a movie time machine, it takes a finite amount of time to go a proportionally long time forward.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I personally believe that time travel in either direction is an impossibility. To be able to travel into the past would require that all exsistence is somehow "recorded" and you could either "roll back the tape" or "jump" to a spot in "recorded" history and revisit events that happened in the past. Rolling back would in effect be reversing the earths rotation and all cosmic events including the "big bang" (if you believe in that), not possible IMO. And "jumping" to a point would require some type of parallel universe of recoreded history. I believe life and exsistence is spontaneous and once it happens its gone.

Traveling into the future is a more interesting prospect. As mentioned above if you could acheive some type of "suspended animation" by light speed travel, cryogenics or some other means that allowed you to travel through 100's or 1000's of years while maintaining your current pysical presence and health you could infact visit the future. But to me this also is NOT time travel. You would simply be a well preserved 1040 year old person:)

It is absolutely time travel, since traveling at .9999C would make you have experienced significantly less time than someone not in the fast moving vehicle.
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
SSSnail, I hope you realize that your debate against the theory of relativity would be like someone saying that the Earth is the center of the universe.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

input .99999 and click C=1

you will see that if you build a ship that could travel 99.999% the speed of light, and sat in it for 1 year then came back to earth, everyone would be ~224 years older.

How is that NOT time travel?

Just because with current technology LEO is ~7.8km/sec -> 1.0000000003384681 years for them / 1 yr for you means that it would be imperceptible, doesn't mean it's not time travel. It's just not MUCH time travel.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
If you can't travel backwards, you can't travel forwards either. Prove to me that I'm wrong.
What? Why don't you prove you're right, instead?
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Sometimes I wish I could travel at the speed of light so that I could just get to the end of my work day... sigh, 45 more minutes...
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Using current technology, you could hope to achieve .2C (nuclear pulse propulsion flying counterclockwise around the sun WRT the earth) so if you left when both your calendar and the ground station calendar said it was march 1 2007, and you returned after having lived on your ship for four years, you would THINK it would be march 1 2011, but you would have time traveled and it would be april 1 2011.

Edit: screwed my math :eek:
 

dr150

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2003
6,570
24
81
Patience. Give it some time to iron out the issues...


The guys at GOOGLE will solve the time travel problem and offer a product in Beta mode for the first 5,000.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I personally believe that time travel in either direction is an impossibility. To be able to travel into the past would require that all exsistence is somehow "recorded" and you could either "roll back the tape" or "jump" to a spot in "recorded" history and revisit events that happened in the past. Rolling back would in effect be reversing the earths rotation and all cosmic events including the "big bang" (if you believe in that), not possible IMO. And "jumping" to a point would require some type of parallel universe of recoreded history. I believe life and exsistence is spontaneous and once it happens its gone.

Traveling into the future is a more interesting prospect. As mentioned above if you could acheive some type of "suspended animation" by light speed travel, cryogenics or some other means that allowed you to travel through 100's or 1000's of years while maintaining your current pysical presence and health you could infact visit the future. But to me this also is NOT time travel. You would simply be a well preserved 1040 year old person:)

It is absolutely time travel, since traveling at .9999C would make you have experienced significantly less time than someone not in the fast moving vehicle.

That completely depends on your perception of time. If time is measured by "your experience" then yes you have time traveled. But if time is a constant as measured by say a stationary clock, you have simply been asleep or frozen or your experiences have been stretched while time passes(it took 2 years to blow your nose:) ). I tend to view time as a constant

 

randomint

Banned
Sep 16, 2006
693
1
0
we need to find the transwarp conduits that the borg are using. only then will we ever be able to realize our dream of time travel.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I personally believe that time travel in either direction is an impossibility. To be able to travel into the past would require that all exsistence is somehow "recorded" and you could either "roll back the tape" or "jump" to a spot in "recorded" history and revisit events that happened in the past. Rolling back would in effect be reversing the earths rotation and all cosmic events including the "big bang" (if you believe in that), not possible IMO. And "jumping" to a point would require some type of parallel universe of recoreded history. I believe life and exsistence is spontaneous and once it happens its gone.

Traveling into the future is a more interesting prospect. As mentioned above if you could acheive some type of "suspended animation" by light speed travel, cryogenics or some other means that allowed you to travel through 100's or 1000's of years while maintaining your current pysical presence and health you could infact visit the future. But to me this also is NOT time travel. You would simply be a well preserved 1040 year old person:)

It is absolutely time travel, since traveling at .9999C would make you have experienced significantly less time than someone not in the fast moving vehicle.

That completely depends on your perception of time. If time is measured by "your experience" then yes you have time traveled. But if time is a constant as measured by say a stationary clock, you have simply been asleep or frozen or your experiences have been stretched while time passes(it took 2 years to blow your nose:) ). I tend to view time as a constant

You just defined what everyone else calls time travel "not time travel." I guess that's okay, but by that definition, HG well's "the time machine" isn't time travel either.
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
Originally posted by: So
http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

input .99999 and click C=1

you will see that if you build a ship that could travel 99.999% the speed of light, and sat in it for 1 year then came back to earth, everyone would be ~224 years older.

How is that NOT time travel?

Just because with current technology LEO is ~7.8km/sec -> 1.0000000003384681 years for them / 1 yr for you means that it would be imperceptible, doesn't mean it's not time travel. It's just not MUCH time travel.

Interesting link, why can't I put 1 in there?
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: So
http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

input .99999 and click C=1

you will see that if you build a ship that could travel 99.999% the speed of light, and sat in it for 1 year then came back to earth, everyone would be ~224 years older.

How is that NOT time travel?

Just because with current technology LEO is ~7.8km/sec -> 1.0000000003384681 years for them / 1 yr for you means that it would be imperceptible, doesn't mean it's not time travel. It's just not MUCH time travel.

Interesting link, why can't I put 1 in there?

1 = the speed of light. Which means time is stopped, and something with nonzero mass would require infinite energy accelerate to that speed. Anything less than one will just require a REALLY REALLY lot of energy, approaching infinity as you approach C (1)

Edit: Which is why you can't travel at or faster than light speed. It requires more than infinite energy and the ship will have relativistically more than infinite mass. It is nonsense traveling faster than light.
 

40sTheme

Golden Member
Sep 24, 2006
1,607
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 40sTheme
Originally posted by: SSSnail
If you can't travel backwards, you can't travel forwards either. Prove to me that I'm wrong.

You are correct sir.
How exactly did people come up with the idea that moving really fast can move you forward in time? You've moved a certain distance in a period of time, but that does not change what time it is.

That's funny, because traveling fast does EXACTLY that. It changes how fast your clock appears to tick when compared with another clock that is stationary relative to you.

It just seems so... not right. How can traveling fast change what time it is? The Earth is still rotating and orbiting at the same speeds it always has. Traveling fast can't move the Earth can it?
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
Originally posted by: So
http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm

input .99999 and click C=1

you will see that if you build a ship that could travel 99.999% the speed of light, and sat in it for 1 year then came back to earth, everyone would be ~224 years older.

How is that NOT time travel?

Just because with current technology LEO is ~7.8km/sec -> 1.0000000003384681 years for them / 1 yr for you means that it would be imperceptible, doesn't mean it's not time travel. It's just not MUCH time travel.

:| .99999999... |= 1 :|
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
Originally posted by: 40sTheme
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 40sTheme
Originally posted by: SSSnail
If you can't travel backwards, you can't travel forwards either. Prove to me that I'm wrong.

You are correct sir.
How exactly did people come up with the idea that moving really fast can move you forward in time? You've moved a certain distance in a period of time, but that does not change what time it is.

That's funny, because traveling fast does EXACTLY that. It changes how fast your clock appears to tick when compared with another clock that is stationary relative to you.

It just seems so... not right. How can traveling fast change what time it is? The Earth is still rotating and orbiting at the same speeds it always has. Traveling fast can't move the Earth can it?

Nope, it doesn't change anything on earth, just your perception of it. Basically, Einstein realized that the speed of light was a constant, but if both the speed of light AND time are constant for all observers (i.e. there is a universal invisible clock that is agreed upon by all observers, everywhere) then you have a paradox. He realized there was no real reason to assume such a universal clock existed and decided to consider the consequences if it didn't. The result was relativity, which naturally extends and is consistent with Newtonian motion for low speed objects but is inconsistent for extremely high speeds - speeds which could not have been experimented on until the 20th century anyhow, so the error was not noticed.

Essentially, we're all on earth, traveling at (more or less) the same speed, so we agree on our clock, or we agree closely enough not to notice that we're all skewing about in time a tiny bit. This is especially unimportant because we all keep in touch -- we get our updates constantly, so we don't notice the skew. But if you were isolated from earth for a loooong time and traveled really quickly, the difference becomes large and it is 'time travel' in the sense that the average person thinks of it. It could be leaving earth to spend a year at 99.999% of the speed of light and coming back to find it to be 2230.

Also, by definition, traveling faster than light IS traveling backwards in time.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Fundamental Law of Science: Nothing is Impossible, we just haven't figured out how to do it yet.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
My itinerary for my current project at work:

Build time machine - 10 yrs
Finish all projects - instantaneously

:)
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
You can travel back in time. All you gotta do is move all molecules back to their x,y,z coordinates to the time you wish to travel to. Think of it like taking a snapshot of a computer's memory state. Now, if you revert back to the snapshot, to the computer, no time has past.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
If you can't travel backwards, you can't travel forwards either. Prove to me that I'm wrong.

Travel forward? Just let everything in the universe perform whatever action it's about to perform, time has just progressed.
Want to travel backwards? Make everything in the universe perform the reverse action of whatever it just did.

There ya go, when you control all matter, you'll control all time.
 

SSP

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
17,727
0
0
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: Queasy
Link

The urge to hug a departed loved one again or prevent atrocities are among the compelling reasons that keep the notion of time travel alive in the minds of many.

While the idea makes for great fiction, some scientists now say traveling to the past is impossible.

There are a handful of scenarios that theorists have suggested for how one might travel to the past, said Brian Greene, author of the bestseller "The Elegant Universe" and a physicist at Columbia University.

"And almost all of them, if you look at them closely, brush up right at the edge of physics as we understand it," he said. "Most of us think that almost all of them can be ruled out."

The fourth dimension

In physics, time is described as a dimension much like length, width and height.

When you travel from your house to the grocery store, you're traveling through a direction in space, making headway in all the spatial dimensions ? length, width and height.

But you're also traveling forward in time, the fourth dimension.

"Space and time are tangled together in a sort of a four-dimensional fabric called space-time," said Charles Liu, an astrophysicist with the City University of New York, College of Staten Island and co-author of the book "One Universe: At Home In The Cosmos."

Space-time, Liu explains, can be thought of as a piece of spandex with four dimensions.

"When something that has mass ? you and I, an object, a planet or any star ? sits in that piece of four-dimensional spandex, it causes it to create a dimple," he said. "That dimple is a manifestation of space-time bending to accommodate this mass."

The bending of space-time causes objects to move on a curved path, and that curvature of space is what we know as gravity.

Mathematically one can go backwards or forwards in the three spatial dimensions. But time doesn't share this multi-directional freedom.

"In this four-dimensional space-time, you're only able to move forward in time," Liu told LiveScience.

Tunneling to the past

A handful of proposals exist for time travel. The most developed of these approaches involves a wormhole ? a hypothetical tunnel connecting two regions of space-time.

The regions bridged could be two completely different universes or two parts of one universe. Matter can travel through either mouth of the wormhole to reach a destination on the other side.

"Wormholes are the future, wormholes are the past," said Michio Kaku, author of "Hyperspace" and "Parallel Worlds" and a physicist at the City University of New York. "But we have to be very careful. The gasoline necessary to energize a time machine is far beyond anything that we can assemble with today's technology."

To punch a hole into the fabric of space-time, Kaku explained, would require the energy of a star or negative energy, an exotic entity with an energy of less than nothing.

Greene, an expert on string theory ? which views matter in a minimum of 10 dimensions and tries to bridge the gap between particle physics and nature's fundamental forces, questioned this scenario.

"Many people who study the subject doubt that that approach has any chance of working," Greene said in an interview . "But the basic idea if you're very, very optimistic is that if you fiddle with the wormhole openings, you can make it not only a shortcut from a point in space to another point in space, but a shortcut from one moment in time to another moment in time."

Cosmic strings

Another popular theory for potential time travelers involves something called cosmic strings ? narrow tubes of energy stretched across the entire length of the ever-expanding universe.

These skinny regions, leftover from the early cosmos, are predicted to contain huge amounts of mass and therefore could warp the space-time around them.

Cosmic strings are either infinite or they're in loops, with no ends, said J. Richard Gott, author of "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe" and an astrophysicist at Princeton University. "So they are either like spaghetti or Spaghetti-O's."

The approach of two such strings parallel to each other, said Gott, will bend space-time so vigorously and in such a particular configuration that might make time travel possible, in theory.

"This is a project that a super-civilization might attempt," Gott told LiveScience. "It's far beyond what we can do. We're a civilization that's not even controlling the energy resources of our planet."

Impossible, for now

Mathematically, you can certainly say something is traveling to the past, Liu said.

"But it is not possible for you and me to travel backward in time," he said.

However, some scientists believe that traveling to the past is, in fact, theoretically possible, though impractical.

Maybe if there were a theory of everything, one could solve all of Einstein's equations through a wormhole, and see whether time travel is really possible, Kaku said.

"But that would require a technology far more advanced than anything we can muster," he said. "Don't expect any young inventor to announce tomorrow in a press release that he or she has invented a time machine in their basement."

For now, the only definitive part of travel in the fourth dimension is that we're stepping further into the future with each passing moment.

So for those hoping to see Earth a million years from now, scientists have good news.

"If you want to know what the Earth is like one million years from now, I'll tell you how to do that," said Greene, a consultant for "Déjà Vu," a recent movie that dealt with time travel. "Build a spaceship. Go near the speed of light for a length of time ? that I could calculate. Come back to Earth, and when you step out of your ship you will have aged perhaps one year while the Earth would have aged one million years. You would have traveled to Earth's future."

i didn't think we could travel at light speed yet?
meh anyway, i always hate reading these things because everyone talks in current technology. who knows what we'll have 100 years down the line?

Self-spreading peanut butter.
 

RedArmy

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2005
2,648
0
0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: LS20
why is the Wiki link to "Einestein"?

...he came up with general relativity.

That's odd, I thought it was Einstein that came up with general relativity, not Einestein :confused:

/1 metric ton of sarcasm