Time Travel

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by JimmyJames, Jun 6, 2001.

  1. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Somewhere recently I read that if you create a container and pass light through it and in the process freeze light in the container so that no light escapes, then you will also freeze time in the container. The freezing or slowing down of light has been tested recently. I wonder if that will show a door to time travel...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KalvinB Publicity Whore Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,063
    Traveling faster than light would only allow you to see the past, not put you into the future.

    When you look at a star you're seeing it's past, not it's future. You can travel "faster" than time as you approach it but once there you will see it's present in real time.

    Because you can't travel a negative distance, it's not possible to time travel by light.

    Ben
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    There is something that bothers me. How can light, if it is pure energy be affected by gravity? I understand that in traveling within a media that light can be bent. Such as a prism, or reflected, such as a mirror. But in space there is a common event called light lensing. Where light is traveling through space and encounters sufficient gravity to bend it. So that you see what is behind an object. Something you could not do with out this phenomenon happening. It has been documented may times on film.
    It is easy to understand how this could be if light does indeed have that minimal amount of mass. But if it doesn't then it leaves that vague doubt that something is wrong here.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Where science ends....

    Hi all,

    Beauideal,

    Yes, I think I have the idea of what you mean: light only exists, it can only propagate because there is something like "time".

    I believe the relation is a bit more fundamental than that. I probably mentioned this before, but if you just look at relativistic effects, which all have to do with the finite speed of light, this makes some sense. People are probably tired of me using the example, but here it goes once more: time dilatation. Clocks do not run at the same speed for observers that move with different speeds in respect to eachother. The reason behind this effect is light: in order to witness this effect, you need light to travel from point a to point b, and it is because the speed of light is the same for all observers that time runs differently for every observer.

    This doesn't really have to do anything with the exact nature of light...

    Yes, and that's the key to the answer IMHO. The debate is not really about "is light a particle or a wave" but "why does light exhibit a particle and a wave property". I think light is neither, it is because our description of light is not adequate enough that we sometimes perceive the particle behaviour of light and sometimes the wave nature.

    Relativistic mass, yes. Rest mass, why should it have that ? Even in the special theory of relativity light has a (relativistic) mass, but no restmass. So there's no real problem here.

    I can think of a couple of examples of transfering energy (I only added "pure" in one of my previous messages to indicate that light IMHO does not consist of anything else). If you slap your hand on a table, you're transfering energy from the movement to the atoms in the table, making them jiggle about their rest positions and transfering phonons within the table atomic lattice. (Phonon = energy quantum of a vibration in a system). A more simple example is heat: heat is a form of energy that can be transfered from a source (fire) to a destination.

    So you basically assume that timetravel is possible, something not everybody would agree to.


    Wet1,

    In the theory of general relativity, which can account for the effect of gravitational lensing, light follows the curvature of spacetime. As you probably already know, spacetime is curved in the presence of mass (the most famous analogy would be the rubber sheet with a pool ball on it). It is the curvature of spacetime that bends the path of light - light always travels straight in one direction on this rubber sheet (=spacetime).

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  8. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    "TAP-TEN Research Foundation" New Website!

    <IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
    "Whenever you say something is not possible," Bar-Cohen said, "someone will beat you at it."
    Visit us at our new website!

    ******"TAP-TEN Research Foundation"******
    http://www.Tap-Ten.com
     
  9. Red Devil Born Again Athiest Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    The Incontinent Factor

    Regarding an earlier mail from Crisp I believe, refering to the rubber sheet theory (incontinent factor) I was always led to believe that the rubber sheet and the ball theory was caused by gravity and not light? Taking the rubber sheet, stretching it out, placing the heavier orb within it, it finds its own "hole" and settles there, disturbing the surrounding area with its gravitational depression. Now, along comes a light, travelling in a straight line, it arrives at the dense gravitational area, bends around it and continues upon its new course. Astronomers, by this method have been able to observe stars hidden behind dense gravitational fields by virtue of the bent light. Therefore surely is it not gravity causing the disturbance, not light?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi Red Devil,

    Yes, that's what I meant, I probably expressed it in a rather unfortunate way (something that happens every now and then

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). I'm not really into general relativity, but if I am not mistaken, it is the mass that bends spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is perceived by us as gravity, and light (following a straight line inside the "dippened" rubber sheet) gets deviated from it's path in this more dimensional picture.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  11. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    <IMG SRC=http://iasos.com/detalist/rol/FractalSquare.gif>
    Sooner or latter, we shall find that many points of these theories do take on a strange twist of commonalities, yet the closer in ideology they become, the more distorted our observations of interconnetedness becomes as well, I just wish we could say the same for ego? but it is good to see as the more we begin to evolve, the more we begin to discover as the gap between science & philosophy begins to become more narrow, and our collective minds of shared expression becomes more broadend to expand our hightened awareness of the working universe we all dwell in.

    "Please be patient, Time takes Time!"
     
  12. Beauideal Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Heat or slapping a table with your hand, neither of those is pure energy. They are both forms of mechanical energy involving mass and the transfer of energy from one mass to another. As I understood your definition of pure energy, it is energy without any mass at all. At least it was said that light is pure energy because, it contains no mass. Then it was changed to say that light had no mass at rest. I do understand why the claim is made that light has no mass, but until someone is able to contain light, weigh it and determine with a much greater accuracy that light has no mass, then I am going to have to keep an open mind as to the possibility that light does contain mass, however insignificant it may be. I personally believe that light does contain particles. I also believe that all particles contain mass. Who knows maybe we will some day find out that the speed of light is the max speed that any mass can reach.
    Now as far as freezing light goes. If you could freeze light all you would be doing is basically taking a picture of an event, not freezing time. As an example, lets say a person runs past you and as this person passes you, you freeze the light that is bouncing off of the person, the person will keep running and experiencing time. The reason for this is because; all you did was freeze an image that was created by light. You did not freeze the event or time. So no, being able to freeze light would have no use in time travel. In my opinion freezing light would be no more significant than taking a photograph or hitting the pause button on your VCR while watching a movie.
    As said before traveling at the speed of light will only allow you to see the light, which bounced off of an event in the past. This would only allow you to be an observer of past time not ever time travel. In my opinion, true time travel is the ability to not only go back or forward in time to witness an event, but to also become part of that event. Time traveling by using the speed of light to catch up to the light of a past event and view that event is equivalent to just video taping an event and watching it repeatedly. Actually, video taping an event is probably the best and only way to time travel using light.
    The only thing I can say about faster than light travel is that it may, and that is a big may, get you infinitely close to time traveling and that is only because light, at least from our perspective, is infinitely close to being instantaneous. Nevertheless, as we all know something that is infinitely close, can also be considered to be infinitely far away. For example, how many numbers are there between 0 and .000000000000000001000000000000. The answer, although the number is infinitely close to 0 there is still an infinite amount of numbers between the two numbers. For example, this number is larger than 0 but yet smaller than the second number .000000000000000000999999999999 you can now see how this process could go on to infinity and beyond. Therefore, in order to truly time travel it would need to be instantaneous. If asked what is faster than light? Time is. To give an example of something that is instantaneous it would be the present. The present occurs faster than you can say the word "NOW." Light takes eight minutes to reach Earth from the sun. Time or the present, is instantaneously the same at both the sun and Earth. And yes at the same time.


    More questions for those of you who believe time travel is possible through the speed of light.

    How do you travel into the future and witness the future if light has not yet been produced?

    How do you expect to use the same positive distance and positive speed traveled to time travel to both the past and future? My guess is you can't. It would be impossible.

    How can you keep patching the wholes that are always occurring in the theory that the speed of light is the key to time travel? When do you finally realize that it is time for a new theory?

    Crisp my man you are very prolific and for that I respect you and wish you and all the rest that believe that the speed of light is the key to time travel, the best of luck. And someday Crisp, when you see the true light, we could use you on our side in obtaining the true key to time travel.
    This may be my last reply for a long time as I feel that I am spending too much mental energy in trying to convince you guys of something you don't want to hear. I would rather use that energy in conjunction with others who believe as I do, to develop time travel. So bye for now and good luck. I'll be watching. The race is on.
     
  13. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    <IMG SRC=http://iasos.com/detalist/rol/FractalSquare.gif>
    Ah, but you could travel through a worm hole without the deadly effects of a black hole right?
    Question is, what happens when you artificialy create a wormhole to appear at the gravitational mouth of a blackhole, and observe it as it gets pulled through? better yet what if you were to travel through that wormhole that is travelling through the blackhole?
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    I noted that the entire principle of using something like a blackhole or wormhole is similar to water going down a plug hole, it creates an area of space that water doesn't occupy, a funnel.

    Of course in a Blackhole or Wormhole this would be a Vacuum, you could be sucked along and how someone on here mentioned "Spaghettified" as long as you don't touch the walls of the funnel, as moving into those walls would leave your molecules scattered between your entrance and exit point. (remember to tell your loved ones that method instead of cremation if something happens to you)

    I did originally think of a wormhole without a funnel effect, but this meant that your body (well molecules) would act in accordance to the Heisenberg principle of Uncertainty, As soon as you enter, what every location your molecules are at could have an adverse effect, either some atoms might shoot electrons behind you, so when you arrrive they are missing, or your atoms might sling shot electrons infront of you, to arrive before you do, again this would scatter you through trying to travel through a wormhole without a funnel like vacuum.

    Also you could mention Einstein's formula and understand two things:

    1) If you travel faster than your atomic frequencies you will be converted to nothing more than energy and waveformations.

    2) The energy that is necessary to continue acceleration to the speed necessary for time travel increases in the amount need due to a craft having to combat friction.
    (this is why NASA was working ont he Hyper-X, as they were taking the very friction and using it to cause a more efficent drive, by forcing those frictionised particals through the prepulsion vent.)

    Anyway as I mention in the "Parallels" posting, it's much easier just to send information faster than light, and send information back in time, rather than sending a craft, you never know perhaps you could use such a device to send your plans of a craft down to the beginning to build quicker.
     
  15. Hypnogog Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    I submit that All energy transforms: Newtonian, relatavistic and quantum. From light -> heat, friction ->sound, Gravity ->Kinetic ->potential. There isn't a static form of energy (isn't that a contradiction?) If the "Universe" became inert, devoid of all energy, static.. would there still be time?

    Also How would you define energy?

    And, what do you mean the universe dosen't age? Don't you see things traveling in a distinct direction from past to present to future. If the universe IS all that it contains, and all it contains ages (oh... bad choice of words i guess. I should have said 'has a linear existence' or something like that) wouln't that imply a like state?
     
  16. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    So what really is energy ?

    Hi Hypnogog,

    Unfortunately you cannot define energy by its energy transformations. That's like saying "a define a circle to be a circular object". A definition cannot use the concept it defines

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I am saying this because heat, friction, kinetic (energy) and potential (energy) are four different forms of energy.

    About your question: that would again be a philosophical question, along the lines of "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?". If all energy is removed from the universe, then there would be no light to propagate events, so nobody would be able to perceive the progress of time. Hence: "if you cannot see time progress, is time still there?". Good argument!

    I have absolutely no idea. The best I could do is the following: "Energy is a fictional concept that was introduced in physics to easily describe what is the driving force behind moving objects". After all, everyone is taught the definition of kinetic energy first: T = (1/2)*m*v^2. Nothing is said about the nature of this quantity, it's just defined that way. A nice consequence of this definition is that you have a quantity that describes "what an object is capable of": high energy = it travels at high speed, or has a lot of mass. Collisions with high energy: there surely is gonna be some action there.

    By definition, the word "universe" means everything in the world as we perceive it, including time. In physics, the universe is understood to be the 4-dimensional manifold of space... and time! What the universe concerns, all possible times from t = 0 (bigbang) to t = t[end] (= big crunch, or infinity if there's no end to the universe) are already included in this 4-dimensional description.

    So the universe doesn't age. It's the matter within that ages.

    Somebody earlier mentioned an article in Scientific American where you had this theoretical physicist say that the universe is static (I believe kmguru posted the link). I think I now understand what he means: from a theoretical point of view, time only exists for the matter inside the spacetime manifold. Spacetime itself doesn't age, it's only the matter inside that has a perception to time. This perception of time is due to a movement along the time-axis in spacetime. So I think he means that the fabric of spacetime is static, but only the matter inside has a perception of time.

    Anyway, it's all tricky stuff. There still aren't indefinite arguments for one theory or another. At the moment, all our ideas are equally valuable (or worthless, for the pessimists along us

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  17. Hypnogog Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Putting your finger on energy

    Alright, if you want a singular encompassing definition of all energy I will have to venture to state...
    energy is the quantitative definition of the interaction between all objects regardless of size, mass or distance.
    Time then becomes the way one measures that interaction.

    Also, I;ve got a little semantic quibble to put forth. In your post way back there you said (and I've heard it many times before) "The Universe is the fabric of spacetime." Now that doesn't implicitly state that it IS spacetime, as you implied. Wool is the fabric of the sweater. The fabric of spacetime is the universe. The sweater is Not wool. Spacetime is Not the universe.
    Sorry, that's bin a monkey up my mineshaft for a while.

    take care.
     
  18. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    Impossibility
    Some things are impossible because they are against the laws of physics. Yet we can imagine many things that are impossible. Is the impossible simply a figment of the human mind? Is everything I can think about true?
    ---Tormod Guldvog

    Excerpt from "Alice in Wonderland" (Lewis Caroll):
    “There is no use in trying,” said Alice; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”.

    What is impossible?
    As human beings, we consider many things to be impossible. Some things we even use as metaphors for things which may never happen - like flying pigs. But why is it that we can still imagine pigs flying around?

    What is real?
    We like to think that we know the truth about things, and that these truths explain what we see around us. The speed of light, for example, has been considered to be a true and eternal measure. Yet new research has shown that the speed of light may have changed during the age of the universe. And so may the expansion of the universe, which astronomers now claim may in fact be constantly increasing.

    Although we can observe many things around is, we cannot know everything about what we see. We can't see beyond the edge of the universe, simply because all the light we can see comes from inside it. Or does it? How can we be sure of that?

    On the other end of things, there is a limit to how small things can be in the universe. This is called a Planck length, after the physicist Max Planck. It is estimated to be 10-33 centimeters. Anything smaller than this has no meaning in the physical world.

    If I can think of something, is it true?
    For some philosophers, all things that can be seen, must be real. But what does this say about things like "impossible" objects depicted by artists and painters?

    And what happens if I think about things which are smaller than the Planck length? The answer may be that you won't, because you can't. But is it true?

    Other philosophers claim that all things which can be imagined, must be real. If you can think of flying pigs, then flying pigs are for real. But this does not necessarily mean that they exist in flesh and blood, only that the "concept" of flying pigs is a "valid" concept. Get it? It is at least a great way to think if you have problems proving a theory...

    Or, as the mathematical philosopher Kurt Gödel once said, "The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact".

    * The Unknown and the Unknowable
    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/traub/traub_p1.html
    This is an interview with Joseph Traub about how scientists can understand and answer impossible questions and concepts.
    Review: tormod
    Engineering and Technology

    * Erroneous Predictions
    http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html
    This page has a list of predictions, mostly concerning things which at some time were considered impossible, and which later turned out to be in error.
    Review: tormod Sci-Tech History

    * World Of Escher Gallery
    http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/
    This web site has a gallery with many of the drawings of M.C. Escher, famous for his incredible, impossible figures.
    Review: tormod Geometry

    * Impossible Objects Gallery
    http://www.sandlotscience.com/Impossible/impos_frm.htm
    This is a truly wonderful web site, with illustrations and explanations for numerous impossible objects. The impossible triangle section has a downloadable plan which helps you build your own triangle!
    Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

    * PuzzleSolver: Impossible Puzzle Solutions
    http://www.puzzlesolver.com/impossible/index.shtml
    Spoiler alert: this web site has a section which shows you how to solve impossible puzzles, like how to get big things into a bottle and other interesting stuff.
    Review: tormod Gadgets

    * There are really impossible things...
    http://www.cut-the-knot.com/impossible/
    This page lists several impossible things, and goes on to explain why they are impossible. But there is also a page about some surprising things which are actually possible.
    Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

    * Medieval Theories of Modality
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-medieval/
    This is a very long text document from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, about Medieval modal thinking, which basically means that it is concerned with stages or levels of possibility and chance that actions and thoughts might actually happen. This is for the very interested among us.
    Review: tormod Sci-Tech History

    * Impossible Figures in Perceptual Psychology
    http://www.fink.com/papers/impossible.html
    A fairly old, but none the less interesting, paper with illustrations of impossible figures.
    Review: tormod Psychology

    9. Possibility and Impossibility
    http://www.tir.org/metapsy/jom/061_possible.html
    This is a brief philosophical investigation into different kinds of possibility/impossibility conceptual pairs.
    Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

    * Wishes for the future?
    http://www.ideafinder.com/futurama/wishlist.htm
    A bit offbeat, this is a cool list of people's wishes for the future. Leave your wish here, and the impossible just might come true.
    Review: tormod General science


    <IMG SRC=http://paranormal.about.com/library/graphics/timetravel.jpg>
     
  19. Pkunk Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    ok ill try and articulate myself as best i can here but :

    what is there to tie the speed of light in with timetravel

    why if i travel (for arguments sake) faster than the speed of light will i "go into the future"

    I know about how when you stick a clock in the plane and travel fast it will be out of sync with a stationary clock, but what is to say that the 2nd clock is ahead in time from the 1st clock ? Isnt time just realative

    Try this : if i travel away from a clock at the speed of light, the hands will have appeared to have stayed still (realativity right). But if i do this for say, 1 year straight, am i not 1 year older ? have events elsewhere not progressed by 1 year ?

    By that token you havent actually travelled forward in time (or kept time standing still)

    So what im trying to get at is that perhaps time isnt tied together like this and that if you travelled say 10x faster than light in a spaceship for 1 day, you would age 1 day and the rest of the universe would "age" 1 day

    any thoughts ?
    -pk
     
  20. Hypnogog Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Light not time

    I agree with you and have some further extrapolations.
    The problem with the whole clock thing is that it always assumes light travelling in a singular direction and disregards all other sources. Whatever happens to all the light emanating from behind you, which you are reflecting at an increasing speed.
    How about this for a Q&A.
    If you travel @ c in a circle Around the clock, the hands don't change momentum at all by the time you make one complete circuit perpendicluar to the source. You've just travelled @ c without any dialation, right?
    If you don't like the clock, how about a pulsating quasar.
     
  21. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    A whole lot of comments...

    Hi all,

    Some comments and thoughts:

    Hypnogog,

    "Alright, if you want a singular encompassing definition of all energy I will have to venture to state...
    Energy is the quantitative definition of the interaction between all objects regardless of size, mass or distance."


    How about mass then ? Mass is a form of energy in the theories of relativity. From a classical, Newtonian point of view, I agree with your definitions. But in more complex theories, this definition cannot hold. The best I can do is to say: "Energy is a quantitive description of everything that resides inside the universe".

    "Time then becomes the way one measures that interaction.""

    Hrmmm... I agree to a certain extend, but I would not consider this to be a closed definition of time. Time is certainly a measurement instrument, but I think we're probing for the deeper meaning of time here.

    "Also, I've got a little semantic quibble to put forth.

    Good! Vocabulary is important in these kind of discussions, it prevents us from misunderstanding eachother.

    "In your post way back there you said (and I've heard it many times before) "The Universe is the fabric of spacetime." Now that doesn't implicitly state that it IS spacetime, as you implied. Wool is the fabric of the sweater. The fabric of spacetime is the universe. The sweater is Not wool. Spacetime is Not the universe."

    Ehrr.... yes, sorry about that. English is not my mother language so sometimes I am in a struggle for correct words

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . What I meant is the following: The universe, devoid of all matter and everything inside, IS spacetime. Spacetime is the stuff where all the matter resides in. A better word than fabric would probably have been "framework".


    Time/02112,

    Thanks, it's good to remind us from time to time (pun not intended) that the impossible could eventually happen. I suspect that your point is that eventually, the answer to the question "what is time" might be more philosophical than physical.


    Pkunk,

    "why if i travel (for arguments sake) faster than the speed of light will i "go into the future"

    You would "travel to the past" in the sense that you will catch up with light emitted by events that happened BEFORE you departed. When you travel twice the lightspeed for one year, would stop and then look back at earth, you would see all the events that happened the past year again.

    "I know about how when you stick a clock in the plane and travel fast it will be out of sync with a stationary clock, but what is to say that the 2nd clock is ahead in time from the 1st clock ? Isnt time just relative"

    Time and space are relative in the sense that different observers can be lead to different conclusions on one event. Let me explain this using your example: If you fly a plane around the earth, the clock in the plane will run slower, compared to a clock on the ground. Imagine one scientist stands next to the clock in the plane and one next to the clock on the ground. The scientist on the ground will say "Hey, that clock on the plane runs slower". The scientist on the plane will say, "Hey that clock on the ground runs faster".

    It's a matter of interpretation. What the theory of (special) relativity does is provide a link between all the results from different observers.

    "Try this : if i travel away from a clock at the speed of light, the hands will have appeared to have stayed still (relativity right). But if i do this for say, 1 year straight, am i not 1 year older ? have events elsewhere not progressed by 1 year ?"

    You forgot one thing. If you travel at light speed, you will indeed see the hands on the clock you travel away from stand still. However, the wristwatch on your hand will still tick away one year. So you would have aged one year in your frame of reference.

    "So what im trying to get at is that perhaps time isnt tied together like this and that if you travelled say 10x faster than light in a spaceship for 1 day, you would age 1 day and the rest of the universe would "age" 1 day"

    That's the beauty of special relativity: you would think you would have aged one day, but for the rest of the universe (assuming it all stands still relative to you) you would have aged several years. It's really not easiliy explainable in a physical way, the mathematics just works out great in this case.


    Hypnogog again,

    "The problem with the whole clock thing is that it always assumes light travelling in a singular direction and disregards all other sources. Whatever happens to all the light emanating from behind you, which you are reflecting at an increasing speed."

    That's another story: the light originating from a point behind you is described as emited by a third observer, and different sets of rules apply to that situation:

    (1) <-----------------> (2) <----------------> (3)

    Special relativity describes you how to relate time and distance between observers 1 and 2, 2 and 3 and 1 and 3. But you cannot deduce anything for the relation between (2) and (3) from your knowledge of the situation between (1) and (2).

    "If you travel @ c in a circle Around the clock, the hands don't change momentum at all by the time you make one complete circuit perpendicluar to the source. You've just travelled @ c without any dialation, right?"

    Nope, what happens is that you bounce into the light that the clock has previously emitted, so you still see time progress on the clock. If the hands on the clock change, the light that reflects this change spreads out spherically around the clock. Every time you move a bit forward around the circle, you will meet the light that was emitted just a bit earlier by the clock. In the time you require to travel around the circle, new light has been emitted and you will see that light when you pass again at your starting point.

    However, this is all very hypothetical. When you travel at lightspeed, the special theory of relativity predicts that time stops for you and that all distances become zero. If you replace "travel at lightspeed" by "traveling nearly at lightspeed" then the above will make more sense.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  22. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Since this thread seems to follow the usual chain of thought on
    What happens if we could go faster than light, or do we time travel?

    I have decided to look from a slightly different perspective due
    to my original perspective being:
    It's not impossible just improbible. If time travel was possible then
    problems could occur from people cloning with the use of time (jumping back five minutes, waiting with yourself to jump again in five minutes time, so although a person is lost from the future on X number worlds, one world is invaded by X number of people)

    First of all, if you travelled faster than the speed of light, you have to decide what speed to define lightspeed. The problem is though if you define a wavelength and speed, the wavelength can be distorted by gravity, so the wave changes it's position within the spectrum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Namely if a number of waves are at first compressed together (A), throughout their period of travelling they can stretch out(B), which means the same number of waves exists but their dimensions like length, height and width will differ.
    This I believe is especially noticable within astronomy, as distant stars will be seen as particular parts of the spectrum, as the rest of the light either hasn't reached here yet or our distance is so far that only a particular visual spectrum occurs.

    This causes a problem if you speculate that you could re-enter at any given time point, in truth you would be spread throughout more than one point of time because all the light frequencies that had been heading towards you is a matrix of differing time segments, even if only milliseconds, but it's still enough to make it difficult.

    This also brings up a question of "Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty"
    Of course the relevance of this principle that Heisenberg made and pointed out to Schrodinger was in understanding Matrix Mechanics (Quantum Mechanics), the understanding was I believe more meaningful for the time in that respect due to the measuring equipment.

    (Namely using photons to look at an atom through a lenses, like they did back then. The photons would bombard the atom and cause it instabilites within it's matrix, the abnormalities couldn't be calculated because of the uncertainty of their occurances and where future postions would be. The only cure for the ability to measure without the Uncertainty principle dictating that a measurement would be void, was/is by using wavelengths that are so small that they don't cause "as much" of an impact on the matrixing of the atom.)


    Of course Heisenberg's principle is now extend to two points that you have to think of in relevance of Time travel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    When you enter your time jump all your atoms have to be synchronised with that jump, otherwise they will lose alignment (And you'll be strewn across time in molecules as your electrons are slingshotted at higher speed than the majority of you, or slung behind you to accumilate less speed, or you could end up nothing but a pile of ash on the floor.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (The above shows an Object where all matrices at that point intersect, and how they react as they head towards the observer)

    The other is re-entry, as I mentioned all light matrices would be mis-aligned, of course they would realign at a set distance point (And particular points along route). Of course some will probably exclaim it wouldn't matter for the amount of waves, but this is a bit like a cross-section of then entire matrix stream of spectral frequencies.

    Another person that placed some information to the relevance of this would be Schrodinger, through the use of his hypothetical experiment "Schrodingers Cat".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (Cat stolen from cover of John Gribbon's book "In search of Schrodinger's Cat", Original Illustrator David Scott)
    The experiment consisted of A box large enough to hold a cat, a Geiger counter's probe was placed into the box (Inaccuracy within my diagram I placed the whole geiger counter in the box), a radioactive atom, placed within range of the geiger probe.
    The geiger is connected to a hammer with a piece of string, which is suspended above a glass vial containing a poisonous toxin.
    Schrodinger Hypothesised placing a cat (his guinea pig) into the box and closing the lid, while eveyone outside pondered at what was going on inside.

    The idea was simple, while the cat was within the box it existed between two states, Alive and Dead. The reason was that the radioactive atom would eventually degrade to a point where the geiger counters needle would stop over the central position, at this point the cat would die from the poisonous toxin escaping from the broken vial, as the hammer falls and brakes it.

    Of course while the radioactive atom was not fully degraded (but in the process of degrading) the cat would exist in a multiversal state of the geiger needle moving from one side to the other and back again, crossing the centre (flatline).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    My "well" drawn stickmen is a representation of what could occur to schrodingers experiment. I've made the left a negative Blue stickman and the right a positive red stickman, Both of are positioned differently. The central stickman is a mixture of both left and right, while also containing it's own position, but acts like a Multiversal state. Where a singularity occurs, you see just the colour of the left or the right position (Or the centrals normal postion in black).

    The purple colour is a Multiverse position where the stickmen's positions all align.

    in another version of Schrodingers cat called (Wigners Experiment) there is a point where the person(substitute for cat) could die, not from gas, but by a Wavefunction collapse. It actually is a bit like passing out, the wavefunction collapse occurs when a parallel is created successfully and a particular energy (for instance a brain signal) decides which parallel to exist within and moves to a parallel while another parallel will lose its energy.
    (this kind of makes me imagine how a blob of water can react in space. Of course thats becaus I saw some footage of a blob of water in space)

    Of course there is an alternative where the signal exists in both, but this occurance is due to the creation of the parallel being done on perhaps another experimentee. This too can be harmful as it could reate Duel heart signals or stronger ones etc.

    This occurs at the 0 of the stickman diagram, because the stickmen don't line up, and because all the parallels are different, the multiversal state suffers from a Quanta increase.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2001
  23. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Some problems aren't really problems

    Hi Stryderunknown,

    "First of all, if you travelled faster than the speed of light, you have to decide what speed to define lightspeed."

    The speed of light (in vacuum) is defined to be c = 299 722 458 m/s. You can forget the "in vacuum" part if you speak about outer space since there's almost nothing there anyway.

    "The problem is though if you define a wavelength and speed, the wavelength can be distorted by gravity, so the wave changes it's position within the spectrum."

    Yes, but this does not affect their speed. Light will always travel at the same speed, but as you mentioned, it's frequency ( = place in the spectrum) can change through eg. the Doppler effect.

    "This causes a problem if you speculate that you could re-enter at any given time point, in truth you would be spread throughout more than one point of time because all the light frequencies that had been heading towards you is a matrix of differing time segments, even if only milliseconds, but it's still enough to make it difficult."

    Matrices ? What have these got to do with physical realities ? And the spreading out assumes that you would propagate as a wave, something which is not entirely true.

    "When you enter your time jump all your atoms have to be synchronised with that jump, otherwise they will lose alignment (And you'll be strewn across time in molecules as your electrons are slingshotted at higher speed than the majority of you, or slung behind you to accumilate less speed, or you could end up nothing but a pile of ash on the floor.)"

    Take my word for it, electrons don't slingshot forward or backward because the main structure carrying them moves - they are to tightly bound to feel anything of that effect (simply because the energy required is many factors too low for an electron to loosen).

    "Wavefunction collapse. It actually is a bit like passing out, the wavefunction collapse occurs when a parallel is created successfully and a particular energy (for instance a brain signal) decides which parallel to exist within and moves to a parallel while another parallel will lose its energy.)"

    ???. The collapse of the wave function is a theoretical artefact that has been introduced in the 1920's to let quantummechanics agree with the theory of special relativity. The wavefunction doesn't really collapse, it is not as drastical as it sounds: it just means that the wavefunction - a mathematical description of eg. a particle - narrows down from several possible locations to one location. The interpretation you refer to is the many-worlds interpretation, and even in this scenario wave functions don't do the extraordinary things you mention.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     

Share This Page