My form of time travel (not what u think)

[marine(uc)]

Okay there are a couple parts to my theory. first im not talking about a time travel machine, I'm talking about moving faster then light and how doing this would make you travel backward into the past. this is all saying we can theoretically move faster then light through some kind of imaginary dark matter futuristic space ship.

 

I have a scenario where time travel would take place due to the space ship going faster then light. Now in my theory, two space ships are beside eachother talking with a sun shining light on them. One does a faster then light launch to a distance where it would take about 40 seconds to get to at light speed.

 

the space ship then turns around and moves left about 50 feet. Now looking back at the other space ship. the light that was reflecting off the ships is about 20 seconds in the past and the light is catchin up to him, and he would see himself talking to the other ship from the past. thus time travel has occured. because in the end time is really just how long something takes to reach our eyes. if u consider everything you see right now current, then that space ship would be current and you would be looking at the past.

 

this also would work for moving forward in time as if you looked in the other direction you just met the light coming from the other direction faster.

 

 

This is my theory, i may be missing alot of facts, but im only 17 and don't have alot of depth in science.

please give me feedback thanks

[foodchain]

Okay there are a couple parts to my theory. first im not talking about a time travel machine, I'm talking about moving faster then light and how doing this would make you travel backward into the past. this is all saying we can theoretically move faster then light through some kind of imaginary dark matter futuristic space ship.

 

I have a scenario where time travel would take place due to the space ship going faster then light. Now in my theory, two space ships are beside eachother talking with a sun shining light on them. One does a faster then light launch to a distance where it would take about 40 seconds to get to at light speed.

 

the space ship then turns around and moves left about 50 feet. Now looking back at the other space ship. the light that was reflecting off the ships is about 20 seconds in the past and the light is catchin up to him, and he would see himself talking to the other ship from the past. thus time travel has occured. because in the end time is really just how long something takes to reach our eyes. if u consider everything you see right now current, then that space ship would be current and you would be looking at the past.

 

this also would work for moving forward in time as if you looked in the other direction you just met the light coming from the other direction faster.

 

 

This is my theory, i may be missing alot of facts, but im only 17 and don't have alot of depth in science.

please give me feedback thanks

 

I think time travel has been ruled out, I don’t know exactly though what time travel truly means save for two people I guess keeping the same time except one went into the past or the future, which does not make to much sense to me, because you would not have traveled I think.

 

Also, I am not sure, but I think you cant have mass as a property when being at the speed of light, so dark matter would not have to have any kind of mass, but being it is to constitute mass I think it must have some kind of mass, personally I don’t know much about relativity.

 

I also don’t see how the observation could take place, or the experiment, as how do you interact with dark matter? I think that would be a pretty big bottleneck on extrapolating some data though maybe it has some kind of a history to it. I also don’t know what technology humans could produce to travel at or greater then light while not being light.

 

Besides that sounds pretty cool, would it lead to a collision of some kind?

[marine(uc)]

I think time travel has been ruled out, I don’t know exactly though what time travel truly means save for two people I guess keeping the same time except one went into the past or the future, which does not make to much sense to me, because you would not have traveled I think.

 

Also, I am not sure, but I think you cant have mass as a property when being at the speed of light, so dark matter would not have to have any kind of mass, but being it is to constitute mass I think it must have some kind of mass, personally I don’t know much about relativity.

 

I also don’t see how the observation could take place, or the experiment, as how do you interact with dark matter? I think that would be a pretty big bottleneck on extrapolating some data though maybe it has some kind of a history to it. I also don’t know what technology humans could produce to travel at or greater then light while not being light.

 

Besides that sounds pretty cool, would it lead to a collision of some kind?

 

 

 

The travelling faster then light isn't what we're talking about. I'm just saying we can magically go faster then light for the purpose of my theory of what would happen.

 

and in my theory, you basically travel back in time because the light has to catch up with you, and you can look back and watch the past.

[Sayonara]

If you are going to ignore physical law in your idea, then you can pretty much make up whatever happens next.

 

Why not use a wormhole or some kind of warp travel to put yourself "ahead" of the light? Such means of travel are conjectural and we don't really know how (if) it would work, but it's better than saying "Step 1: do something impossible".

[ajb]

It is quite elementary to show (by using a Minkowski diagram) that an object travelling faster than light (in some inertial frame) would mean the existence of an inertial frame in which that object is travelling backwards in time.

 

And then it is also quite straight forward to show that no material object can have a velocity of v >c in any inertial frame.

 

So we have a contradiction. Thus, time travel cannot be achieved using (actual) faster than light travel.

[marine(uc)]

wow, im just stating a theory I made. I didn't come to have the means of this theory torn apart. this isn't about the light travel at all. its about the result if it was achieved. don't think about the impossible part, lets just say we magically find a way to go faster.

[ydoaPs]

Why DID you come here?

[marine(uc)]

ohh i thought this one was theroetics, not physics. in a theoretics section, you'd think id be able to say theorys without having the means of achieving something torn apart when they weren't what i was proposing in my theory.

[ydoaPs]

Do you even know what a theory is?

[ajb]

ohh i thought this one was theroetics, not physics. in a theoretics section, you'd think id be able to say theorys without having the means of achieving something torn apart when they weren't what i was proposing in my theory.

 

 

 

That is not what theoretical physics is about.

 

Nor have you constructed what anyone here would call a "theory".

[marine(uc)]

yah, i get it. your supposed to test a theory. but the point of myn wasn't the speed of light. it was the other part. why do you insist on making this so difficult. its like you guys live by the theory of reletivity.

 

you know what. what if using science we broke that rule?? what if we were able to affect time and space itself.

 

heres an idea to help you, there is no known velocity that spacetime can move, as in the spacetime fabric itself. Move that and you're set for time travel.

 

I don't think facts are relevant here, at least in new science, you can use facts to help support your ideas but remember that they exlplain science with a limited perspetive, that is, the present's perspective. this is all philosophical, and you guys are too picky too understand that.

[ajb]

yah, i get it. your supposed to test a theory. but the point of myn wasn't the speed of light. it was the other part. why do you insist on making this so difficult. its like you guys live by the theory of reletivity.

 

It is not even that a (physical) theory need to be testable, it is the fact that a theory is a mathematical model. To be called a theory one needs to construct it using some maths. That is the only way we have a hope of calculating something that may be observed in principle.

 

you know what. what if using science we broke that rule?? what if we were able to affect time and space itself.

 

Yes, there are well founded physical reason why one would expect relativity not to hold at all scales. Such as the trouble with singularities and when quantum effects of the gravitational field become important.

 

What you can do is "test" theories in the extreme by putting in matter with weird properties or some other very contrived set up etc.. The idea being to see how the theories hold up, this could mean that some of the "basic rules" are actually redundant. Or may be point to the possibility of new physics.

 

But this has to be done within some frame work, such as general relativity or quantum field theory or something.

 

 

heres an idea to help you, there is no known velocity that spacetime can move, as in the spacetime fabric itself. Move that and you're set for time travel.

 

Move what exactly and with respect to what?

 

 

I don't think facts are relevant here, at least in new science, you can use facts to help support your ideas but remember that they exlplain science with a limited perspetive, that is, the present's perspective. this is all philosophical, and you guys are too picky too understand that.

 

Don't know what to say to that. I am not very interested in philosophy.

[YT2095]

traveling faster than light will allow you to SEE the past, but in no way interact with it.

for example, you see a clock and it says 30 seconds past 12.

if you move away from that clock at light speed exactly it will always say 30 seconds past, because that frame of light contains that image like a photo.

if you travel even Faster the image will show the clock going backwards, 29 past, 28 past etc...

but that`s simply a trick of optics or light, it`s not really time travel, or at least not how it`s made out in the movies.

this is how we can see stars in the night sky now, that may have been dead for 1000`s of years.

[marine(uc)]

yes, i know that. i included that in what i wrote.

that in the experiment we are basing time as what we currently are seeing. not what the object is currently doing.

[Klaynos]

arhhhh be nice!

 

But what you've got here isn't a scientific theory, which is a very well defined thing. Science isn't just throwing ideas around and hoping they stick...

 

Have a read of this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#In_physics

 

New ideas have to comply with ALL the current evidence. Relativity is really quite well tested.

[swansont]

If you are going to ignore physical law in your idea, then you can pretty much make up whatever happens next.

 

This is quite true. However, this particular scenario contains a bit of a loophole, because of a solid framework. You can investigate scenarios where you have superluminal information travel and look at the implications — in this case, you lose causality. The knowledge of what happens as the result of an action can be transmitted to the person before the event happens or the decision is made.

 

Colloquially speaking, you have relativity, causality and faster-than-light (for information). Pick two — you can't have all three.

[marine(uc)]

okay, i think im in the wrong section... is there one for philosophy?

[ydoaPs]

Not anymore.

[alanrocks]

if you could move faster then light then yes you would see yourself(the light image of your self) but you would not have actually gone to another time you would only preceiv that you had in which case its not time travel its "time viewing"

[Mr Skeptic]

marine(uc), I think you should continue thinking about this sort of things. For some people, this is a fun way to learn, and maybe you will think up something new. At least if you don't get torched first. It will be very helpful for you to use some maths, and avoid misusing science terminology such as "theory". If you want to violate a law of physics, you should note why you are doing so, or most responses will simply be "that's impossible".

 

Anyhow. The equations of relativity give funny results at or faster than c. Tachyons are theoretical particles that travel faster than light. Perhaps you will find some answers in that link.

[CaptainPanic]

You're only 17, and still learning... Keep up the creative thoughts. Everyone has made similar mistakes at some point. This is how creative thinking works: learn some things, try to extrapolate them to achieve something new... and sometimes that means you'll find out it was all quite impossible after all, or that someone else thought of the same thing before you. In any case, it's a good way to study... unless you're planning to live in a fantasy world, in which case I think this forum is the wrong place. It's a science forum

 

Keep posting and visiting the forum... and don't get depressed from some of the more harsh replies here. You're only 17 and a student, and you're dealing with people who have been in the field of relativity for more than 20 years perhaps.

 

(I'm pushing it now)... remember that old people find it harder to completely step out of the box than young people... But also don't forget that these people know a lot about the topic you're interested in.

[Pangloss]

Moved to Speculations.