PDA

View Full Version : Time travel

skellattarr
May 7, 2011, 07:04 AM
my theory is if you go around the world so fast that time doesn't pass you hit what i call absolute zero. then if you go faster you would collide with your self even mater or energy would do the same. this is a bearer even if you go in a strait line and go faster then absolute zero you would still hit that bearer.so time travel is impossible.

CrAsHnBuRnXp
May 7, 2011, 07:27 AM
There is no evidence to prove or disprove that going around the world as fast as superman will throw you into time travel. And since you cant prove it, its just a theory.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 07:31 AM
There is no evidence to prove or disprove that going around the world as fast as superman will throw you into time travel. And since you cant prove it, its just a theory.

Actually, there's loads and loads of evidence saying that it wouldn't happen.

As we know time is relative, and slows down for fast objects, if something could just keep going faster and faster the universe around you ( the person flying about real fast) will just age rapidly(in relation to how fast you age), you'll end up in the future not the past.

That's not really time travel per se though, putting your self in stasis would achieve the same end result. ( being in the future) :laugh:

If you support the multi-verse theory, time travel is theoretically possible ( as all points of time would all exist together at once as well, something I support and call time sphere instead of time line) how ever the HOW, no one has any freaken idea as or even a guess as far as I'm aware.

skellattarr
May 7, 2011, 07:32 AM
that is what i said in the first place is its my theory.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 07:35 AM
that is what i said in the first place is its my theory.

Is it? It sounded like if you travel so fast around a static object you'd end up hitting yourself, or be able to travel through time ( the title implies that) But just going forward through time is something we all experience every day.

Not really very exciting. ( not trying to troll, just pointing out what your saying doesn't really need to be discussed, yes if you travel fast you'd end up in the "future" faster, but that's something that most people already know)

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:42 AM
The faster you travel, the higher your mass. It is impossible to travel at the speed of light due to this.

If you support the multi-verse theory, time travel is theoretically possible ( as all points of time would all exist together at once as well, something I support and call time sphere instead of time line) how ever the HOW, no one has any freaken idea as or even a guess as far as I'm aware.

Gravity wells warp the fabric of space time, so people theorise that with the use of these wells you could travel through time.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 07:52 AM
The faster you travel, the higher your mass. It is impossible to travel at the speed of light due to this.

This isn't true by the by.

"If Einstein’s assumption that the mass varies with the speed is valid, then the mass of a moving object reaches infinity at the speed of light. A greater speed is thus impossible. But this is only one of the possible interpretations of the mathematics (which he based his theory upon), and neither Einstein nor anyone else has produced any tangible evidence to support this interpretation."

Well, that is to say, it could be true, it could be false.

So better not to state it's fact or fiction but instead say it's highly likely or unlikely depending on your preference :p

I personally think it's bull crap that at light-speed mass reaches infinity ( or even goes up to a massive amount) other wise there be black holes forming on the way to black holes ( as objects approach a black hole there's going to be some point they'll be pretty freaken fast)

An infinite amount of mass would also mean an infinite amount of gravity. Which mean the gravity would be be limitless in it's reach and pull everything into it.
( not sure what current black hole theory is, but personally I believe in nothing fancy about them, they have a finite amount of mass
Last I checked the thinking was that they have infinite mass)

This doesn't happen.

skellattarr
May 7, 2011, 07:53 AM
Is it? It sounded like if you travel so fast around a static object you'd end up hitting yourself, or be able to travel through time ( the title implies that) But just going forward through time is something we all experience every day.

Not really very exciting. ( not trying to troll, just pointing out what your saying doesn't really need to be discussed, yes if you travel fast you'd end up in the "future" faster, but that's something that most people already know)

i wasnt replying to you sorry but i was repling to crashnburnxp

HalfAHertz
May 7, 2011, 07:54 AM
The faster you travel, the higher your mass. It is impossible to travel at the speed of light due to this.

Gravity wells warp the fabric of space time, so people theorise that with the use of these wells you could travel through time.

or space or both :P

I liked the comparison of space-time to a river of honey, where each gravity well(planet, sun, black hole) are differently sized rocks sit in the middle. But because these rocks are spinning, they drag it around like propellers.

“Picture the Earth immersed in honey, and you can imagine the honey would be dragged around with it,” Everitt said. “That’s what happens to space-time. Earth actually drags space and time around with it.”

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:57 AM
“Picture the Earth immersed in honey, and you can imagine the honey would be dragged around with it,” Everitt said. “That’s what happens to space-time. Earth actually drags space and time around with it.”

Yes, it's a nice model, but incomplete. It's impossible for us to come up with a correct physical models as our minds aren't built to think in 4 dimensions :(

HalfAHertz
May 7, 2011, 07:58 AM
Yes, it's a nice model, but incomplete. It's impossible for us to come up with a correct physical models as our minds aren't built to think in 4 dimensions :(

If M-theory is correct, we have to think not in 4, but in 11 dimensions :D (4 spatial, 6 time and 1 changeable)

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 08:04 AM
If M-theory is correct, we have to think not in 4, but in 11 dimensions :D (4 spatial, 6 time and 1 changeable)

aye, but only for certain situations. There's a cartoon on you tube somewhere that tries to explain it  - Found it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-ILynogu8). like if the pixels on our screen were actually alive, they would not be able to imagine the 3rd dimension (which we live in).

It's extremely interesting stuff that opens up the universe to lots of possibilities.

I like Iain banks' ideas in his books about the culture. There are computerized "minds" which are able to think in and travel in the 4th dimension.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 02:26 PM
we can already travel in time.

do you know why gps satelite must sync their time to earth ? Because they already travel in time, their time is slower than earth, so if you want to travel to the future then you must have a very very fast vehicle so it will be noticeable or you can go where the gravity is so immense that it start slowing time like blackhole.

Btw we can't travel back in time tough because the feedback will destroy the device instanly.

Fourstaff
May 7, 2011, 02:30 PM
We can only travel forward in time, at least in our universe (if multiverse exists). Rate at which we travel forward depends on other factors. However, we cannot travel backwards in time because if we could our future selves would have visited us. Or perhaps they did in the form of Jesus and whatnot, found out that they screwed us big time and decided its not worth their time. But that is another story.

2DividedbyZero
May 7, 2011, 02:51 PM
I posted my answer to your question here last week, you musta missed it ;)

mlee49
May 7, 2011, 02:54 PM

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/planettom/lj/sng.jpg

trickson
May 7, 2011, 03:11 PM
Hmm didn't superman travel back in time ...?

Time travel is not possible for us humans ( Not at this time ) maybe in a billion billion years maybe . But we can only sit on this rock and dream about it . And "If Einstein’s assumption that the mass varies with the speed is valid, then the mass of a moving object reaches infinity at the speed of light ". Why don't light Photons weigh "infinity" and crush every thing in there path ? Mind boggling .
Some times I wish the sun would just explode !

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 03:37 PM
we can already travel in time.

do you know why gps satelite must sync their time to earth ? Because they already travel in time, their time is slower than earth, so if you want to travel to the future then you must have a very very fast vehicle so it will be noticeable or you can go where the gravity is so immense that it start slowing time like blackhole.

Btw we can't travel back in time tough because the feedback will destroy the device instanly.

Usually, when people speak of time travel, they mean traveling at a speed or direction that significantly deviates from the norm. At this point, you and I are traveling at slightly different speeds in time relative to each other. I personally think that it's likely we will find a way to enact some form of time travel, as we have already discovered that we can affect, albeit minimally, the rate at which time proceeds, through speed and gravitational force.

And fourstaff, just because we have not recognized anyone traveling backwards in time to meet us does not mean that it has not happened. Anyone from a future in which humanity had access to time travel technology would also likely have the capability to effectively disguise themselves. One must also consider the fact that future people would not want to affect history, because it could affect their future. Both forwards and backwards travel in time do throw up logical problems, though. Going into the past, the most obvious one is the "I killed my grandmother" impossibility, in that if you killed your grandmother, you would cease to exist, and then you could not have killed your grandmother. With travel into the future, things stay mostly fine unless you travel back into the past. For example, if you went two hundred years into the future and brought back the theory for faster-than-light space travel, and then you were the pioneer of that theory in your time, the actual information in that theory would have come out of nowhere, which is impossible.

Who knows if we will ever be able to travel it the fourth dimension, but I think it certainly makes for many interesting possibilities.

AphexDreamer
May 7, 2011, 03:53 PM
Those saying time travel isn't possible haven't heard of the effects of time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).

Time dilation is basically where under certain conditions time will move slower for the person meeting those conditions relative to outside observers.

The conditions are.

A. Relative velocity time dilation- The faster a piece of matter moves to the speed of light the slower it will age.

B. Gravitational Velocity- Two objects at two different distances from a massive object will pass through time differently.

Proof? Particles called mesons have a life-span of about 2.2 microseconds. However, when spun in an atom smasher their life span has been observed to be 7-8x longer than their stationary (normal) velocity. The velocity attained in an atom smasher is something like 98.9999998 percent the speed of light.

Also tachyons are a theoretical particle said to move faster than light and thus backwards in time.

Raijian
May 7, 2011, 04:04 PM

cheesy999
May 7, 2011, 04:06 PM

words of warning - don't post pictures like that unless your including text, you can get in a load of trouble doing that

that said,would 1.21 gigawatts be enough power to get a car up to the speeds the OP described?

digibucc
May 7, 2011, 04:10 PM
Actually, there's loads and loads of evidence saying that it wouldn't happen.

lol yeah, i'm like what? can't disprove?

Time dilation is basically where under certain conditions time will move slower for the person meeting those conditions relative to outside observers.
possible, theoretically - but that's based on current understandings.

there's no saying that in many years time we won't finally learn some crucial
piece of information that explains why it isn't possible - or definitely is.

until we have either done it, or proven it impossible - we simply don't know.

Raijian
May 7, 2011, 04:16 PM
words of warning - don't post pictures like that unless your including text, you can get in a load of trouble doing that

that said,would 1.23 gigawatts be enough power to get a car up to the speeds the OP described?

It's 1.21 gigawatts.

cheesy999
May 7, 2011, 04:18 PM
It's 1.21 gigawatts.

sorry i haven't seen that movie in ages, any chance of actually answering my question though?:)

digibucc
May 7, 2011, 04:20 PM
sorry i haven't seen that movie in ages, any chance of actually answering my question though?:)

none

Raijian
May 7, 2011, 04:21 PM
sorry i haven't seen that movie in ages, any chance of actually answering my question though?:)

Lol.

I don't see why not. After all, Michael J. Fox did it.

theJesus
May 7, 2011, 04:25 PM
that said,would 1.21 gigawatts be enough power to get a car up to the speeds the OP described?
I imagine that would depend on how efficiently the car used the 1.21 gigawatts.

AphexDreamer
May 7, 2011, 04:28 PM
lol yeah, i'm like what? can't disprove?

possible, theoretically - but that's based on current understandings.

there's no saying that in many years time we won't finally learn some crucial
piece of information that explains why it isn't possible - or definitely is.

until we have either done it, or proven it impossible - we simply don't know.

Well we can already move forwards in time by a few fractions of second, just not backwards and the laws of physics don't prevent it. So I say (like Mitchio Kakuku) its just a matter of time, when our technologies and physics are advance enough to do it.

digibucc
May 7, 2011, 04:31 PM
Well we can already move forwards in time by a few fractions of second, just not backwards and the laws of physics don't prevent it. So I say (like Mitchio Kakuku) its just a matter of time, when our technologies and physics are advance enough to do it.

i like michio and all, but i also think he is a bit optimistic. if it comes down to
scant evidence, he is more likely to say it's possible than not.

i am the conservative type in these regards. if i cannot be sure of something,
i am hesitant to even give an opinion, let alone an optimistic one expected to be
scientifically accurate.

that said, i believe it is possible. i just enjoy playing devil's advocate more
often than not, as it helps greatly in understanding your own.. understanding :)

wolf
May 7, 2011, 04:33 PM
Being that time is relative I believe it possible to achieve what could loosely be called time travel by travelling at insanel fast speeds to and from a single fixed position, or from one to another perhaps. stasis would also achieve similar results tho.

definitely unsure on travelling backwards through time, seems unlikely to me.

digibucc
May 7, 2011, 04:38 PM
well the understanding of time as having a forward and backward is fundamentally flawed.

we put time into those terms as that's how we see the world. in our existence, there are
causes and effects, so one must come before the other, so there must be linear time. false.

it is in no way scientifically impossible for an effect to happen before a cause. that right
there breaks our understanding of linear time, and i believe makes traveling backwards
theoretically possible.

the thing is, all of this requires technology that is not only out of our reach, but out of
our current understanding.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 04:47 PM
Usually, when people speak of time travel, they mean traveling at a speed or direction that significantly deviates from the norm. At this point, you and I are traveling at slightly different speeds in time relative to each other. I personally think that it's likely we will find a way to enact some form of time travel, as we have already discovered that we can affect, albeit minimally, the rate at which time proceeds, through speed and gravitational force.

And fourstaff, just because we have not recognized anyone traveling backwards in time to meet us does not mean that it has not happened. Anyone from a future in which humanity had access to time travel technology would also likely have the capability to effectively disguise themselves. One must also consider the fact that future people would not want to affect history, because it could affect their future. Both forwards and backwards travel in time do throw up logical problems, though. Going into the past, the most obvious one is the "I killed my grandmother" impossibility, in that if you killed your grandmother, you would cease to exist, and then you could not have killed your grandmother. With travel into the future, things stay mostly fine unless you travel back into the past. For example, if you went two hundred years into the future and brought back the theory for faster-than-light space travel, and then you were the pioneer of that theory in your time, the actual information in that theory would have come out of nowhere, which is impossible.

Who knows if we will ever be able to travel it the fourth dimension, but I think it certainly makes for many interesting possibilities.

actually its not because paradox theory that make travel back in time impossible. Its because the feedback that culprit and actually there are microscopic hole in space and time, and you can travel back in time if you can in it, but shame the hole is so small even smaller than atom so you can't in it, and it have a very short life span. You can in read hawking book about time travel he you want to know more.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 04:59 PM
If you travel far enough forward in time, you may actually end up back where you started. It is theoretically possible that by travelling far enough forwards you would actually be travelling backwards. Think of it like this, thousands of years ago, people believed that if you traveled in one direction far enough, you would end up falling off the edge of the earth, ofc we know better now. Time could be the same.

cheesy999
May 7, 2011, 05:03 PM
Being that time is relative I believe it possible to achieve what could loosely be called time travel by travelling at insanel fast speeds to and from a single fixed position, or from one to another perhaps. stasis would also achieve similar results tho.

definitely unsure on travelling backwards through time, seems unlikely to me.

if we could undo time, chemical reactions would happen backwards, imagine being able to have air conditioners that in the summer months, would of run off the fuel burn't during the winter months, you could use the physics of time travel to a much better effect then time travel itself

digibucc
May 7, 2011, 05:05 PM
again, the idea that time is a linear construct is not definite. there is no saying our biology
depends on time. they may be correlative but they are not definitely causal.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 05:24 PM
actually its not because paradox theory that make travel back in time impossible. Its because the feedback that culprit and actually there are microscopic hole in space and time, and you can travel back in time if you can in it, but shame the hole is so small even smaller than atom so you can't in it, and it have a very short life span. You can in read hawking book about time travel he you want to know more.

I have read Hawking's books, at least some of them. You are correct, however, paradox theory is just that, a theory. While I certainly have a high respect for Hawking, that doesn't mean his word is necessarily true. And if we're talking about tiny holes, remember that matter can be infinitely condensed. Theoretically, any mass can fit in any size "hole". Getting out of the hole alive would be the problem. :)

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 05:34 PM
if we're talking about tiny holes, remember that matter can be infinitely condensed. Theoretically, any mass can fit in any size "hole". Getting out of the hole alive would be the problem. :)

Insert joke here

fullinfusion
May 7, 2011, 05:38 PM
sub'd

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 05:44 PM
PROTIP: The world isn't the only place with time. Going around it won't manipulate time.

You would fall off if you went that fast... both because the earth would be moving away from you and because you would be going much faster than escape velocity.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 05:45 PM
I have read Hawking's books, at least some of them. You are correct, however, paradox theory is just that, a theory. While I certainly have a high respect for Hawking, that doesn't mean his word is necessarily true. And if we're talking about tiny holes, remember that matter can be infinitely condensed. Theoretically, any mass can fit in any size "hole". Getting out of the hole alive would be the problem. :)

but by infinitely condensed our own body, especially to the size of atom, it will make our own atom to collaps by its own gravity and we will turn to micro blackhole and eventually vanish into hawking radiation.

the best way to do is expand the hole somehow and eliminate the feedback, I think that the best way to travel in time, but maybe we won't back travel in own time it can be in another dimension, that surely will eliminate paradox theory

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 05:49 PM
but by infinitely condensed our own body, especially to the size of atom, it will make our own atom to collaps by its own gravity and we will turn to micro blackhole and eventually vanish into hawking radiation.

the best way to do is expand the hole somehow and eliminate the feedback, I think that the best way to travel in time, but maybe we won't back travel in own time it can be in another dimension, that surely will eliminate paradox theory

I don;t think the current theories of other dimensions are like the movie versions. Another dimension doesn;t actually mean another reality.

HalfAHertz
May 7, 2011, 05:53 PM
Archimedes said "Give me a long enough lever and a pivot point and I can move the earth." This should work on principle but of course you will probably never be able to meet the conditions. Saying that time travel is impossible is implausible. It is most likely possible but under extremely special conditions. So let me be the first to say - give me a large enough power source and I will move you through time.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 05:55 PM
Archimedes said "Give me a long enough lever and a pivot point and I can move the earth." This should work on principle but of course you will probably never be able to meet the conditions. Saying that time travel is impossible is implausible. It is most likely possible but under extremely special conditions. So let me be the first to say - give me a large enough power source and I will move you through time.

I dunno, there is plenty of power, as power is just mass and visa-versa , and there is a helluva lot of mass in the universe.

trickson
May 7, 2011, 05:59 PM
If I could travel back in time I would make sure my dad wore a condom !

theJesus
May 7, 2011, 06:03 PM
If I could travel back in time I would make sure my dad wore a condom !
At the time of your own conception, or a sibling's? :laugh:

trickson
May 7, 2011, 06:09 PM
At the time of your own conception, or a sibling's? :laugh:

At the time of my conception !

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 06:14 PM
I don;t think the current theories of other dimensions are like the movie versions. Another dimension doesn;t actually mean another reality.

yes it is, actually they have found the evidence that another dimension is exist, but yes we don't have any prove that another dimension look or it will have different physic than us

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:19 PM
yes it is, actually they have found the evidence that another dimension is exist, but yes we don't have any prove that another dimension look or it will have different physic than us
hmmm.. let me edit

So that's what M-Theory is, i had always thought it was something to do with superstring theory....

Second edit.. It seems it actually is an extension of S-theory. I skipped that course at uni.. the mathematics behind it were too intense and i don;t think there were any courses teaching M-Theory at that time. I'm a little out of touch with modern astrophysics concepts :(

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
but by infinitely condensed our own body, especially to the size of atom, it will make our own atom to collaps by its own gravity and we will turn to micro blackhole and eventually vanish into hawking radiation.

the best way to do is expand the hole somehow and eliminate the feedback, I think that the best way to travel in time, but maybe we won't back travel in own time it can be in another dimension, that surely will eliminate paradox theory

I agree with silkstone, traveling in a different dimension is unlikely to remove any paradoxes. Even if you traveled to an alternate universe, you'd still have the same problems.

I dunno, there is plenty of power, as power is just mass and visa-versa , and there is a helluva lot of mass in the universe.

I assume by power you mean energy, because mass is directly related to energy. The issue is not finding the energy, it is how to properly collect use the energy. Probably one of the methods used will have to be Dyson spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere).

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:28 PM
I agree with silkstone, traveling in a different dimension is unlikely to remove any paradoxes. Even if you traveled to an alternate universe, you'd still have the same problems.

I assume by power you mean energy, because mass is directly related to energy. The issue is not finding the energy, it is how to properly collect use the energy. Probably one of the methods used will have to be Dyson spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere).

ofc, i was using the person i was responding to's words. but yes, we know the energy exists, we just can "get at it" yet. Another interesting thing about matter and energy is how the laws of thermodynamics are actually not complete as we know that both matter and energy can just "pop" into existence quite randomly so energy actually can be created and destroyed.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 06:29 PM
I agree with silkstone, traveling in a different dimension is unlikely to remove any paradoxes. Even if you traveled to an alternate universe, you'd still have the same problems.

].

That's assuming that travelling to a different "time line" doesn't create a whole new one ;)

I.E If went back in time to do a specific task and I did it, normally people would say that would cause a loop of me going back and doing it. ( which I imagine it does at the same time as -->) how ever it would surely create an entire new time line were the actions I took happened.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:31 PM
ofc, i was using the person i was responding to's words. but yes, we know the energy exists, we just can "get at it" yet. Another interesting thing about matter and energy is how the laws of thermodynamics are actually not complete as we know that both matter and energy can just "pop" into existence quite randomly so energy actually can be created and destroyed.

Technically, yes, but if you consider matter to be another form of energy, the laws of thermodynamics hold. The amount of matter and energy in the universe can change, but the must be proportional to each other. Let us hope that holds, or our universe will eventually cease to exist if energy can decrease without a corresponding matter increase or vice versa.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 06:31 PM
I dunno, there is plenty of power, as power is just mass and visa-versa , and there is a helluva lot of mass in the universe.

yup once we found out how to contain antimatter then we can have near perfect convertion from matter to energy

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:34 PM
That's assuming that travelling to a different "time line" doesn't create a whole new one ;)

I.E If went back in time to do a specific task and I did it, normally people would say that would cause a loop of me going back and doing it. ( which I imagine it does at the same time as -->) how ever it would surely create an entire new time line were the actions I took happened.

That is a whole other theory altogether, which delves into whether anything in the universe is truly random, or if the future is already determined. I hope our future isn't already determined; then living seems so much more pointless.

yup once we found out how to contain antimatter then we can have near perfect convertion from matter to energy

We can contain it, just not for very long. Yet. :)

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:38 PM
Technically, yes, but if you consider matter to be another form of energy, the laws of thermodynamics hold. The amount of matter and energy in the universe can change, but the must be proportional to each other. Let us hope that holds, or our universe will eventually cease to exist if energy can decrease without a corresponding matter increase or vice versa.

Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it :(

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 06:42 PM
ofc, i was using the person i was responding to's words. but yes, we know the energy exists, we just can "get at it" yet. Another interesting thing about matter and energy is how the laws of thermodynamics are actually not complete as we know that both matter and energy can just "pop" into existence quite randomly so energy actually can be created and destroyed.

what do you mean "pop" into existence?
The theory that matter or energy can't be destroyed still used by scientist.

Yes we "get it" now its called antimatter, if we collide antimatter and matter then their will be canceling out and produce pure energy, but there still a problem to contain the antimatter, maybe if we can found how to create anti gravity device

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:43 PM
Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it :(

I don't think anyone completely understands it. All science is unprovable, though, because it all depends on the assumption that our world is real, which cannot be proven. Astrophysics is certainly more speculative that many other sciences, however, which I think makes it all the more interesting. It is one area of knowledge in which the human species is rather clueless. Try reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". If you can get through it, it's quite an interesting book.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 06:44 PM
I hope our future isn't already determined; then living seems so much more pointless.

But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life. :laugh:

I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:45 PM
I don't think anyone completely understands it. All science is unprovable, though, because it all depends on the assumption that our world is real, which cannot be proven. Astrophysics is certainly more speculative that many other sciences, however, which I think makes it all the more interesting. It is one area of knowledge in which the human species is rather clueless. Try reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". If you can get through it, it's quite an interesting book.

i did 3 years of astrophysics at uni, but i could never get through his book. i would try to analyse everything and reference it to my teachings.. i should really pick it up again as what i did read was quite interesting.

But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life. :laugh:

I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

In creating the whole new timeline, it would in a way infer that the "old" timeline still existed if that existed, why no an infinite amount of other timelines, making each timeline pre-determined.

pantherx12
May 7, 2011, 06:47 PM
i did 3 years of astrophysics at uni, but i could never get through his book. i would try to analyse everything and reference it to my teachings.. i should really pick it up again as what i did read was quite interesting.

Could never get through as is, didn't finish?

Lil tip, simply read it first (like you were reading fiction) then go go back and analyse it, makes it easier.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:49 PM
But would it? As it may be predetermined that you don't believe in a predetermined life. :laugh:

I wouldn't say it was a whole other theory though.

You get one or the other, you go back in time change something, get stuck in loop.

Or you go back in time and there's no loop.

I was just pointing out that the loop may not be what will happen.

Certainly not what I think anyway, as I said somewhere else, I see ball as a big sphere rather than a line or any thing else.

I wasn't saying that I don't believe in it, only that I hope it's not the case. I think time is something that really cannot be visualized or accurately depicted by the human brain at this point, but a point may come at which we can more clearly understand it.

Loops are interesting. I think it is possible that different time-streams may be separated from each other, and unable to be affected by the other time-stream, which would potentially stop loops from occurring. That wasn't a clear explanation, but essentially what I'm saying is that I think, er, hope, loops are unlikely.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 06:50 PM
Yup, like i say, the laws are incomplete. I'd be lying if i said i completely understood all the theory. One thing i do know is all astrophysics as based on assumption and is the only science in which things can't be proven. I used to ask my physics prof. about some of this stuff, but was told i'd need a PhD to understand the core of it :(

basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:51 PM
yea, i couldn't read the book to the end.. too much of it was about what i was studying and it was not something i could read to relax.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:53 PM
basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 06:54 PM
basically its already complete, like i said before if you collide antimatter and matter you can create pure energy from it so energy=antimatter+matter. And its already proven in LHC

You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates. :)

yea, i couldn't read the book to the end.. too much of it was about what i was studying and it was not something i could read to relax.

Yeah, that would make it harder. I just read it for fun. It really is a fun read if you can relax and enjoy it.

Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

Schroedinger's theories are really only to turn things we can do nothing with into something we can understand and use. Particles actually do exist, but for our purposes it makes sense to treat them as probabilities.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 06:57 PM
You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates. :)

That would be like a perpetual motion machine, i don't think, theoretically it is possible to create antimatter using less energy than what is expended? it would be a matter of harvesting it, surely? smashing matter into energy on the other hand might be more feasible.

You can't truly "prove" anything, only have something that has not yet been unproven. Yes, matter and antimatter collisions could prove a great source of energy, we'll just need to figure out a way to produce antimatter without using more energy than it creates. :)

Yeah, that would make it harder. I just read it for fun. It really is a fun read if you can relax and enjoy it.

Schroedinger's theories are really only to turn things we can do nothing with into something we can understand and use. Particles actually do exist, but for our purposes it makes sense to treat them as probabilities.

but particles only exist if you observe them to exist! It's that kinda stuff which is confusing and can only be understood mathematically. I do actually understand the concept, but the reasoning behind it can't be expressed in understandable terms that isn;t mathematics.

One example would be if a "gas" or were contained in a perfect vessel. There were no physicalo way for the gas to be contained, you would still find a quantity gas outside of that vessel. I think the experiments have been done, but rather than "gas" they were looking at electrons in electron clouds travelling across barriers that there was no physical way for them to cross.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
That would be like a perpetual motion machine, i don't think, theoretically it is possible to create antimatter using less energy than what is expended? it would be a matter of harvesting it, surely? smashing matter into energy on the other hand might be more feasible.

Yeah, it would only make sense to harvest existing antimatter, but the whole system is essentially a perpetual motion machine in perfect equilibrium; not ever creating anything out of nothing, but not ever destroying anything either. We just need to convert things to what we want them to be in order to utilize them.

but particles only exist if you observe them to exist! It's that kinda stuff which is confusing and can only be understood mathematically. I do actually understand the concept, but the reasoning behind it can't be expressed in understandable terms that isn;t mathematics.

I think we agree with each other, we're just saying the same thing in different ways. I don't think anyone would complain if we went mathematical.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 07:05 PM
Yes, the matter and energy popping into and out of existence in pure vacuums is what is difficult to understand. i know the concept of matter=energy and visa versa.

oh, and don;t get me started with Schroedinger, particles having only a probibility of existing in a certain space at a certain time.

do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:09 PM
do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

no. Dark matter is just matter that we can't see (yet) they weighed the universe, then looked at the amount of matter, and the 2 didn;t add up, so people theorized that there must be "Drak matter" that we cannot see.

Light cannot escape from a black hole as black holes bend the fabric of space time, creating their own little "bubble" or near-infinite swirl of space time.

The concept is that matter (and energy) will just appear randomly in space, if i remember correctly, they have actually observed it to happen, tho don't quote me, and it doesn;t exist for very long before popping out of existence again

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:10 PM
do you mean a nebula that produce a star ? Or a blackhole that suck matter?

Isn't our universe consist of dark matter and dark energy?
And isn't hawking radiation that create star?
Btw what i don't understand is if hawking radiation can escape from blackhole then isn't that mean its traveling faster than light? Because even light can't escape from it and ended recycled by the blackhole

Hawking radiation doesn't "escape", because it never entered the black hole in the first place. According to Wikipedia,

Black holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction. Classically, the gravitation is so powerful that nothing, not even electromagnetic radiation, can escape from the black hole. It is yet unknown how gravity can be incorporated into quantum mechanics, but nevertheless far from the black hole the gravitational effects can be weak enough for calculations to be reliably performed in the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. Hawking showed that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black body radiation, which is the average thermal radiation emitted by an idealized thermal source known as a black body. The electromagnetic radiation is as if it were emitted by a black body with a temperature that is inversely proportional to the black hole's mass.

Physical insight on the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.

A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunneling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.

(Sorry for the long quote, but I think it makes the reason for the radiation fairly clear)

no. Dark matter is just matter that we can't see (yet) they weighed the universe, then looked at the amount of matter, and the 2 didn;t add up, so people theorized that there must be "Drak matter" that we cannot see.

Light cannot escape from a black hole as black holes bend the fabric of space time, creating their own little "bubble" or near-infinite swirl of space time.

Light cannot escape if it passes beyond the event horizon, yes. Everything with mass bends the "fabric" of spacetime, which is why the Earth spins around the Sun and doesn't fly off into space.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:14 PM
vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.

Tat is sort of related to particles popping into and out of existence. One antiparticle pops into existance, gets sucked in, and destroyed, then there needs to have been a (positive) particle, to balance the overall energy, which escapes.

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:17 PM
Hawking radiation doesn't "escape", because it never entered the black hole in the first place. According to Wikipedia,

(Sorry for the long quote, but I think it makes the reason for the radiation fairly clear)

Light cannot escape if it passes beyond the event horizon, yes. Everything with mass bends the "fabric" of spacetime, which is why the Earth spins around the Sun and doesn't fly off into space.

Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time, right?

Edit - sry for double posting, it's late i wasn't paying attention :(

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:18 PM
The concept is that matter (and energy) will just appear randomly in space, if i remember correctly, they have actually observed it to happen, tho don't quote me, and it doesn;t exist for very long before popping out of existence again

Dark energy accounts for 73% of the mass-energy in the universe according to our current estimates. By appear, do you mean that dark matter/energy are converted into real matter/energy and switch back again?

Tat is sort of related to particles popping into and out of existence. One antiparticle pops into existance, gets sucked in, and destroyed, then there needs to have been a (positive) particle, to balance the overall energy, which escapes.

I don't know if "popping" is the right term, but that makes sense.

AphexDreamer
May 7, 2011, 07:20 PM
Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time.

Light travels at 299 792 458 m/s and exceeds the escape velocity of the suns gravitational pull. So it doesn't get stuck around the sun.

However, with black holes the gravitational force is so strong that it sucks up all surrounding light into its center.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:20 PM
Not exactly, the sun does cause a bend in space time, but that is not the only reason that the earth orbits the sun, if that were true light would also orbit the sun the same as the earth because space time would be bent for all matter-energy travelling in the same region of space-time, right?

Light is affected by the Sun, it just travels too fast to be pulled in. But the path of the light particle is slightly bent as it passes the Sun.

Light travels at 299 792 458 m/s and exceeds the escape velocity of the suns gravitational pull. So it doesn't get stuck around the sun.

However, with black holes the gravitational force is so strong that it sucks up all surrounding light into its center.

There won't be any "surrounding light", but yeah; the black hole will "suck in" any light that gets too close.

AphexDreamer
May 7, 2011, 07:21 PM
Light is affected by the Sun, it just travels too fast to be pulled in. But the path of the light particle is slightly bent as it passes the Sun.

There won't be any "surrounding light", but yeah; the black hole will "suck in" any light that gets too close.

This is true as well, light does get bent around stars. This infact was used by Albert Einstein to prove his Theory of Relativity.

Well yea but you know what I mean...

silkstone
May 7, 2011, 07:22 PM
Dark energy accounts for 73% of the mass-energy in the universe according to our current estimates. By appear, do you mean that dark matter/energy are converted into real matter/energy and switch back again?

I don't know if "popping" is the right term, but that makes sense.

Dark matter is real matter, the dark matter in the universe has nothing to do with the spontaneous creation/destruction of matter/energy, i was just replying to an earlier post that was asking if there was a link between dark matter and all this.

It's only called dark matter because we can't see it with any kind of telescopes, it neither emits, reflects nor absorbs any kind of observable radiation. invisible matter would be a more descriptive term.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 07:22 PM
Hawking radiation doesn't "escape", because it never entered the black hole in the first place. According to Wikipedia,

(Sorry for the long quote, but I think it makes the reason for the radiation fairly clear)

Light cannot escape if it passes beyond the event horizon, yes. Everything with mass bends the "fabric" of spacetime, which is why the Earth spins around the Sun and doesn't fly off into space.

so its mean particle actually never leave event horizon? Its quite make sense since beyond event horizon the time simply stop,

btw what is negative energy? Can you explain it? Is it can canceling each other?

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:28 PM
Dark matter is real matter, the dark matter in the universe has nothing to do with the spontaneous creation/destruction of matter/energy, i was just replying to an earlier post that was asking if there was a link between dark matter and all this.

It's only called dark matter because we can't see it with any kind of telescopes, it neither emits, reflects nor absorbs any kind of observable radiation. invisible matter would be a more descriptive term.

Okay, I apparently misinterpreted your post. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I guess spontaneous creation is neccessary, the universe cannot have existed forever.

so its mean particle actually never leave event horizon? Its quite make sense since beyond event horizon the time simply stop,

btw what is negative energy? Can you explain it? Is it can canceling each other?

I think what he was talking about is so-called exotic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter). Antimatter and antienergy are forms of exotic matter, and yes, antienergy/negative energy and antimatter/negative matter would have a negative energy and mass respectively. Just remember that negative is a mathematical term, not a physical one. And also, yes, they would essentially cancel each other out.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 07:34 PM
Light is affected by the Sun, it just travels too fast to be pulled in. But the path of the light particle is slightly bent as it passes the Sun.

There won't be any "surrounding light", but yeah; the black hole will "suck in" any light that gets too close.

yes it can have surrounding light in black hole, even the scientist right now talking a possibility that a live can exist in event horizon because of that surrounding light.

btw isn't gravity is some form of energy? Maybe because its immense of gravity blackhole starting creating particle, and thats why blackhole can fade away

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:37 PM
yes it can have surrounding light in black hole, even the scientist right now talking a possibility that a live can exist in event horizon because of that surrounding light.

btw isn't gravity is some form of energy? Maybe because its immense of gravity blackhole starting creating particle, and thats why blackhole can fade away

I know light can surround a black hole, I'm just talking about within the event horizon. The whole reason we can "see" black holes is because of the absence of light. I don't know how light could exist in the event horizon; whatever you're talking about sounds quite interesting. Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation) is a force, but some scientists believe that there is a "gravitational particle" that causes gravity.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 07:41 PM
Okay, I apparently misinterpreted your post. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I guess spontaneous creation is neccessary, the universe cannot have existed forever.

I think what he was talking about is so-called exotic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter). Antimatter and antienergy are forms of exotic matter, and yes, antienergy/negative energy and antimatter/negative matter would have a negative energy and mass respectively. Just remember that negative is a mathematical term, not a physical one. And also, yes, they would essentially cancel each other out.

btw beside blackhole is there anywhere else that negative energy exist ? Because I'm not really believe it. I mean if the negative energy and energy collide they must form another thing, its not simply gone

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 07:44 PM
I believe that times travel is impossible.
There is only one moment of time in existance, and that is right now.
Our perceptions of the past are stored in our memories, but that "time" no longer exists.
Our ability to imagine the future is no different that our ability to imagine anything else, and that time has yet to exist.

To attempt to travel to somewhere non-existant is but an imaginary pipe-dream, IMO.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 07:45 PM
btw beside blackhole is there anywhere else that negative energy exist ? Because I'm not really believe it. I mean if the negative energy and energy collide they must form another thing, its not simply gone

Mathematically, I think it is "simply gone", as you put it. I'm not sure, though, this is beyond my level of astrophysical knowledge.

I believe that times travel is impossible.
There is only one moment of time in existance, and that is right now.
Our perceptions of the past are stored in our memories, but that "time" no longer exists.
Our ability to imagine the future is no different that our ability to imagine anything else, and that time has yet to exist.

To attempt to travel to somewhere non-existant is but an imaginary pipe-dream, IMO.

Time and our perception of it are different things, I think, though I suppose you could argue that they are one and the same. Time travel may well be impossible, but if it is, then this thread is pointless. :)

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 07:57 PM
I know light can surround a black hole, I'm just talking about within the event horizon. The whole reason we can "see" black holes is because of the absence of light. I don't know how light could exist in the event horizon; whatever you're talking about sounds quite interesting. Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation) is a force, but some scientists believe that there is a "gravitational particle" that causes gravity.

ups sorry maybe not in the exact event horizon but we wouldn't know it because the light can't escape from it, maybe blackhole isn't pitch black after all, maybe its the brightest place in the universe.
if gravity is not energy then how we get our electricity from(i mean powerplan from dam, not nuke or coal)?

I think gravity is created from electron than spin in atom, because i have read some book that gosht particle can't be effected by gravity and just go trough our body

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 07:57 PM
Discussions of theoretical topics, even highly improbable ones, are never pointless.
They may not ever result in anything, but they make us think.
That in itself is of value.

2DividedbyZero
May 7, 2011, 07:58 PM
this thread became very very popular over the next 6 months, thousands of replies, but i have traveled back to tell you the TPU community decided to agree on the fact that time travel is not remotely possible.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/usersmilies/einzelusersmilies/MattMan_foshizzle.gif

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 08:03 PM
2/0 travelled back in time to try to undo the infraction he got 14 days from now.
Don't let him fool you.

On topic :
I would love to travel into the future to see the possibilities or consenquences of what we are doing, even if they were not certain and even if I could not remember them on return.
I guess that comes from reading tons of Sci-Fi since I was old enough to read.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 08:03 PM
Discussions of theoretical topics, even highly improbable ones, are never pointless.
They may not ever result in anything, but they make us think.
That in itself is of value.

Point taken. I still think time travel may well exist, though.

this thread became very very popular over the next 6 months, thousands of replies, but i have traveled back to tell you the TPU community decided to agree on the fact that time travel is not remotely possible.

Alas, you have now created a paradox, because I have made this post in response to yours, which has changed the future, and now you will likely cease to exist, along with everyone else.

I would love to travel into the future to see the possibilities or consenquences of what we are doing, even if they were not certain and even if I could not remember them on return.
I guess that comes from reading tons of Sci-Fi since I was old enough to read.

That would be wonderful. Myself, I want to see what the human race can accomplish once we finally get over our current stage, and really begin exploring and bettering ourselves. Same on the science fiction. :)

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 08:06 PM
I believe that times travel is impossible.
There is only one moment of time in existance, and that is right now.
Our perceptions of the past are stored in our memories, but that "time" no longer exists.
Our ability to imagine the future is no different that our ability to imagine anything else, and that time has yet to exist.

To attempt to travel to somewhere non-existant is but an imaginary pipe-dream, IMO.

haha kreji, I have read what do you read too, you even copy paste it, but still if time was not 4th dimension then why we can travel to the future? Isn't that some short of movement in time? And i believe if the time was not the 4th dimension them there simply no time different at all in the universe

Sasqui
May 7, 2011, 08:13 PM
Proof that you can slow or speed up time (in relative terms):

I don't beleive it is possible to go back in time... but who really knows?

Getting off the topic of military vs. Nasa budget, the whole GPS system is designed around the thoery of relativity (it really IS true):

" To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit. ..."

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

D007
May 7, 2011, 08:14 PM
I do not believe in time travel.. I believe in being able to "see" things that happened in the past based on the speed of light, but not going back in time. Just cause u can see something doesn't mean you can interact with it.. Although based on einsteins curvature of space theory which im pretty sure is proven as fact by now. It would actually be very possible to cut thru space and end up where you started before you even left.. But would that be only visible or actually physically real in all ways? That's the big question imo.

The same can be said for moving at faster than light, as when you approach the speed of light time slows down. But the universe doesn't care about time.. If time travel was possible, don't you think we'd of met a time traveler by now? Maybe traveling thru time in such a way causes a paradox, where your actually in another dimension, exactly the same as the dimension your currently occupying.. So many questions, so few answers..lol

This is true as well, light does get bent around stars. This infact was used by Albert Einstein to prove his Theory of Relativity.

Well yea but you know what I mean...

This is called lensing:

See those curved beams of light? that's the distortion affect caused by gravity of massive objects if I remember correctly.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 08:16 PM
I do not believe in time travel.. I believe in being able to "see" things that happened in the past based on the speed of light, but not going back in time. Just cause u can see something doesn't mean you can interact with it.. Although based on einsteins curvature of space theory which im pretty sure is proven as fact by now. It would actually be very possible to cut thru space and end up where you started before you even left.. But would that be only visible or actually physically real in all ways? That's the big question imo.
the same can be said for moving at faster than light, as when you approach the speed of light time slows down. But the universe doesn't care about time.. If time travel was possible, don't you think we'd of met a time traveler by now? Maybe traveling thru time in such a way causes a paradox, where your actually in another dimension, exactly the same as the dimension your currently occupying.. So many questions, so few answers..lol

Well, if we could travel faster than light, we could certainly see into the past by going far away from Earth and looking back, where the light we were receiving would be from Earth before we left.

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 08:21 PM
haha kreji, I have read what do you read too, you even copy paste it, but still if time was not 4th dimension then why we can travel to the future? Isn't that some short of movement in time? And i believe if the time was not the 4th dimension them there simply no time different at all in the universe

I don't know what you've read, but I didn't copy and paste anything. That's just my ramblings.

I agree with you last statement. There is no time difference in the universe. There is only now.

BinaryMage
May 7, 2011, 08:25 PM
I don't know what you've read, but I didn't copy and paste anything. That's just my ramblings.

I agree with you last statement. There is no time difference in the universe. There is only now.

But now cannot exist in any other form than an idea, because it can never be "now", in the sense that by the time you have though about it, it is now a different "now". (Sorry for the confusing explanation)

D007
May 7, 2011, 08:28 PM
I don't know what you've read, but I didn't copy and paste anything. That's just my ramblings.

I agree with you last statement. There is no time difference in the universe. There is only now.

There is no difference in time in the universe I believe as well, but there is a difference in place which can be perceived as a difference in time. We've all heard the analogy if you take a piece of paper and fold it. Then punch a hold thru it and travel thru that hole, u end up in the next place faster. But that's a gravitational trick used by creating a hugely dense object similar to a black hole. Which of course is currently inescapable. So how people intend on using something that dense to punch thru space, when it would tear you apart atom by atom is beyond me.. and the rest of the world at this point..lol

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 08:33 PM
I do not believe in time travel.. I believe in being able to "see" things that happened in the past based on the speed of light, but not going back in time. Just cause u can see something doesn't mean you can interact with it.. Although based on einsteins curvature of space theory which im pretty sure is proven as fact by now. It would actually be very possible to cut thru space and end up where you started before you even left.. But would that be only visible or actually physically real in all ways? That's the big question imo.

The same can be said for moving at faster than light, as when you approach the speed of light time slows down. But the universe doesn't care about time.. If time travel was possible, don't you think we'd of met a time traveler by now? Maybe traveling thru time in such a way causes a paradox, where your actually in another dimension, exactly the same as the dimension your currently occupying.. So many questions, so few answers..lol

This is called lensing:

See those curved beams of light? that's the distortion affect caused by gravity of massive objects if I remember correctly.

we can already back in time, but its not our past lol. If you see trough telescope and aim it to star you basically see to the past,

we can't travel faster than light, because when we reach speed of light the time simply stop, so even tough the journey can span for thousand years we won't notice it, it will just a blink of eye when we reach our destination

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 08:41 PM
I don't know what you've read, but I didn't copy and paste anything. That's just my ramblings.

I agree with you last statement. There is no time difference in the universe. There is only now.

haha its interesting, because its same to what you said earlier, its said that time is not 4th dimension and its only exist in our math equation.

But there is time difference in our universe, even our gps satelite is in different time than us. Or in the blackhole

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 08:44 PM
If you travel at the speed of light, or greater, time does not stop. Time never stops.
You are simply moving to a point in the universe that the light from a particular event has not reached yet.
Could make for nice viewing, though.

D007
May 7, 2011, 08:45 PM
Just because you can't travel faster than light doesn't mean you can't get somewhere before light does.. Look at the photon for example. It is always entangled in the opposite state as it's partner but it is never in the same location. You could have one of the entangled pair here and one on the other side of the universe but they will always react at the same "time"..
Now that's science.. No telling why yet, but it just is..

LAN_deRf_HA
May 7, 2011, 08:51 PM
Am I the only one that doesn't count time dilation as time travel? A simple distortion just doesn't cut it. The only interesting bit about speed dilation effect would be to see if you could remove your mass and fling yourself against the speed limit, though I'd worry you'd just be sending yourself to the end of existence. Other than that just make a stasis pod. A lot more energy efficient.

Kreij
May 7, 2011, 09:04 PM
Now that's science.. No telling why yet, but it just is..

So is a comprehensive study on whether the inclusion of pink flamingoes as yard ornaments are a natural result of genetic differences based on positron emmision scans of the subjects' brains.
Just saying.

wahdangun
May 7, 2011, 09:07 PM
Just because you can't travel faster than light doesn't mean you can't get somewhere before light does.. Look at the photon for example. It is always entangled in the opposite state as it's partner but it is never in the same location. You could have one of the entangled pair here and one on the other side of the universe but they will always react at the same "time"..
Now that's science.. No telling why yet, but it just is..

yes i know photon entangled always react in the same time, i just merely stated my theory, that when we start hit the speed of light the time will stop on us, and the whole journy become a blink of eye for us that why we can't travel faster than light even we assume that we have the technology to travel faster than light.

@kreji : so if there are no different in time them how do you explain the different time in our gps satelite clock to earth, isn't if there are no time different them why we must adjust it constanly?

FordGT90Concept
May 8, 2011, 12:54 AM
There is no evidence to prove or disprove that going around the world as fast as superman will throw you into time travel. And since you cant prove it, its just a theory.
The "Grandfather Paradox" proves it can't be done which has been retorted with "Parrallel Universes." There are so many issues with Parrallel Universes theory; however, that it boggles the mind why it is even uttered anymore. For example, we know nature is not wasteful so why would nature constantly be dupicating itself in order to correct the Grandfather Paradox? And to explain that, they throw in Quantum Physics which basically state that, on the sub particle level, its pure madness and stuff happens randomly. Well, maybe if they stop making assumptions that they are seeing the whole picture, they wouldn't be making these sci-fi predictions that make absolutely no sense in the context of the universe.

Basically, time travel has created a giant mess of theories that try to explain how it is possible. As demonstrated by E=mc2, nature doesn't care for "giant messes." As such, I am confident going back in time is impossible and going forward in time is only possible through the limitations of general relativity (you can slow time relative to someone else not being so strongly affected by the space-time continuum).

BinaryMage
May 8, 2011, 01:35 AM
The "Grandfather Paradox" proves it can't be done which has been retorted with "Parrallel Universes." There are so many issues with Parrallel Universes theory; however, that it boggles the mind why it is even uttered anymore. For example, we know nature is not wasteful so why would nature constantly be dupicating itself in order to correct the Grandfather Paradox? And to explain that, they throw in Quantum Physics which basically state that, on the sub particle level, its pure madness and stuff happens randomly. Well, maybe if they stop making assumptions that they are seeing the whole picture, they wouldn't be making these sci-fi predictions that make absolutely no sense in the context of the universe.

Basically, time travel has created a giant mess of theories that try to explain how it is possible. As demonstrated by E=mc2, nature doesn't care for "giant messes." As such, I am confident going back in time is impossible and going forward in time is only possible through the limitations of general relativity (you can slow time relative to someone else not being so strongly affected by the space-time continuum).

We know that nature is not wasteful? Our highly limited perception of the world around us does not give us license to make that claim. And of course it's a giant mess of theories. That's science. :)

FordGT90Concept
May 8, 2011, 02:16 AM
Conservation of Energy/Conservation of Mass Everything ultimately gets repurposed.

micropage7
May 8, 2011, 02:33 AM
you know i remember someone said that this world is paralel how many times we realize that we are here coz of 'plan' maybe like action to reaction if we are not here we should be somewhere in different time and different story
einstein said by using his theory of worm hole but so far its still a theory
and the time has 2 dimension which vertical and horizontal where the horizontal line marked with number lke 1hour 2 hour and so. the vertical line is unlimited which each one would have different experience of this
maybe i read philosoph too much

theJesus
May 8, 2011, 02:38 AM
And of course it's a giant mess of theories. That's science. :)
Pillar one: Science without results is just witchcraft. Pillar two: Get results or you’re fired. Pillar three: if you suspect a coworker of bein’ a witch, report them immediately. I cannot stress that enough. Witchcraft will not be tolerated.

silkstone
May 8, 2011, 04:45 AM
This is true as well, light does get bent around stars. This infact was used by Albert Einstein to prove his Theory of Relativity.

Well yea but you know what I mean...

Light is affected by the Sun, it just travels too fast to be pulled in. But the path of the light particle is slightly bent as it passes the Sun.

There won't be any "surrounding light", but yeah; the black hole will "suck in" any light that gets too close.

Again, gravity does not effect light, it does not pull light towards it, what gravity does do is bend space time, essentially making the path light takes it (relatively) curved. if gravity could effect light in such a way, it would imply that gravity could change the velocity of light, which is just not true.

charles1
May 8, 2011, 06:02 AM
Look we can speculate all day and night the truth of the matter is we dont know for sure. What we said was impossible has now been proven fact and possible.

also note that many Phd's have said that all known laws of physics fall apart inside a black hole and we have no knowledge of what truly happens inside a black hole other than it spits out hot gases and so on. Look with out getting all technical and busting math equations that half of us wont know the black hole can be and might be the pnadoras box to time travel or even greater treasures we can even fathom.

So here is a toast to the great unknown, If i were given the choice to father a child or travelk the universe forever I would choose travel the universe LOL.

Aleksander
May 8, 2011, 07:17 AM
my theory is if you go around the world so fast that time doesn't pass you hit what i call absolute zero. then if you go faster you would collide with your self even mater or energy would do the same. this is a bearer even if you go in a strait line and go faster then absolute zero you would still hit that bearer.so time travel is impossible.

Your theory is not a theory, it is not constructed by proven postulates and what is worse yours is just a hypothesis. You need 3 proofs to make it a postulate and than a postulate is a hypothesis that none can turn it down. Also, I have proven that your theory is wrong: Faster than speed of light, dream of it. Sorry man, this thread is just a fool thinking. If you could travel, than someone from the future would come to earth. I also have proven that there is no time at all.

silkstone
May 8, 2011, 07:49 AM
Your theory is not a theory, it is not constructed by proven postulates and what is worse yours is just a hypothesis. You need 3 proofs to make it a postulate and than a postulate is a hypothesis that none can turn it down. Also, I have proven that your theory is wrong: Faster than speed of light, dream of it. Sorry man, this thread is just a fool thinking. If you could travel, than someone from the future would come to earth. I also have proven that there is no time at all.

Faster than light speed travel is possible, but only by information

HalfAHertz
May 8, 2011, 10:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okWNOnyCfMU i I am surprised no one has posted this yet! Shame on you all :D

On a more serious note, I think that for now Nasa should stop investing in heavy lift rockets that can transport us to the moon and Mars and instead start researching technology that can directly materialize us there(or at least most of our resources/equipment so that the shuttles can become smaller) by means of radio waves or light...

theJesus
May 8, 2011, 12:43 PM
On a more serious note, I think that for now Nasa should stop investing in heavy lift rockets that can transport us to the moon and Mars and instead start researching technology that can directly materialize us there(or at least most of our resources/equipment so that the shuttles can become smaller) by means of radio waves or light...
I'd be more interested in directly materializing at work or school or something. Damn gas prices :ohwell:

qubit
May 8, 2011, 04:21 PM
Well, Obviously time travel is possible and has in fact been done. :rolleyes: They did this way back in 1985 in Back to the Future (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/).

BinaryMage
May 8, 2011, 04:40 PM
Faster than light speed travel is possible, but only by information

By information in what way? Because of light cones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone), information can travel at the speed of light but no faster, at least according to current science.

theJesus
May 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
Well, Obviously time travel is possible and has in fact been done. :rolleyes: They did this way back in 1985 in Back to the Future (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/).
In more recent years, there is evidence that FordGT90Concept has borrowed W1zzard's time machine (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1853724).

silkstone
May 8, 2011, 04:52 PM
By information in what way? Because of light cones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone), information can travel at the speed of light but no faster, at least according to current science.

I'm refering to the electron spin pairs. I haven't read too much about it, but there was speculation that it could have applications in things like quantum computers.

digibucc
May 8, 2011, 05:06 PM
I'm refering to the electron spin pairs. I haven't read too much about it, but there was speculation that it could have applications in things like quantum computers.

yes, i don't know much either but it is confirmed that they can communicate across immense distances without being limited by the speed of light. it's been the big news the last few years.

BinaryMage
May 8, 2011, 05:37 PM
I'm refering to the electron spin pairs. I haven't read too much about it, but there was speculation that it could have applications in things like quantum computers.

Alright, makes more sense now.

Kreij
May 8, 2011, 05:45 PM
What does instantaneous communication theories/hypothesis based on quantum mechanics have to do with time travel?

Let's try to keep it on topic. I know ... it's hard for me too. :D

digibucc
May 8, 2011, 05:55 PM
What does instantaneous communication theories/hypothesis based on quantum mechanics have to do with time travel?

Let's try to keep it on topic. I know ... it's hard for me too. :D

in the documentaries i have seen, they have theorized that the ability they have
to communicate instantaneously across space, could maybe be used to transmit
information and eventually, maybe - people.

i have not heard time travel theorized, but once you are talking about instantaneous travel
across the universe.... throwing in a bit of time travel doesn't sound SO far off :)

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 01:40 AM
Again, gravity does not effect light, it does not pull light towards it, what gravity does do is bend space time, essentially making the path light takes it (relatively) curved. if gravity could effect light in such a way, it would imply that gravity could change the velocity of light, which is just not true.

isn't light have mass too? So it can really affected by gravity, even light can't escape from blackhole. If light velocity didn't change then its really easy for light to escape from blackhole

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 05:08 AM
Gravity effects light albeit indirectly.

Light AKA the Photo is a massless particle.

The reason why Gravity caues light to bend/become "Sucked In" by a black whole is cause light follow a path and gravity warps (Bends) that path. With a black whole, its gravity is so strong that it literally breaks a hole in the fabric of spacetime and Light falls in said hole.

Think of a bowling ball on a soft mattress with a marble rolled next to it. Thats like the Sun on the fabric of Spacetime with the Earth being the marble.

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 05:52 AM
Gravity effects light albeit indirectly.

Light AKA the Photo is a massless particle.

The reason why Gravity caues light to bend/become "Sucked In" by a black whole is cause light follow a path and gravity warps (Bends) that path. With a black whole, its gravity is so strong that it literally breaks a hole in the fabric of spacetime and Light falls in said hole.

Think of a bowling ball on a soft mattress with a marble rolled next to it. Thats like the Sun on the fabric of Spacetime with the Earth being the marble.

yeah I know that gravity can bend space and time, but there is no way light doesn't have mass, if it doesn't have mass then it can't be affected by gravity.

Btw there are recently a debate between scientist that there are no gravity at all, I will try to research it again to be more clear

TheLaughingMan
May 9, 2011, 05:59 AM
yeah I know that gravity can bend space and time, but there is no way light doesn't have mass, if it doesn't have mass then it can't be affected by gravity.

Btw there are recently a debate between scientist that there are no gravity at all, I will try to research it again to be more clear

Those scientist were high as shit. They were really testing the effects of marijuana on their theories of quantum mechanics. The conclusion was there is no gravity and Grilled Stuffed Chicken Burritos rule.

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 06:31 AM
yeah I know that gravity can bend space and time, but there is no way light doesn't have mass, if it doesn't have mass then it can't be affected by gravity.

Btw there are recently a debate between scientist that there are no gravity at all, I will try to research it again to be more clear

I don't think you are paying attention to what I am saying.

Photos (Particles that make light) are massless, google it and you will find not one place saying it has mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Photons follow geodesics, the shortest distance between two points, in other words a straight line. Gravity is caused by the warping of space due to the presence of mass. Therefore it is the path through space in which photons travel that is bent. The photons will travel this bent path making it appear as if light bends.

Say you are sitting on your bed. You know how your bed sinks? Well imagine the stars and planets as sitting on a large bed making it curve down. This effect is known as warping. Replace the bed with Spacetime and you have the warping of spacetime.

Now an objects travelling on the bed will go straight right? Lets say you have someone roll a marble from the flat end of the bed just next to where you are sitting, the marble will follow the path of the sinking part of the bed down to you, where you are sitting.

With really big stuff this can happen to light as well and the bigger the more of an effect (Bending).

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 06:39 AM
With really big stuff this can happen to light as well and the bigger the more of an effect (Bending).

I'm not sure if that is true, if space time is bent, shouldn't any object travelling thorough this bent space all take the same path? I'm pretty sure more massive objects wouldn't be effected any more or less.

I'm sorry i'm wrong. This is the geodetic effect. I'm just brushing up on it now :)

The 3 dimensional model doesn't work very well as it appears its both a bending and stretching effect, effectively acting in the 4th dimension. If 3d space time were just bent, everything passing through should be bent by equal amounts. However if the object is moving fast enough, it would "skip" over the bend, essentially (relatively speaking) moving slightly faster than before (although it would not be moving faster, just taking a shorter path).

To use the bed and blanket synonym, you'd need to think of a second, faster marble also going over the bed, instead of falling into the dip, it would skip over and continue more or less unaffected. In essence changing the 2d situation into a 3d one.

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 06:57 AM
I'm not sure if that is true, if space time is bent, shouldn't any object travelling thorough this bent space all take the same path? I'm pretty sure more massive objects wouldn't be effected any more or less.

I'm sorry i'm wrong. This is the geodetic effect. I'm just brushing up on it now :)

Hmm I'm not sure I understand you. But every object in space follows the same rule as light, it just takes more to bend light.

The reason why the Earth, Mercury, Saturn, etc.. all rotate around the sun is because they are following the crurved path that our Sun has created via its mass and its warping of spacetime.

The Moon as well is the effect of the Earth's warping of space time, its following the curved path around the Earth.

Maybe this will help http://img.techpowerup.org/110509/6a00d8341bf7f753ef01538e50f8e1970b-500wi

Light doesn't orbit (Make circles) around stars and planets because it goes so fast, thats why it just gets bent instead.

Again Black Holes are so massive and dense they make a hole in the space-time rather then just warping it, although they still warp space time on the outer edges.

http://img.techpowerup.org/110509/blackhole.gif

Notice the little diagram on the left. The Sun has some warping, the denser White Dwarf even more, the Nutron Star even more! And then the black hole just takes it all the way down.
This is why some say the Black Hole might be a Worm Hole (Shortcut so to speak) to other places, like parallel universes perhaps.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 07:38 AM
i understand it but it's difficult to describe what's happening.
The diagrams show a 2-dimension to 3-dimensional change, when they need to be 3d to 4d to illustrate correctly.

i'm guessing that light doesn't follow the path of the planets as it's going fast enough to skip over that bend in space-time and is only slightly effected.

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 07:42 AM
i understand it but it's difficult to describe what's happening.
The diagrams show a 2-dimension to 3-dimensional change, when they need to be 3d to 4d to illustrate correctly.

i'm guessing that light doesn't follow the path of the planets as it's going fast enough to skip over that bend in space-time and is only slightly effected.

You can't illustrate illustrate 4D lol thats why you see what you see.

Yeah light travels fast enough to not travel around the planet and to just become bent around the planets.

Ignore that other thing I posted I'm tired and didn't make sense. I edited this post with the correct information.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 07:46 AM
You can't illustrate illustrate 4D lol thats why you see what you see.

Yeah light travels fast enough to just kind of bend around the planets versus just shooting straight past the warp in space-time they have created.

That's my point :p It possible to understand but not easy to visualize or describe.

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 07:47 AM
That's my point :p It possible to understand but not easy to visualize or describe.

With that quote you quoted me in I meant to say this.

Yeah light travels fast enough to not travel around the planet and to just become bent around the planets.

Just saying. I think I should get some sleep now.

BazookaJoe
May 9, 2011, 08:09 AM
in the documentaries i have seen, they have theorized that the ability they have
to communicate instantaneously across space, could maybe be used to transmit
information and eventually, maybe - people.

I have not heard time travel theorized, but once you are talking about instantaneous travel
across the universe.... throwing in a bit of time travel doesn't sound SO far off :)

Well if you look at the "twin Paradox" you have an environment where in travel over radical distances at extraordinary speed results in an effective form of time travel, or at least time displacement as experienced from the viewpoint of one or the other party.

Or indeed the time displacement / travel being experienced by BOTH parties to a factorized degree.

- Now assuming the theory behind the twin paradox IS ABSOLUTELY sound, one needs to stop and think what happens when Quantum tech IS used to "transport" you over incredible distances at virtually (but obviously not totally) instant speeds? (or at least instant by our own perspective of time) would you also be displaced in time? or does the nature of the quantum "data link" somehow evade the "time drag coefficient" by existing outside of traditional space time all together?

Yes, you would no longer be traditional matter as you where transported - but it's still curious to think about...

Could you possibly use quantum teleportation to rapidly bypass the need for extensive physical travel , and thus exploit, to some or other degree, the time drag coefficient discussed in the twin paradox theory, as to effectively affect time travel?

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 08:31 AM
I don't think you are paying attention to what I am saying.

Photos (Particles that make light) are massless, google it and you will find not one place saying it has mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Photons follow geodesics, the shortest distance between two points, in other words a straight line. Gravity is caused by the warping of space due to the presence of mass. Therefore it is the path through space in which photons travel that is bent. The photons will travel this bent path making it appear as if light bends.

Say you are sitting on your bed. You know how your bed sinks? Well imagine the stars and planets as sitting on a large bed making it curve down. This effect is known as warping. Replace the bed with Spacetime and you have the warping of spacetime.

Now an objects travelling on the bed will go straight right? Lets say you have someone roll a marble from the flat end of the bed just next to where you are sitting, the marble will follow the path of the sinking part of the bed down to you, where you are sitting.

With really big stuff this can happen to light as well and the bigger the more of an effect (Bending).

if you mean rest-mass then you are correct because they can't exist in stationary state. But the photon indeed have mass limit that is 10^-51 gram. Because photon is some form of energy then its must obey E=M*C^2

i understand it but it's difficult to describe what's happening.
The diagrams show a 2-dimension to 3-dimensional change, when they need to be 3d to 4d to illustrate correctly.

i'm guessing that light doesn't follow the path of the planets as it's going fast enough to skip over that bend in space-time and is only slightly effected.

actually photon didn't travell in 4th dimension. Because the time is stop @ speed of light.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 11:12 AM
actually photon didn't travell in 4th dimension. Because the time is stop @ speed of light.

I mean a 4th spacial dimension rather than the 4th dimension meaning time.

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 02:19 PM
Well if you look at the "twin Paradox" you have an environment where in travel over radical distances at extraordinary speed results in an effective form of time travel, or at least time displacement as experienced from the viewpoint of one or the other party.

Or indeed the time displacement / travel being experienced by BOTH parties to a factorized degree.

- Now assuming the theory behind the twin paradox IS ABSOLUTELY sound, one needs to stop and think what happens when Quantum tech IS used to "transport" you over incredible distances at virtually (but obviously not totally) instant speeds? (or at least instant by our own perspective of time) would you also be displaced in time? or does the nature of the quantum "data link" somehow evade the "time drag coefficient" by existing outside of traditional space time all together?

Yes, you would no longer be traditional matter as you where transported - but it's still curious to think about...

Could you possibly use quantum teleportation to rapidly bypass the need for extensive physical travel , and thus exploit, to some or other degree, the time drag coefficient discussed in the twin paradox theory, as to effectively affect time travel?

my theory that quantum "data link" use 5th dimension to travel. Or maybe they use micro wormhole that exist in the fabric of space and time

digibucc
May 9, 2011, 02:48 PM
my theory that quantum "data link" use 5th dimension to travel. Or maybe they use micro wormhole that exist in the fabric of space and time

i'm sorry, but that's not a theory. gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. no offense, but that's just an idea. a hypothesis if anything. with all the flak "theory" gets, i think it's important to use the term properly.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 03:32 PM
i'm sorry, but that's not a theory. gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. no offense, but that's just an idea. a hypothesis if anything. with all the flak "theory" gets, i think it's important to use the term properly.

Mah, it's everyday usage, there's no point really picking apart peoples vocabulary mistakes, you understand what he means.

qubit
May 9, 2011, 03:51 PM
i'm sorry, but that's not a theory. gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. no offense, but that's just an idea. a hypothesis if anything. with all the flak "theory" gets, i think it's important to use the term properly.

+1 there digibucc

One always gets religious types trying to debunk evolution as "just a theory" and don't want to understand what the word theory means. In scientific language, the meaning is quite different to the ignoramus common man understanding of theory as "just an idea". A scientific theory has lots of hard evidence to justify its existence, such as the theory of Relativity by Einstein, so theories are pretty damn solid.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 04:16 PM
+1 there digibucc

One always gets religious types trying to debunk evolution as "just a theory" and don't want to understand what the word theory means. In scientific language, the meaning is quite different to the ignoramus common man understanding of theory as "just an idea". A scientific theory has lots of hard evidence to justify its existence, such as the theory of Relativity by Einstein, so theories are pretty damn solid.

His English usage is not wrong... There is more than 1 meaning to the word.. just like the word "fire"
Those religious wackos are just defining "Theory" as #2 for their own good.

Definition

–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

digibucc
May 9, 2011, 04:27 PM
it may not be super-important, but i think it matters. hopefully he didn't
take it as me being rude, as that was not my intention.

point taken, let's carry on with friendly scientific discussion :)

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 05:00 PM
no offence taken, btw where is the discussion? Are every body tired ?

btw recently I read a couple of paper about spatial 4th dimension, its really interesting concept, so its basically a Wormhole, but why they not named it, 5th dimension?

EDIT: haha I didn't realize it. Since wormhole bypassing time, each other can't co-exist together, so when you enter it time is not valid anymore. So thats why in theory you can go back in time with sligh interference.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 05:06 PM
no offence taken, btw where is the discussion? Are every body tired ?

btw recently I read a couple of paper about spatial 4th dimension, its really interesting concept, so its basically a Wormhole, but why they not named it, 5th dimension?

Because time is not a spacial dimension, they usually like to put time at the end of the other dimensions as it is different. I imagine that time was labelled the 4th dimension prior to Einstein or string theory. At the moment i believe the word dimension is more synonymous with direction, as time is not a direction is has to be grouped otherwise.

streetfighter 2
May 9, 2011, 05:09 PM
Time travel is cake. I'm doing it right now and it sucks.

Someone call me when the Alcubierre Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) is working.

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 05:26 PM
Because time is not a spacial dimension, they usually like to put time at the end of the other dimensions as it is different. I imagine that time was labelled the 4th dimension prior to Einstein or string theory. At the moment i believe the word dimension is more synonymous with direction, as time is not a direction is has to be grouped otherwise.

it is a direction just like other dimension tough its just know one direction not like other dimension .
If time is not the 4th dimension then how it can affect each matter differently and that effect based on each matter gravity and speed? The result is Each matter will be treated equally, so even if you have reach speed of light the time will be not slowing down.

btw i hope you see my edited post in my previous post

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 05:28 PM
if you mean rest-mass then you are correct because they can't exist in stationary state. But the photon indeed have mass limit that is 10^-51 gram. Because photon is some form of energy then its must obey E=M*C^2

actually photon didn't travell in 4th dimension. Because the time is stop @ speed of light.

E=mC^2 applies only to ojbects at rest. The equation actually changes when applying it to light.

silkstone
May 9, 2011, 05:56 PM
it is a direction just like other dimension tough its just know one direction not like other dimension .
If time is not the 4th dimension then how it can affect each matter differently and that effect based on each matter gravity and speed? The result is Each matter will be treated equally, so even if you have reach speed of light the time will be not slowing down.

btw i hope you see my edited post in my previous post

Yea, strictly speaking time is the 4th dimension, but it all gets a little confusing when trying to explain an extra spacial dimension over 4. I think we refer to the dimensions in space and in time separately.

Somne guys blog about the 4th dimension, it contains a little explanation but i'm not sure how scientifically accurate it is.
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/melwood/368/time3.html

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 06:37 PM
E=mC^2 applies only to ojbects at rest. The equation actually changes when applying it to light.

I think its not make sense to measure M-rest of photon. because photon is never existed stationary, so if it zero it could ruin several equation. And since photon behave like wave. Then I can come out with this :

mc^2 = hf => m=hf/c^ 2

wolf
May 9, 2011, 06:42 PM
Yea, strictly speaking time is the 4th dimension, but it all gets a little confusing when trying to explain an extra spacial dimension over 4. I think we refer to the dimensions in space and in time separately.

Somne guys blog about the 4th dimension, it contains a little explanation but i'm not sure how scientifically accurate it is.
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/melwood/368/time3.html

I've always tended to think of time as the 1st dimension, with the others taking respective positions after that. after all (imo) there wouldnt be much to see or do with absolutely no passage of time whatsoever...

could just be me being an absolute retard to, I should help myself to some science books :laugh:

AphexDreamer
May 9, 2011, 06:42 PM
I think its not make sense to measure M-rest of photon. because photon is never existed stationary, so if it zero it could ruin several equation. And since photon behave like wave. Then I can come out with this :

mc^2 = hf => m=hf/c^ 2

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 07:00 PM
Yea, strictly speaking time is the 4th dimension, but it all gets a little confusing when trying to explain an extra spacial dimension over 4. I think we refer to the dimensions in space and in time separately.

Somne guys blog about the 4th dimension, it contains a little explanation but i'm not sure how scientifically accurate it is.
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/melwood/368/time3.html

yes its really lack of evidence just speculation. And actually we didn't have any proof yet that spatial 4th dimension exist.

wahdangun
May 9, 2011, 07:16 PM

so how you define mass-rest if the photon them self always travel @ speed of light? Change it to Zero won't help either.

Maybe I'm not quite clear before, here I will give you more :

E=hf

where h is a constant (Planck's constant) and f the frequency of the photon
(don't forget that the photon
is an electromagnetic WAVE
and has a frequency). If we
combine these two equations,
we come up with the following,which gives us the
mass of a photon

mc^2 = hf
m = hf/c^2

which means that though
photons don't have rest mass,
they do have energy and thus
they have mass. The photons
are wave particles. This means
that they act as waves and as particles as well. This is the
duality of the nature of light
(and of every particles). And
so as particles they have mass,
and as waves they have

silkstone
May 10, 2011, 02:27 AM
yes its really lack of evidence just speculation. And actually we didn't have any proof yet that spatial 4th dimension exist.

The nasa experiments that have just been completed prove the existence of a 4th dimension and gravity wells.

AphexDreamer
May 10, 2011, 02:43 AM
so how you define mass-rest if the photon them self always travel @ speed of light? Change it to Zero won't help either.

Maybe I'm not quite clear before, here I will give you more :

E=hf

where h is a constant (Planck's constant) and f the frequency of the photon
(don't forget that the photon
is an electromagnetic WAVE
and has a frequency). If we
combine these two equations,
we come up with the following,which gives us the
mass of a photon

mc^2 = hf
m = hf/c^2

which means that though
photons don't have rest mass,
they do have energy and thus
they have mass. The photons
are wave particles. This means
that they act as waves and as particles as well. This is the
duality of the nature of light
(and of every particles). And
so as particles they have mass,
and as waves they have

"Light has no REST mass. However light travels at the speed of light! In the equation E=mc2, m is the rest mass divided by the Lorentz transformation factor, which is 0 for anything going at the speed of light. Therefore the m is now 0/0, so the equation is meaningless for light. Light does have energy using the equation E=hf (f=frequency) and is affected by gravity."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

twilyth
May 10, 2011, 03:39 AM
Einstein was wrong about both space and time - neither exists.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/72337/title/Out_of_the_fabric

Today’s leading theories for answering the greatest cosmic questions suggest that neither time nor space appear in reality’s ultimate recipe. Somewhere between the stove and the table, space and time emerge, cooked up out of equations underlying an existence without rulers and clocks. At least that is “the widespread current belief,” says physicist Joe Polchinski of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

And you thought quantum mechanics was bizarre.

wahdangun
May 10, 2011, 03:50 AM

"Light has no REST mass. However light travels at the speed of light! In the equation E=mc2, m is the rest mass divided by the Lorentz transformation factor, which is 0 for anything going at the speed of light. Therefore the m is now 0/0, so the equation is meaningless for light. Light does have energy using the equation E=hf (f=frequency) and is affected by gravity."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

so I ask you where are the flaw in my equation ?

Since we can measure light energy with E=hf. So I doubt my equation is wrong

streetfighter 2
May 10, 2011, 03:55 AM
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat..._of_the_fabric (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/72337/title/Out_of_the_fabric)

I'm going to go cry in the shower now. ;)
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhwmuyDSjR1qzp1zzo1_500.jpg

silkstone
May 10, 2011, 03:59 AM

"Light has no REST mass. However light travels at the speed of light! In the equation E=mc2, m is the rest mass divided by the Lorentz transformation factor, which is 0 for anything going at the speed of light. Therefore the m is now 0/0, so the equation is meaningless for light. Light does have energy using the equation E=hf (f=frequency) and is affected by gravity."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I'd just like to point out that the equation e=mc^2 is used to find the energy contained in the mass of a particle. As photons have no mass they cannot have any energy in their mass. I.e. you can't break a photon down into smaller particles and get any energy out.
The energy it does have would be synonymous with kinetic energy, although it doesn't have any kinetic energy as such. Light as a wave is a means of energy transfer. All the energy is actually tied up in the EM field (the medium).

so I ask you where are the flaw in my equation ?

Since we can measure light energy with E=hf. So I doubt my equation is wrong

The flaw is you are comparing 2 different energies. in e=mc2 and e=hf they are different types of energy, and as such you can not make hf=mc^2. Although saying that, sometimes people do to come up with m=f

HammerON
May 10, 2011, 04:22 AM
Einstein was wrong about both space and time - neither exists.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/72337/title/Out_of_the_fabric

And you thought quantum mechanics was bizarre.

Thanks for the link! Interesting article...

SNICK
May 10, 2011, 04:30 AM
so how you define mass-rest if the photon them self always travel @ speed of light? Change it to Zero won't help either.

Maybe I'm not quite clear before, here I will give you more :

E=hf

where h is a constant (Planck's constant) and f the frequency of the photon
(don't forget that the photon
is an electromagnetic WAVE
and has a frequency). If we
combine these two equations,
we come up with the following,which gives us the
mass of a photon

mc^2 = hf
m = hf/c^2

which means that though
photons don't have rest mass,
they do have energy and thus
they have mass. The photons
are wave particles. This means
that they act as waves and as particles as well. This is the
duality of the nature of light
(and of every particles). And
so as particles they have mass,
and as waves they have