Zarnaxus

Aperently, theoretically, with the use of wormholes and negative energy, and all that shtufff, it could be possible one day to create trips back in time. Here is an explaination of why i dont understand how this works: I would beleive that once traveled back in time, you would obviously do something that would change the path of the future. Now, in this new future, you might not creating a time machine, so you wouldn't have been able to change the past, so you would have actually created the time machine, and .... yeah. Looking past this problem, I would beleive that changing the past could create either a time machine earlier, or later. Now, if we loop back to the past in either of those scenarios, we alter the past, and the time in which civilization creates the time machine would continually change. Eventually, the only possibility is that the loop continues until we have a universe in which the time machine is never discovered. Looking past this looping problem, each time we would make a loop to the past, we are allowing some radiation to enter in with us. After thousands or maybe even millions of these loops (we aren't limited timewise if time keeps being "reset") there would be waay to much radiation and life would die out. These problems seem pretty prominent in my eyes, but im sure that some of you out there may provide a better angle or new knowlegde on this topic to help me better understand it. A solution that i believe i have heard before, is that when traveling back in time, you actually enter a whole different parallel universe, seperate from the original one, but similar in many ways. This i believe would solve the problem, buuut how exactly would that work.... I think i have somewhat of a grasp on these concepts, but want someone to clarify.

Hmm.. I actually didn't know that... Thanks for that info, but my point will still stand: You will always have to continually manipulate time to make sure that c is a constant. So, is there an equation that can accurately measure the amount of dilation for an object moving at any speed?

I ME is correct. In the initial condition of the big bang. There would have been 10 dimensions of space time. These dimensions split up into 6 curled up dimensions (curled back upon themselves almost infinitely, I think down to the planck length). The other 4 dimensions are the ones that we experience today. 3 spacial dimensions and one of time. Since the particles that make us up are much larger than the planck length, they cannot slip into these other curled up dimensions. Eventually, if there proves to be a big crunch, these dimensions may expand back under the extreme pressures and temperatures and our universe could return, mended back into its original ten dimensional state.

Light travels at the same speed no matter how fast the source of light is moving. The sensors are moving the same speed in relation to eachother and the person outside observing. I cant find any reason for the light to not reach the sensors at the same time. I beleive the green LED would turn on.

I believe that since time around thos objects moving at 1/3c and 2/3c slows down, and time with the 2/3c slows down more than the 1/3c. The time it takes the light to reach the objects will be the same to the perspectives of those objects. From an outside perspective the light seems to take a longer amount of time to reach the faster object; we will have forgotten that time is relatively slower where that object is. A stationary object in relation to the light is going to experience time regularly. It might take a second to reach it. If light takes the same amount of time to catch up to a moving object, say an object moving at 1/2c, the only option, is that time is actually moving 1/2 slower, and it is still taking one second for the light to reach it from the perspective of that object. It all comes down to just manipulating time to make sure that c is a constant.

Time is like a river. It slows and it speeds up. This is relative to how fast a person is going and how much mass they are next to. Technically, if you were traveling near the speed of light around a cluster of black holes, time would be passing incredibly slow in comparison to someone who is on earth. This means that if you were to take a spaceship going crazy fast, time would be moving slow enough for you to move astrinomical distances. You could reach a black hole, for time to move even slower. You could then return back to Earth, which could be 400 years into the future compared to when you left. Time might have only passes some 40 years on your spaceship though. On earth, most everyone is subject to relatively the same ammount of mass, so the only variable is how fast we move. On an extremely small scale, someone who walks and runs all the time compared to someone who doesn't move alot might be experiencing time moving slower in comparison. So, the answer to your question is ... kinda. The fluctuation would be soo incredibly small that it is almost radically unimportant. It is much more fun to think of general relativity with my spaceship idea. P.S. I am also 16.

Over readings, I have "stumbled" across a few very strange sounding types of matter and energy, and decided to create a topic dedicated to the differentiation and explanation to these exotic theoretical forms of matter. I will explain what i am already familiar with, and will leave it to the real experts on this site to possibly build/correct my information. Here are a few forms of exotic matter i have come in contact with: NOTE: I don't know what im talking about. I would just like smarter people to correct my misconceptions and to build on my understanding. Dark Matter: matter that is strewn throughout the universe. Larger than regular particles? hard to ... observe? weakly interacting i believe. called WIMPS weakly interactive massive particles. i think? Dark Energy: To my understanding. There is not a lot of information about dark energy. It is the energy that is driving the acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Thats pretty much all i know. Negative Matter: Matter that has negative mass and falls up against gravity. Because of this, it would probably exist out in the outest reaches of nothingness in the universe. Theoretical at the moment. Negative Energy: Like regular energy except literally negative amounts of it. Theretically used with black holes to create wormholes? Also Theoretical at the moment. Antimatter: matter that has the opposite charge of regular matter. Has been created in the lab! er... particle accelerators? Theoretically, it's regular matter traveling backward in time?? Tachyons: Has imaginary mass??? can't go beneath the speed of light??? WTF hahahaha Sparticles: something to do with string theory. Theoretically, we have 3 generations of particles or something. The regular version, the antimatter version??, and the sparticle version?? I believe that sparticles are the higher spins of regular matter or something like that. A higher vibration of the superstring?? As you can see, I need a lot of help with understanding these concepts. Do you think there are negative antitachyons?? haha... or even... dark negative anti-Stachyons?? Do you think that we could be made up of antimatter and the antimatter that we know as antimatter is actually the regular matter that we think we are? The question is.... does it matter or antimatter? teehee

awesome. Thanks for that. Sometimes i find these more simpler concepts to continually be getting more and more complex as i dive deeper and deeper into the physics universe.

I am very new to this site. (couple minutes actually) but i am not new to the concepts of theoretical and quantum physics. I have read a couple beginning books on these topics, but have many more on their way. I have always been extremely interested in these crazy theorems and ideas. I plan on taking a physics related career in my life, and want to begin learning lots about it's expansive information. Anyways, over my readings i have read over the simple equation E=mc^2 many many times. I understand its meaning well enough. E standing for energy. m for mass. and c obviously for the speed of light. This meaning that a very very large amount of energy is stored in such a small amount of mass, or maybe that mass itself is extremely condensed energy? I get this conclusion by viewing that c is a gargantuan number, and that c^2 is completely unfathamable. The thing that i seem to not understand, is if Einstein was just simply stating that there is a large amount of energy in matter, or if the amount of energy in that matter is exacty equal to mc^2. So, what im trying to say is: Is the c^2 there just to represent a giant number, or is it the exact coefficient of m when mass is changing to energy. Is there exactly a c^2 amount of energy in one unit of mass? or again, sounding a little redundant, is c^2 there just to represent a giant number. If so, physicists should try to find the exact number that can be used to translate mass and energy. Maybe they already have. I am the student. Teach me.