If causality can't be broken then time travel is impossible.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-25 21:30
This assumes that natural laws care about the context of an action, which they do not. If an action happens, it happens due to physical laws which have no regard for "why." If you shoot your grandfather, your grandfather is killed by a bullet, regardless of who fired it.
Your existence as a time traveler places you outside of your original timeline. From the perspective of your original timeline, you were simply consumed by your time travel device, and no longer exist. From the perspective of the timeline you've traveled to, you have been placed in the timeline because the time travel device placed you there by whatever means. In this timeline you are a foreign object, you physically exist, and the timeline does nothing to stop your existence because you physically follow all natural rules. If you shoot someone, you simply make new events for this timeline, and you aren't even required to be born in it since you are a time traveling stranger. Time travel is simply traveling to a parallel reality where different events take place.
Causality isn't the problem. The problem is non-lethal transdimensional transportation, teleportation, and conversion of matter to energy and back, which are as of yet impossible.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-25 22:28
>>Your existence as a time traveler places you outside of your original timeline.
Making an awful lot of soup from one onion, aren't we? Assuming your conclusions is a fallacy going all the way back to Thomas Aquinas. TRY HARDER
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-25 23:03
The many-worlds interpretation could be one possible way to resolve the paradoxes that one would expect to arise if time travel turns out to be permitted by physics (permitting closed timelike curves and thus violating causality). Entering the past would itself be a quantum event causing branching, and therefore the timeline accessed by the time traveller simply would be another timeline of many. In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle unnecessary.
Name:
4tran2008-04-25 23:56
I prefer to believe that time travel (if possible) involves travel to another "world", but such speculation is far from proven (if provable at all). We can't even transport an atom to another dimension...
We already have a working model for time travel, you fucking noobs. Wormhole + one end accelerated to relativistic speeds for a while = time portal, though it can only go forward/backward a set time period and both ends continue to travel forwards in time. This model complies with all laws of Physics and causality.
Name:
BOB2008-04-26 22:36
But... Can we build it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 2:11
no one has ever tried time travel, has no idea how to even attempt time travel (realisticly, talk of worm holes is bullshit) and will ever try time travel in any near future.
therefore, all talk of time travel is redundant.
enjoy your fail, fags
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 4:40
Time travel to the future = simple. I'm doing it right now.
Time travel to the past = seemingly impossible.
Hello guys, my name is Demetri Martin. I like to think of myself as a comedian.
I have a time machine. But it only goes forward at regular speed.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-28 1:29
It is possible to post to message boards from the future.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-28 2:00
The concept of time-travel is laden with uncomfortable paradoxes.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-28 10:39
time travel, according to some theories, is possible. like the case of "if u kill ur father etc etc", one theory states that the universe will prevent u from doing things like that in the first place, ie, the universe will prevent u from affecting any events or somehow offset every single thing u did in the past.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-28 11:36
When you time travel you cause a divergent reality which branches from that point in time, since your traveling to that time created a point of divergence in the past, changing history itself simply by being there. This new reality can be designated by the label Earth followed by a hyphen and numerical sequence, indicating the extent of such changes compared to your own timeline. For example, a reality where someone traveled into the past and killed an important professor would create a new reality where his contributions did not exist, which would be called Earth-295. A reality where someone's daughter was born and lived into adulthood instead of being aborted would be called Earth-982. There are thousands of pages written on this subject. I suggest you read more.
Jeez, all of you guys are children, coming up with retarded ideas of "having to be right" all the fucking time. How did the IDEA of time travel come about? How has the IDEA grown? Are any of you even starting to grasp the nature of the human race from all of these threads? The observable fact would stand that no human being has ever gone back in time, but there have been some people that have entered space and not aged as quickly as the people back here on earth. Are you beginning to understand that time is relative to position? Theory of Relativity? Relativity to one person is illogical to another but the same goes for this person view the prior as well. That's the nature of all humans to be RIGHT, I would be gracious and kind to someone who would base their opinions as though they were opinions instead of basing their beliefs of non-existence of belief or illogical uses thereof as absolute evidence. That is a childish way of thinking because all the absolute evidence that becomes provided is that these people are children. I should know, I did so for 30 years, and thank god I popped my head out of my ass and took a deep breath of different smells and found that my shit really does stink! Whoa! A novel concept, we might be wrong? Wha? No! Really? Might it be that this is what it means to be human? Might it be that this is one of the potentials of human interactivities? Christ, all of you including myself are just waisting time pontificating all of this rhetorical non-sense over and over and over and over until the very sight of it makes us hungry for more. And it makes me sick! So, screw you all, I'm going to live my life my way and I don't give a shit if I'm wrong or right, I'll find this shit out for myself.
>>22
hmm, I bet you want me to provide you with the proof when I'm finished right? Hehehe, think again, I'll go back and change history and fuck the human race over even faster than it can itself, just have to enlighten people to their own misogeny and send them into all-new feats of depression and delusional idealogy, oh wait, we do that already, guess my work's done. :P
All this "time travel" shit is more of the "AnOnYmOuS 2U"-esque type of FAIL. It may seem fun to speculate about it, but in the FINAL ANALYSIS, Humanity has ZERO evidence that anything can travel in time. No experiment has every produced evidence of time travel other than what we all experience. And I'm not talking about time dilation effects, which are a side effect of relativistic motion. I'm talking about true TIME TRAVEL where true time displacement occurs.
We pay all those physicists to fuck around with hugely expensive toys, and what does that get us? Yeh, that gets us overeducated morons writing what effectively become RELIGIOUS TEXTS for all their lack of evidence and refusal to apply to real events.
Alright RedAss! Way to go! You got me! Oh, I can't defeat you! I'm no good! You will always win over me! Damn, guess I'll go and hide my head in shame behind my computer. That previous comment was actually my agregious attempt at self-satisfactorial humor and boy, I am still laughing about it. Get it, my work's already done, hence the current observable events of the world. Oh, that's a good one and it's about attempting to prove time travel. Please, RedCream on Rye, please give us physical evidence of the ID, the Ego, our conciousness, our dreams, cause no one else believes me that those things exist either. Guess that means I don't really exist and shouldn't be typing these words right now, hmm.
Name:
4tran2008-04-29 5:55
>>21
Relativity theory is totally unrelated to this "having to be right" issue you're angry about. This makes no sense at all.
>>23
"misogeny" (you've also used this word in another thread)? What does that mean? "misogyny" is totally unrelated.
>>24
I admit that my mind is addled with certain unprovable beliefs, but that doesn't cripple my quality as a physicist. Speculating about random things in one's spare time is a common activity. However, this is far from what the profession is about.
The "hugely expensive toys" you complain about are used for experiments, which generate the EVIDENCE you keep requesting. We need moar data to better determine how the universe operates. If the data disagrees with theory, then the theorists need to create a new model that fits the data.
Until that happens, theorists try to extract as much information as possible from the current model. For instance, we have already established that the standard model and GR are incompatible, so at least one and probably both are wrong. For things like string theory, most of the time is currently spent establishing the underlying mathematical framework. Once that is done, one can search for internal inconsistencies as well as to find experimentally detectable differences from GR or standard model. You can call theory "religious texts", but we're willing to toss/edit them when the experiments disagree.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 9:45
>>26
>For instance, we have already established that the standard model and GR are incompatible, so at least one and probably both are wrong.
Everything in science is accepted as being "wrong" to a lesser or greater extent. Science is the process of determining which model is least wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 13:33
Except string theory, which cannot be falsified or proven.
>>25 Way to go! You got me! Oh, I can't defeat you! I'm no good! You will always win over me! Damn, guess I'll go and hide my head in shame behind my computer.
It's about time you faced the truth. Good job. Now do a barrel roll and let the adults talk about important things that you really won't understand until you grow up.
>>26
4tran, your entire industry is crippled, which is perhaps why you're in that much denial. Experimentation has lost precedence among physicists, and has produced successive generations of scientists who confuse math games with real results.
That's why I am so harsh about the "time travel" issue. Every assertion is based upon a MATH GAME, and not upon EVIDENCE. If you want to instead take a Godel-esque tack and say the EVIDENCE suggests that further evidence collection is impossible, then at least we can examine those claims and sense their truth. But until then, talking about time travel and the like has to be prefaced by a clear admission from the scientists that they just aren't working on evidentiary procedures.
For instance, if there's a claim of parallel universes, then an experiment MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW to establish that is true or not. But as I've said, scientists today are embedded in a theory-only paradigm of forming conclusions, and asserting the need for experimental evidence just confuses them and leads to frustration.
We need to return to establishing knowledge from evidence. In the sciences, we need to return to using experiments to produce that evidence. People have become far too confused with what they see on computer screens being related to reality. We also need to re-run certain experiments now that we have access to off-Earth places. Will the Michaelson-Morley experiment reach the same conclusions in interplanetary space? Perhaps it won't, and we should CHECK.
>>27
Yeah! You got it! That's the nature of science! And for Religion it's about not being right, but as close to right or mostly right. Most religion is based off of the same or similar speculation with little or no scientific backing as faith and belief need to remain intangible, anonymous, ambiguous and only in the realm of imagination so that it can not be destroyed by the hand of man without sacrificing the entire human race. It is through the utilization of BOTH that I will succeed and flourish in any scientific or religious undertaking because I understand both and the absolutes and relativities of the human condition. Kudos to you >>26!!!
Name:
AnOnYmOuS 2U2008-04-30 2:19
Oops, I mean>>27 gets the Kudos, *confiscating Kudos from >>26, and passing to >>27* >>26, you still don't get it. RedCream's Ego is my target, not the potential for time-travel. Misogyny is the hatred of women, RedCream has some form of segregation within his mind hence his expressed hatred within these threads; I simply utilized one form of segregation known as sexism to insite the same segregatory activity along with a paradox and some slight of hand within each retort to RedCream. Changing this up and inserting a little humor and boom you get consistent ego rants which from this point on will only be munitions drop-shipped directly to everyone here via RedCream Ltd.'s expense. Thanks RedCream, keep up the good work!
>>30
Experimentation is no less important now, than it was 100 years ago. Math games can give us results, but not the same results that experiments give us. If a math game gives us a strange or unexpected result, then we do an experiment to confirm or disprove it. If the experiment results in a positive (evidence found), then we have confirmation of the underlying theory, and we may get even new gadgets to boot. If the experiment results in a negative (no evidence), then we need to overthrow the theory.
Very little is known about time travel. In certain circumstances, GR can permit time travel, but these circumstances are impossible, so serious scientists ignore time travel. No admission is required; it's obvious that there is no evidence for this crap.
Suppose that theory A predicts everything we can possibly want to know about our universe to arbitrary precision, but also predicts 3 parallel universes. Do we toss the theory because there are 3 unprovable universes? The theory tells us all we want to know about our world, so I say we keep the theory and ignore the extra universes (any attempt to claim that there are sentient beings in these universes or the like would be baseless speculation, and nothing more). If theory B does the same thing without the parallel universes, then we toss A. Until B comes along, A is the best theory available.
If parallel universes are unprovable, then we don't care about them.
I think it's a good idea to want to rerun certain experiments in space, or on mars. The former has already been attempted in the ISS, and a few other satellites. Unfortunately, conducting more such experiments is costly (if you can donate millions, that'd be nice). Granted, the LHC is even more costly, but it can tell us a lot more about the world at its smallest scales (where we know our theories are breaking down). Doing experiments outside earth would corroborate the assumed uniformity of physical laws, and won't tell us anything if the assumption holds. If the assumption falls apart, then a major revolution is about to hit physics.
>>32
That is total phail, religifag. Science does not require religion, and religion does not require science. Science does not care about God, belief, or faith.
"faith and belief need to remain ... so that it can not be destroyed by the hand of man without sacrificing the entire human race" If "faith and belief" don't have those qualities, then it can "be destroyed by the hand of man without sacrificing the entire human race"? Isn't that a good thing, that we can lose something without endangering all humanity?
>>33
I believe we have stopped talking about time travel for quite some time now. So it was a typo after all. Your reasoning, aims, and means are very bizarre.
the lack of tourists from the future, implies that backwards timetravel is unlikely.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-30 21:00
Timetravel means you create another possible reality via superstring, not traveling within your own reality. When you timetravel, you are essentially letting reality make a new world to accommodate the changed history of your being there. This is supported by science.
Wouldn't time travel break the conservation of energy?I mean,when you went to the past for example,you would pop out of nowhere,and you would carry all of your energy to the past.
>>43, has a point there. When matter is shifted how does that shift effect each time/space differentially? I would guess that the gravity constant of the universe would be effected in both, however, I also think that this happens anyways when people are burned and turned to ash. And remember, energy can not be destroyed only converted or moved and technically it is moving from one point to another; think about the vastness of space and the size of a human body and even a ship! The dramatic change in density may cause a quantum black hole about the size of a thumbnail (just guessing though). It would depend upon the speed at which you left this time/space and arrive at the next, because like it or not you're leaving one place and entering another and taking from one and adding to another. The changes may or may not be significant in overall effectiveness, meaning that by leaving this space the universe wouldn't collapse in on itself due to ex talionis the law of retaliation, what energy leaves is what difference will be effected. So, at most you may find some minor changes, but would those changes be observable amidst the vastness of already occuring events? Would the change be singular or dispersed due to the abscence of matter? It's very unlikely we would not notice a thing except that the person was no longer in this time.
And with finishing that guess, I would possit that even if that person went back in time and began to change things we in the present wouldn't witness any changes at all due to already occuring events and that these events of the past would only be recognized by the people of the present as having already occured in the past. What makes it even more disturbing is that some people aren't even able to distinguish imagination from reality just like some people here are thinking that I am talking about something realistic when I'm just spouting off the top of my imagination. So really, who is the one who's deluded? Who is the one who believes me to be speaking of reality? All the words on this entire forum are ideas anyway, whether the person posting is utilizing their own ideas or someone elses as a source, they're still ideas!!! :P If I really wanted to be a dick about it like RedCream I would order you to display proof, but because I don't want to prove people's ideas are wrong before they're even beginning to sprout
f you want to be a guest on his show, email him a question or a comment to mkaku@aol.com. ... Dr. Michio Kaku is an internationally recognized authority
f you want to be a guest on his show, email him a question or a comment to mkaku@aol.com. ... Dr. Michio Kaku is an internationally recognized authority
if you can see the future in advance, you can change it anytime you want. so what you saw is not a future yet. i.e. there is no future. you know the past, but you can not change it, because if can, that is not your past no more.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-13 20:30
if you get the negative energy, you can reverse the time.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-21 6:08
So basically it's an alternate timeline much like J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movies?
>>65
Star Trek has no alternate timelines. Each universe has one timeline. The shows are full of stories where changing something affects the future, and they have to do something to try to put it back how it was. The only way these new movies can't destroy the entire history of Star Trek is if they are in an alternative universe, not timeline of the same universe.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 1:27
>>67
Except that is wrong, retard.
Star Trek uses timeline theory to time travel much in the same fashion as Back to the Future.
Nero going back in time was what caused a new timeline to run parallel to the original.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 16:45
>>68
For one so wrong, you sure are impolite. Never has Star Trek had a single universe where more than one timeline can exist. Any change perpetrated on the past necessarily affects the entire future. If it didn't, then there would be no need for all those stories where the characters try to fix things. Star Trek has never allowed "parallel timelines" that can run along side each other. Parallel universes, yes.
Travelling forward in time is perfectly possible. There's this theory that when going counter-clockwise around a black hole (and I don't mean a nigger's anus, you filthy trolls!) then time practically stops. Moving around the point of singularity slows down time 10x, according to some papaer. So, when the journey to the hole takes 3 years and back 3 years as well and you travel 3 years around the point of singularity, the world around you has moved in 3+3+30=36 years, while you only moved 9 years, thus have travelled forward in time.