Why I think I can travel through time

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Funky Granny, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. Funky Granny Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    What is it for something to *travel*?

    Take the case of a train travelling along a track at a constant speed of 60km/hour, starting at point p. It is *travelling* along the track because at different times it is located at different points on the track. After 10 secs it is located 1/6 km away from p, after 30 secs it is 1/2 km away from p, and so-on.

    Generalising, *travel* along a dimension by an object occurs when its distance along that dimension, as a function of time, is continuous but not constant - that is, it is located at different points along the dimension at different times.

    What happens if we apply this to time? Can an object travel through time?

    Applying the principle above, an object travels along the time dimension (through time) if its distance along that dimension, as a function of time, is not constant - it is located at different points along the dimension at different times.

    Now I have just been sitting here typing this - and I have been travelling through time. I started at 8:30pm, at which point I was temporally located at... 8:30pm. Now it is 8:50pm, and I am located at 8:50pm. I conclude that I travelled along the time dimension (i.e. through time), since I was located at different points (in time) at different times.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yeah, you're tripping alright.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Laika Space Bitch Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    My god, you've done it! A Nobel prize beckons. Oh shit!.. so have I. Wanna collaborate?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    *tries to back in time and post this thread before Funky Granny does*

    Damn, guess you can only go forward after all.
     
  8. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    "time changes not, but all things change in time"
     
  9. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Now try starting at 8:50pm and finishing at 8:30pm on the same day (without switching timezones - just thought I'd add that for the smartarses).

    Then a Nobel prize truly will await you. Come on, it can't be that difficult..
     
  10. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Yeah, I think the commonly held concept for the phrase "time travel" is - travel through time in a direction other than the type of traveling that happens when you don't do anything.
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Time travel implies travelling much faster through the timeline than would be possible or going to a point in the past of the timeline. What are you are doing is simply experiencing the normal flow of time.
     
  12. Funky Granny Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    Prince James, leaving my (intentionally provocative) title aside, this was my point.

    By "than would be possible" (possible if what?), I assume you meant to say:

    "travelling much faster... than is ordinarily the case". (Please accept my apologies if this is wrong.)

    I believe that this is impossible, and here is why.

    What does it mean to say that one object travels faster than another? To say that one object A travels *faster* than another B along a dimension D during a period (time p1 to time p2) is to say that A's distance along D changes more rapidly than B's distance along D. Which is to say that

    the difference between [A's position (along D) at p1 and A's position at p2] is greater than the difference between [B's position (along D) at p1 and B's position at p2].

    If you consider this definition in the case of two objects (A,B) travelling through space, A faster than B over the period p1 to p2, you will see that it is right. Now I shall apply it - can one object travel *faster* than another through time?

    Let us consider Doctor Who (A) and myself (B). We both start on Monday. A then steps into the Tardis and attempts to *travel faster* to Friday. So our period is Monday (p1) to Friday (p2). A will have travelled faster along time if and only if the difference between

    [A's position in time (i.e. along D) at Monday and A's position in time at Friday]

    is greater than the difference between

    [B's position in time at Monday and B's position in time at Friday].

    But the difference is the same - there is a difference of four days in both cases. Therefore, A has not travelled faster through time than B, Doctor Who has failed to travel faster than me. Since I did not use any special features of the case, this argument converts into a proof that no object can travel faster through time than any other.

    If anyone disagrees, the only possible step to reject is my definition of "travelling faster". In this case my question is: could you please come up with a definition that: (i) works in the case of travel through space; and (ii) does not allow this argument to run?
     
  13. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Um ... well, I'd define travelling forward in time as getting to a point forward in time while measuring less time personally (clock ticks, and cells age more slowly) than those who get there the normal way.

    According to special relativity this is possible if you travel at close to light speed and then return to your original location.
     
  14. Funky Granny Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    Zephyr: Yes, I agree that, according to special relativity, for a moving frame of reference (FOR), events occur slower as the speed of the FOR approaches that of light. I'm not really bothered whether we call this travelling faster through time or whether we just say (as I usually do) that events occur slower in that FOR.

    As to travelling backwards in time, I will explain the problem with another argument from a common-sense definition.

    How can one object A be said to travel along a dimension *in the opposite direction* to that of B? Well, an object travels along a dimension during a period p1 to p2 if its distance along the dimension at p1 is different to its distance at p2. So presumably we can say that A travels in the opposite direction to B along a dimension D during the period p1 to p2 if

    [(A’s distance along D at p1) LESS (A’s distance along D at p2)]

    has the opposite sign (plus for minus, minus for plus) to

    [(B’s distance along D at p1) LESS (B’s distance along D at p2)].

    If you check this definition, you will see that it works for two objects travelling along a spatial dimension in opposite directions.

    Now suppose B starts at p1, and travels forward in time (in the trivial sense I explained in my original post – i.e. time elapses) to p2. The object A now forms and is put in a time machine which (purportedly) *takes it back* to p1. So A is located at p1 and p2, as is B. Can it be that A has travelled in the opposite direction to B over the interval?

    Applying the definition, we see that

    [(A’s distance along the time dimension at p1) LESS (A’s distance along the time dimension at p2)]

    is identical to

    [(B’s distance along the time dimension at p1) LESS (B’s distance along the time dimension at p2)].

    So they have travelled in the same direction.
     
  15. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Doctor who's "period" is five minutes, while your "period" is four days. He is on friday in five minutes, and most definitely will not be on friday (without the use of time travel) when you get there. In no way will his travel be the same as yours, nless he gets to the end of the friday, and keeps going back to the start of it - in which case he will experience friday four times - something you cannot do.
     
  16. freddles Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    Time Travel doesn't imply going faster through the timeline than would be [otherwise] possible... i don't see why it should anyway...

    If we are going to have a general definition for 'Time Travel' (this is all just a semantics debate anyway), then why shouldn't that definition include the trivial sense of experiencing a normal (from our particular perspective, it should definitely be noted) flow of time?

    During this normal flow, time has certainly not stopped, so under any useful definition this should be included as 'Time Travel'. The only implication present was the connotation that 'Time Travel' has with, to put it simply, interesting time travel.

    I never really believed in stating the conditions with which someone can reject one's own argument, it just seems arrogant to me to assume that you've considered every possible rejection there is already.

    In this case, (mostly because i'm travelling overseas tommorow and can't be bothered attempting to find a definition that fits (i) and (ii)), i'd prefer just to attack (i).

    As much as i'm aware that your definition of the word 'travel' is indeed correct, i believe you've made a flaw in assuming that when someone speaks of time travel, they mean "travel through time", using said definition of 'travel'.

    It seems to me that time travel is seperate from the simple action of travelling, and that the usual definition of 'travel' does not in this case apply... that particular definition was formulated to describe a change of location in space, and we only seem to use that term because the vocabulary fits on a superficial level. I do not see why Time Travel should be limited by the definition and connotations of 'travel', simply because we choose to call it such.

    Show me why (i) is a reasonable request? To be sure, it would be pretty cool if we did have another definition of travel which was general enough to include both modes, and i wonder if anyone has managed to come up with one (from a vague memory i know there's been attempts, i'm not sure if they succeeded though)... but i just don't think that a definition of the concept of Time Travel needs to be limited by the name we've chosen for it.
     
  17. freddles Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    oh, and it seems that that particular definition implies an absolute passage of time... wouldn't this run afoul of relativity? Is this the case, i've got a big day tommorow and don't have the time to think it through...
     
  18. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    When the earth travels through the universe faster than we can walk, yet we stay in one spot, we say we are not traveling, based on our pyschological frame of reference.

    Similarly, in order to call normal travel in time (standing in one place while time moves you along), "time travel" you would have to have a larger frame of reference which time is moving you through, beyond a simple timeline of forward and backward.

    Just a thought.
     
  19. freddles Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    once again, semantics. The definition of 'travel' proposed before isn't dependant on our psychological perceptions of travel, however other definitions are.

    I don't see the link here... if we are talking of 'normal travel', then time takes the backseat, and it is spatial location which is important. Why should we need a bigger frame of reference in time when the key component is location under what i assume you mean by 'normal travel'? Couldn't we better achieve the result by widening the spatial frame of reference such that we are not just standing in one place relative to another?

    Anyway, i'd like to see a reason why the concept of 'time travel' needs to be limited by the concept of [spatial] travel.
     
  20. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    Sorry, that's not what the connection i was going for.
    I was just talking about systems.
    Maybe looking at it this way - a human walking on the earth as a metaphor for a human traveling normally through time. This "travel" is tiny and relatively insignificant compared to the movement of the earth through space. Our frame of reference of the hours flying by is analagous to the earth hurtling through space, and any travelling in time we do is our whole frame of reference moving, not us individually, since we all (atomically) move at the same rate. And we haven't yet figured out a functional way to "travel" which gives us any significant divergence from the natural movement of time.
     
  21. freddles Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    that in particular wasn't the connection i was referring to, it was an aside to my main point above... regardless, i see what you mean now.
    An interesting point is that, if we were ever to have a general definition for travel it would be using the Geometrized unit system, as far as i can figure it would be the best way anyway. My point is, that as we are moving at nowhere near relativistic spatial speeds, the 'distance' we are 'travelling' through time is near to its maximum: c.

    Wouldn't this be the largest frame of reference for passage of time there is, pretty much? Time slows down as we move into astronomical speeds and distances. Our 'normal' passage through time is absolutely not insignificant, as long as we can't travel beyond c towards the past then its about the best we'll ever get.
     
  22. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    This whole time I have been relating these ideas to the statement, "I can travel through time", being different from the statement, "we all travel through time," and the differences between funky granny's "travel" and mine are insignificant.
    Of course we can say that we all "travel" through time, as a philosophical idea - I was just pointing out that your "travel" through time, mine, and also the thread starter's, are the same since our physical frame of reference is the same.

    Therefore, to say "I" can travel through time, as if there is something unique in the ability, or that it is a function you control, is incorrect.

    Of course, if we are speaking metaphorically, then anything is possible.
     
  23. freddles Registered Member

    Messages:
    28
    We do have control over it, though. By moving, by accelerating, or remaining in a constant speed relative to another, we exert a limited degree of control over our own flow of time.

    Naturally this is extremely limited; but i think we'd be applying double standards if we said it was 'no control' as a result... the distances we can travel spatially are also extremely limited when viewed relative to, say, a galaxy; but no one would bother to tell me that i have no control over whether i can travel to different locations as a result. And the physical frame of reference need not be the same... thats the beauty of frame of reference, you can choose how big you want them to be.

    Anyway, nothing of the sort is implied when one says "i can travel through time" rather than "we all travel through time". I can see how it can be interpreted such, but it wasn't particulary apparent, and isn't the principle of charity against doing that?

    who was speaking metaphorically?
     

Share This Page