^TiMe TRaVeL^

[dreamcrusader]

I dont belive in it. I dont see how you can transfer matter in the same order instanly through time. Nice concept for a story though

 

[Xenoce]

Firstly, I'd like to say that the theory of relativity has virtually nothing to do with quantum physics. They can't coexist. That's why we're looking into things like the string theory, to find some sort of unified theory of everything, that allows Quantum Physics to coexist peacefully with Einstein's ToR.

Secondly, it is technically possible to travel in time. Right now, it is thought that it happens rather regularly with small bits of energy, via minor rips within spacetime. However, such events are both very, very brief, and very, very small. We would need a rather substantial ammount of negative energy (technically possible, and probably does exist(It's not antimatter)) to keep such a wormhole stable enough to send anything usefull through it. This poses a problem, as some sort of exotic (negative) matter would be nessicary to collect this negative energy that we need. And the universe, being filled with positive (normal, every day) matter doesn't much allow for any substantial ammount of negative enegy or matter to exist for very long.

So, yes, I do believe time travel is possible, has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. however, it will never be useful, commercial, or large-scale.

 

[Renzokuken]

Too theoretical.

 

[MacMan]

Of course it does, even getting close to the speed of light, time dilates (Slows down), so then therefore, we can say that going faster than the speed of light would make you go back in time.

Also, with time dilation, it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of light, because as we said before, it pulls out a negative number, and you can't get the square root of a negative number. So it's impossible.

We can't observe anything near the circumstances needed to verify anything like what you are saying. When velocity equals the speed of light the Lorenz equation says time would reach a stand still. However, there's absolutely nothing to suggest there's a mechanism that would kick in after the freeze (it certainly isn't visible in a graph of the function). You very much "can" have a sqrt of a negative (just talk to an electrician), but we don't know how those numbers describe time (so nothing can be assumed). Talking about what happens at and above light speed (and assuming 'it goes backwards') is much more theoretical than negative energy and the like, at least we have good reason to believe it's there.

Edit: you said we couldn't go faster than light. Just incase you're trying to say (not that I think you are ) time reverses itself as it approaches light, then that would be wildly wrong.

 

[Jason the Destroyer]

Now, I'm not in physics, and I don't know much about this, but I have two points to make. I'm not sure on the first one. Wouldn't the speed of light threaten the stability of our molecular bonds? Wouldn't going at that speed put such a strain on our body that we would liquify? Just a thought. Now, time travel in the moral view. If we started to go back into time, isn't it possible that we change an event, no matter how small, that we completely alter the flow of time? It's possible that you can go far back enough that whatever machine you were using was never invented, leaving you trapped in whatever era you went to.

 

[Xenoce]

Jason, that is called Paradox, and yes on the second account. I think yes on the first, but I'm not sure.

 

[betaalpha5]

well that's why we need to build machines to protect the body


now here's my theory in order to travel at the speed of light and/or faster. see light cannot go around any object, therefore it will hit your body and all other lights would go past hence the shadow. however all we need to do is build clothes out of a certain material, in which a concentrated beam of light, will hit the body and instead of just "stopping" on the body, it will attempt to go around and pushes the material, thus letting the person travel at the speed of light. see that could work :wasted:

 

[Jason the Destroyer]

Ummm, dont' really know about that. But the whole paradox thing should stop us right there. Why would we want to accidentally mess up our own lives? Sure, massive disasters could be stopped, such as the Holocaust and 9/11, but what would the ripples in the time-space continuim (hereafter referred to as the TSC, 'cuz I don't want to type that every time) affect? Say we went back and killed Hitler before he started his mass-killings. Who's to say some other maniac with the same or more influence wouldn't take his place? The same goes for 9/11. If we stopped the planes from leaving the ground, the terrorists might just stage something even bigger.

 

[Thistle]

well maybe if that stuff didn't happen no-one would have been inspired to make a time machine.

 

[Jason the Destroyer]

True. But what if some strange scientist just decided to make one, to prove it could be done? The area of time-travel is filled with "what ifs".

 

[betaalpha5]

well that's why time travel is very risky. there is one paradox that could happen from time travel according to star trek yes star trek, so sue me

i can't remebmer their names but one paradox states an attempted time travel to shot an event but causes the event. i.e let say that history says that your friend was killed and the killer was unknown. you attempt to save his/her life, however it was your interferience that cause the problem in the first place.. gonna go on startrek.com to find those 3 little things

 

[MacMan]

Accelerating an atom of hydrogen to half the speed of light and stopping it would take more energy than all of the energy in the visible universe. It's never going to happen.

 

[betaalpha5]

well there is the multiverse theory. this states that there are more than one universe running side by side. this is easier to understand if you watch the movie the one
this theory states that if you do something here, it happens at another universe but the outcome is different.
here's an example. lets say that you were playing craps, and you roll a lucky 7. if you hoped onto a time machine and watched yourself play, you could have rolled a 6 instead. this theory thinks that there are mutliverse and coexist side by side with differnt outcomes.

p.s i couldn't find the 3 paradox from the voyager show "relativity" too bad those 3 sounded soo good

 

[Xenoce]

Firstly, The One has something like 148 (no clue on the actual number, but it had a four in it I believe) universes. Modern quantum physics predicts that EVERY possible outcome would happen from every action. I'm not talking about an action like rolling dice, I mean every glancing strike of a photon off an electron would have every concievable outcome. And there are an infinite concievable outcomes, with an infinite number of scenarios.

Your idea on the "special clothing" is rather misguided. Photons have no mass, , and don't push anything but electrons. The most concentrated beam of light in the universe would do nothing to any sort of clothing but burn it very very quickly. It does not matter what the clothing is made out of.

My refrence to negative energy is not the polarities of electricity. Those have nothing to do with it. The negative energy that I'm speaking of is something far, far different. I'll elaborate when it's not 1:30 AM. Tomorrow.

Personally, I believe that time travel paradox is far more vast then suggested by such shows as Star Trek.

Let's say you were somehow able to manifest a force, purely of your own mind, that enabled you to influence matter, say, 4.6 billion years into the past. But on a very, very small scale. If you dragged a hydrogen molecule around a bit, and, say, bumped it into three different molecules, the human race as we know it would ceace to exist, and life on this planet would be unlike anything ever concieved of. The effects of actions, as minor as that, would change the course of history with exponentially greater effect as time goes on.

 

[Renzokuken]

Accelerating an atom of hydrogen to half the speed of light and stopping it would take more energy than all of the energy in the visible universe. It's never going to happen.

Don't particle accelerators speed up electrons to like 0.9c? (I'm just learning about them now)

 

[Zmoney]

If you go back in time....Nothing will be there because were here and your there.

 

[MacMan]

Don't particle accelerators speed up electrons to like 0.9c? (I'm just learning about them now)

Yes, but they just let them collide with each other instead of stopping them, like a train with no brakes.

 

[WildfireFX]

There's also the issue of "changing the slightest thing"- what if say we were able to time travel.. what if somebody messed it up and there was nothing to come back to? And if they did, what would happen to us? Would we dissapear, or would we start having the while parralel universe thing?

 

[betaalpha5]

Your idea on the "special clothing" is rather misguided. Photons have no mass, , and don't push anything but electrons. The most concentrated beam of light in the universe would do nothing to any sort of clothing but burn it very very quickly. It does not matter what the clothing is made out of.

it was a joke man geez i no it's not possible

 

[Xenoce]

it was a joke man geez i no it's not possible

Sorry about that. I think it's been stated that the net is far less effective then RL at conveying body posture/tone.

As for negative energy, I think it's be better to give a few examples.

If you could create a planet from such matter as would arise from massive quantities of negative energy, and keep it stable, it would produce an opposite effect of gravity, and indeed, of any force. Standing on such a planet, you would be propelled from it's surface, and into space. Indeed, the planet itself would come apart, no one piece sticking to another piece. It would become a negative-energy cloud in space, continually repelling itself from itself.

As massive objects have been shown to slow down time, a negative-energy object, if it could be held together long enough to be placed next to an ultra-accurate timekeeping piece, would speed it up.

Also, I believe something was mentioned about black holes evaporating? Negative energy is the cause of this. As some may know, with the discovery of quantum physics, what was viewed to be empty space is not really empty space. Instead it is a turbulent sea of quantum fluctuations. Often, this sea produces virtual-particle pairs. These particles usually annhillate themselves, far too quickly to be measured, abiding by the laws of concervation of energy. However, in a very distorted area of spacetime, such as near a black hole, these virtual-particle pairs sometimes to not annhillate each other, instead travel in opposite directions, one falling into the black hole, the other radiating outward, producing the only hypothesized form of radiation to be produced from a black hole. The particle that falls into the black hole acumulates more negative energy then the ammount required to create it from nothing, while the escaping particle gains enough energy to counterbalance it. The particle with the negative energy, when it falls into the black hole, contributes its own energy to the black hole, reducing the total ammount of energy the black hole has, and decreasing it's size an infentesimal ammount. Eventually, with not source of matter/energy to absorb, the black hole will evaporate, radiating out all of it's energy in a radiation not it's own. Wierd, eh?

That's the kind of negative energy I'm talking about.

Accelerating an atom of hydrogen to half the speed of light and stopping it would take more energy than all of the energy in the visible universe.

I'd like to say this is wrong. It most definitely would not take nearly all the energy in the universe. It takes more energy to accelerate it to .9c then to stop if from .5c.