time travel and wormholes

[BenTheMan]

That's why it took thirteen years for General Relativity to become accepted as mainstream.

 

That's actually not much time at all---people just refused to take things on faith (as they should). Once GR was confirmed (by doctored experiments, mind you), many people accepted it.

[Farsight]

That's actually not much time at all---people just refused to take things on faith (as they should). Once GR was confirmed (by doctored experiments, mind you), many people accepted it.

 

That's back to front. They refused to accept it on grounds of faith. And your "doctored experiments" insinuation illustrates this. The Foundation of General Relativity was out in 1916. Arthur Eddington observed the solar eclipse in 1919 to demonstrate that light really was bent by the sun. It was in all the newspapers. But it wasn't accepted into mainstream for another ten years. Now listen up: you believe in time travel and wormholes. You take them on faith. There are no experiments, "doctored" or otherwise. And as a result you believe in pseudoscience notions like time travel and wormholes. They are the speculations. Has the penny dropped yet?

 

editing

[someguy]

 

 

 

The latter. You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. The motion is in space. It's there, happening, now. You can see things travelling through space, you can see motion. You can't see any travelling through time.

 

 

 

Time does exist, someguy. It exists like heat exists. It's an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. But you can't literally climb to a higher temperature. You can run through a fire, but you can't travel through heat. And likewise you can't travel through time. It's a 3+1 dimensional world, not a 4-dimensional world, and the difference is enormous. Sadly this stuff is so groundbreaking I'm not allowed to elaborate fully. It's not in accord with the current consensus, so it's classed as "speculation". That's how it is in physics. It's self-censoring. That's why it took thirteen years for General Relativity to become accepted as mainstream.

 

 

I never said time was a spacial dimension. obviously you can't travel through time like you travel through water. time is not material. traveling through time means that you travel in the 4th axis, time, which is not a spacial dimension. you do need time to have motion. show me a timeless scenario with motion. motion is proof of traveling through time.

 

you both need time for motion and motion for time. one cannot exist without the other. granted when an object moves it is displacing in the 3d world. the 3 dimensions of space. but without time, the 4th dimension, this would not be possible. in 3 dimensions, strictly 3 dimensions everything must be stationary. it's not until you add the 4th dimension that objects obtain the ability to travel in the 3 dimensions of space. and the rate at which they cover ground in those 3 dimensions affects the rate at which time works for one object relative to another.

 

obviously time is not a substance, i'm not looking to take a sip of time. or swim in a pool of time. but you and i are traveling through time right now nonetheless. it seems like you just don't like to speak of traveling through time as traveling through time. but i don't see a better way to say it. would you prefer progress through time?

 

maybe your ideas are so earth shattering revolutionary that nobody else can understand. but maybe also they are not earth shattering and are just wrong instead.

 

the way you speak implies you are certain you are right. you speak like to say "you guys are wrong" "it is this way" if you are so convinced then either you are easily convinced by your own ideas and then just dogmatically trust them relentlessly, or you must have some really great evidence or proof or really sound logic that demonstrates your hypothesis. I have yet to see any of these things. certainly you could say how something could work, you could even come up with a very intricate design, but what you need to be doing is showing why it MUST work that way. you often don't want to speak in detail. maybe because your ideas are too top secret or you don't want to be a disrespectful poster or whatever. if you have the evidence, the proof, and you want the respect for it you need to give it up. but maybe you are just afraid that your evidence is not evidence at all? i don't know.

 

personally i believe that if you are right, you could convince many posters here, particularly if it solves difficulties that previous theories did not solve. maybe it is you that does not understand why your theories can't work. that's possible isn't it? the only way you can know for sure is to talk it out. ask questions and answer questions. you began by asserting you were right and others wrong. and that's trouble because you have made it personal, you want to defend your ideas. so then it becomes you against others. whereas you should be trying to disprove your own theory. you would be better off i think working with others to disprove it. but.. if you're certain you're right you're certain. I just think that if you managed to make yourself certain you should be able to make me certain without breaking a sweat. unless of course you were just easily convinced. from what i saw your biggest proof that everything is made of photons was the pair production article in wikipedia, so i'm leaning toward the latter.

 

traveling through time and using wormholes like time machines is different. I don't really remember anyone saying that you can travel through time by going through a wormhole. but i remember someone starting a thread about it. wanting to discuss it and see what other people thought about it. and from what was said i don't feel that anybody believes that wormholes exist and can be used to travel through time and that's a fact of nature. maybe i'm wrong but that's my impression anyways.

[foodchain]

It's an abstract thing, indeed, but time is a dimension---a direction in space-time.

 

I can grasp that much, its just more or less if time itself is a product or byproduct of action/reaction or if its an entity all to itself, I have been asking this question on this board for over a month now.

 

 

No, not really. If that were true, then you would never even know you went back in time, because your memory would also be travelling back in time.

 

Well I don’t know if I want to get in some heated debate on this, as in I don’t know how you would test this past battling with math equations. So what do you travel back in time to, if per say that means time is its own entity, what is the unit of time or physical reality of such that permits per say a perfect recording really of each nano second of the universes existence. I think that would have to exist in order to traverse time without having to take the current or real time universe with you. Then again the idea of time travel into the past has a whole different set of issues vs. traveling into the future.

[Farsight]

Note to moderator: All of the stuff below is tangential. But I have to respond to it to avoid the accusation that I've been disproven. It then takes me into territory that is off topic. There's a catch-22 here. We're talking about time travel and wormholes, which are totally speculative, with absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind. Then when I'm called to back up why they're pseudoscience, people will then quite deliberately accuse me of speculation.

 

And here we have it. This is wrong, depending on the scale. What about the weak force? What about the strong force? The interactions of atoms are goverened by electromagnetic phenomena, outside the neucleus. Inside the neuclus, things are different. If what you said were true, we'd HAVE no nuclei, except for (possibly) hydrogen. The reason is simple---how do a bunch of positive protons and neutral neutrons stick together via electromagnetic interactions? This is something a slightly above average student in American high school knows.

 

Geddoutofit. I was giving a brief explanation. You're asserting I'm wrong by omission, because my explanation wasn't detailed. If it was, you'd merely find something else I hadn't covered, and we'd go all round the houses forever instead of focussing on the moot point.

 

Again, this cannot be correct. I could point out so many problems with this, it's not even funny. But here's a few for giggles:

 

=>Standard Model decay modes. See my earlier post. Neutral pions decay into two, three, or four photons.

 

If a pion decays into photons, what is it, in essence, made out of? Something fundamental that cannot be reconfigured as one or more photons? No. The opposite. You're agreeing with me bud.

 

=>Spins. How can two spin 1 particles (photons) combine to form a spin 1/2 particle?

 

I don't know. But one can employ pair production to create an electron and a positron from a +1022KeV gamma photon. You want a picture?

 

=>Mass. Photons are massless. Electrons are not.

 

As you doubtless are aware, I can explain mass. It's very simple, and no Higgs Bosons are required. See page 105 of The Trouble with Physics for backup.

 

=>Charge. Photons are not charged under any force (strong, weak, or em), but electrons and quarks are.

 

Ditto. I can explain charge. It's a piece of cake.

 

=>Electroweak physics. The electromagnetic force doesn't even exist in our universe for a finite time. This means photons don't exist. But quarks do. So how can quarks in the early universe be made of something that doesn't exist yet?

 

There is no electromagnetic force. It's a pseudoforce. You create it when you create fermions out of bosons. It's easily explained in terms of geometry.

 

This statement is seriously flawed. You don't "observe Lorentz Invariance''. You test locally the speed of light and find it to be the same always.

Nitpicking. That was observe as in maintain not as in see.

 

This tells me that you don't understand special relativity. Time dilation happens when you are comparing things between two frames, not within the same frame. So if you are doing the experiment in the lab, there is no time dilation. It's only if you observe the experiment from outside the lab, with a velocity different from the lab's.

 

Bah, discrediting assertion. I understand it utterly. You don't.

 

Farsight---you will brush off these accusations, no doubt. Or you will address them in a half-assed manner---I will hold out hope though. Physics is very intricate, and if you change one little thing by just a bit, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

No, it won't come tumbling down. The Standard Model needs reinterpretation and repair, improving, not scrapping.

 

The idea that we are made of photons is just not right. Experiments prove it wrong. Mathematical consistency proves it wrong. But most of all, what insight have you added? What do you know that Einstein didn't know, when he was trying (and failing) to do the same thing at Princeton? What great intellect you must have to succeed where he has failed! Einstein failed for a very good reason, he was completely wrong, and for some of the reasons I showed you above.

 

What experiments? The simplest one you can do is pair production and annihilation. And what's the mathematical consistency of proton/antiproton annihilation? Oh you've shown nothing above. As for what I know, you'll have to wait and see. But get this: a photon is not a "particle", and it isn't what you think. Now can we get back to time travel and wormholes?

[swansont]

That's back to front. They refused to accept it on grounds of faith. And your "doctored experiments" insinuation illustrates this. The Foundation of General Relativity was out in 1916. Arthur Eddington observed the solar eclipse in 1919 to demonstrate that light really was bent by the sun. It was in all the newspapers. But it wasn't accepted into mainstream for another ten years. Now listen up: you believe in time travel and wormholes. You take them on faith. There are no experiments, "doctored" or otherwise. And as a result you believe in pseudoscience notions like time travel and wormholes. They are the speculations. Has the penny dropped yet?

 

 

Bad analogy. Bending light was an early test that GR passed, not a test that was passed somewhere down the line after the theory had been established as valid. Add to that the explanation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and later measurements of gravitational redshift. That gives one confidence the theory is valid. So nobody was really surprised when e.g. gravitational lensing was observed. So taking other predictions of the theory is not really "taking them on faith" in the way that you imply.

 

Note to moderator: All of the stuff below is tangential. But I have to respond to it to avoid the accusation that I've been disproven. It then takes me into territory that is off topic. There's a catch-22 here. We're talking about time travel and wormholes, which are totally speculative, with absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind. Then when I'm called to back up why they're pseudoscience, people will then quite deliberately accuse me of speculation.

 

But here, as above, you sin by equivocation. Predictions of an established theory, which you call speculation, are not the same as speculation that have no scientific basis whatsoever. You paint them with the same brush, though; that's a logical fallacy and one of the objections here. If you want to comment on time travel and wormholes here, do it within the confines of established physics. You want to comment on it with XXX explained, do it in speculations, otherwise it's hijacking the thread. It's that simple.

[CPL.Luke]

out of cuiosity what would the space tie diagram look like for an object travelling back in time through a wormhole

[Farsight]

Swanson: your post above noted. I am trying to stay on topic. IMHO the established theory has been corrupted by a change in interpretation involving "curved spacetime" which came in with Robert Dicke in the sixties. Broadly speaking I’m with Einstein, who was going in a different direction. Here's my position in a nutshell. I don't think there's any more I can add to this thread:

 

There is no scientific evidence for time travel, or the wormholes that permit it. Time travel results in the absurdities of paradox, yielding impossible contradictary results. We cannot conduct an experiment to perform time travel, and we do not observe it. Any person who claims that mathematics provides evidence for time travel is confusing mathematics with science. It might indicate a possibility, but it does not provide evidence. Current mathematically-based claims that time travel is possible are IMHO flawed, involving false proofs based upon an axiom that assumes 4 dimensions of spacetime instead of 3+1 dimensions. This axiom builds in the presumption that we continually travel through time just as we can demonstrably travel through space. There is no scientific evidence for this presumption. A clock measures or counts motion through space, not in an abstract “forward” time “direction” at the rate of one second per second. With no scientific evidence whatsover, I class time travel as pseudoscientific conjectural speculation based on misinterpretation of General Relativity.

 

Someguy, sorry not to have gotten back to you as yet. I'll will reply later. Edit: I replied to your PM.

[Reaper]

Swanson: your post above noted. I am trying to stay on topic. IMHO the established theory has been corrupted by a change in interpretation involving "curved spacetime" which came in with Robert Dicke in the sixties. Broadly speaking I’m with Einstein, who was going in a different direction. Here's my position in a nutshell. I don't think there's any more I can add to this thread

 

Well, no, curved spacetime was a property predicted by Einstein in general relativity, in order to be able to predict how light would behave near a gravitational field. However, it is not curved like the way as is depicted in pop-science and in many diagrams that you see, those are more or less ANALOGIES to help understand what is going on. When they say curved, what they really mean is distorted or warped in some fashion that would alter or deflect the path of light, which will only travel in a straight line.

 

It isn't just light that this principle is applied to. It also helps explain gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, perihelion of Mercury, etc.

 

Some experiments which CONFIRMED this theory include the Muon decay and the Relativistic Doppler affect.

 

 

There is no scientific evidence for time travel, or the wormholes that permit it. Time travel results in the absurdities of paradox, yielding impossible contradictary results. We cannot conduct an experiment to perform time travel, and we do not observe it. Any person who claims that mathematics provides evidence for time travel is confusing mathematics with science. It might indicate a possibility, but it does not provide evidence. Current mathematically-based claims that time travel is possible are IMHO flawed, involving false proofs based upon an axiom that assumes 4 dimensions of spacetime instead of 3+1 dimensions. This axiom builds in the presumption that we continually travel through time just as we can demonstrably travel through space. There is no scientific evidence for this presumption. A clock measures or counts motion through space, not in an abstract “forward” time “direction” at the rate of one second per second. With no scientific evidence whatsover, I class time travel as pseudoscientific conjectural speculation based on misinterpretation of General Relativity.

 

There aren't any experimental confirmations or evidence for the existence of wormholes or time travel, but the fact that there are fully consistent solutions to General Relativity that do allow wormholes and time travel are worth investigating. Whether or not we would be able to do anything with it is another matter all together.

[fattyjwoods]

Thanks BenThe Man for posting the long one back there. I did reply but somehow the post that took me an hour got mysteriously deleted

[nexteinstein]

the answer is yes but the olny way you can travel to the future is if you can make yourself age slower which means you will either have to travel close to the speed of light [that is if you want some results toprove you can] or go into a safe orbit of a massive object that bends spacetime a lot, like a black hole which would really give you some results but the main fact is that this is currently out of our technological reach so i dont think you will be able time travel or have time travel possible in your lifetime.

[bombus]

The Physics of Time Travel by John Titor (an alledged Time Traveller)

 

 

 

ACCELERATION = TIME DILATION

 

As pointed out earlier, acceleration will produce time dilation. This can be observed by the “twins paradox”. As one twin stays on Earth, the other twin in his accelerating spaceship experiences a slower passing of time. When he returns to Earth, he is noticeably younger than his twin who aged normally in Earth time. This type of “time travel” (should have been proven already on this worldline) with atomic clock experiments. With sufficient power, this type of time travel will only provide practical displacement in a future direction. This type of time travel is also isolated to a single worldline. You will not meet yourself.

 

 

 

GRAVITY = ACCELERATION

 

As Einstein pointed out with his STR, the effects of gravity and acceleration are the same. Therefore, you will experience the same time travel effects in the twin paradox by being close to a large gravity source. In the atomic clock experiments mentioned above, the reason there was a difference in time was not because the clock in the plane was moving, it was because the clock in the well was closer to the center of the Earth. Constant speed is not acceleration.

 

 

 

LARGE GRAVITY = STATIC BLACK HOLE

 

The next step is to find a large gravity source to use in your time machine. Static black holes provide this type of power. As one twin approaches the event horizon or edge of the black hole, the other twin will watch him as he appears to slow down. He will notice his twin's watch run slower until it stops at the event horizon. The twin moving toward the horizon will notice none of this and see his watch running just fine. Although possible, a trip into a static black hole will not take you to another worldline and it's one-way. The force of gravity will crush you.

 

 

 

ROTATING BLACK HOLE = DONUT-SHAPED SINGULARITY

 

Fortunately, most black holes are not static. They spin. Spinning black holes are often referred to as Kerr black holes. A Kerr black hole has two interesting properties. One, they have two event horizons and two, the singularity is not a point, it looks more like a donut. These odd properties also have a pronounced affect on the black hole's gravity. There are vectors where you can approach the singularity without being crushed by gravity. (For those interested in seeing a graphic of a photon trip through a Kerr black hole, try here) http://qso.lanl.gov/~bromley/nu_nofun.html

 

 

 

DONUT-SHAPED SINGULARITY = PASSAGE INTO ALTERNATE WORLDLINE

 

Another other more interesting result of passing through a donut singularity is that you travel through time by passing into another universe or worldline. Please see Penrose diagrams for Kerr Black holes or you can examine the calculations of Frank Tipler.

 

 

 

So now the problem becomes….where do we find a donut-shaped singularity?

 

 

 

A PONDERING HAWKING = MICROSINGULARITY

 

Steven Hawking proposed the existence of microsingularities that were created in the big bang. They were probably about the size of a proton and disappeared over the years due to an effect of radiation evaporation. (Yes, black holes do emit energy.)

 

 

 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS = ARTIFICIAL MICROSINGULARITY

 

When I first started posting online a few months ago, I said that major breakthroughs in particle physics were around your corner. Soon, CERN will bring their big machine on line and they will be smashing very fast and high-energy particles together. One of the more odd and potentially dangerous items produced from this incease in energy will be microsingularities a fraction of the size of an electron. (for those who would like to follow the developments at CERN) http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

 

 

 

ARTIFICIAL MICROSINGULARITY = LOCALIZED KERR FIELD

 

Through trial and error, and although they are quite heavy, hot and capable of putting out a great deal of energy (300 - 500 megawatts), it's discovered that these microsingularities can be electrified and captured. It is also interesting to note at this point that electrified singularities also have two event horizons. By spinning these various microsingularities, a localized Kerr field is created.

 

 

 

LOCALIZED KERR FIELD = TIPLER SINUSOID

 

By using two microsingularites in close proximity to each other, it is possible to create, manipulate and alter the Kerr fields to create a Tipler gravity sinusoid. This field can be adjusted, rotated and moved in order to simulate the movement of mass through a donut-shaped singularity and into an alternate world line. Thus, safe time travel.

[DanJFarnan]

The lebel of 'singularity' is fair, no real conflicts there... Who is to say that does not happen? worm hole theory is much more possible, the collaplse of a star. Thus allowing the broken energy of a universe, '< Unv'. Now we see further.

 

Dan J Farnan.