Time travelling

[T-77]

Well all I was saying about the idea 4 huge mirors in to the space to develope such machine the the light that would travel 24 h around the globe with camera roling in it with the speed of light 160 000 m/per sec.in form electron. Would have to be pre operated for 24h only and return to the base on earth. With today modern technolo. I thing that it might be possible The only Hard thing is how to convert object such camera in to the electrons exampl(fax). If take 4 mirors and stand tham in to the square stand beside lats say on right sight from 90 degre angle have flashlight and light on the ferst miror front of you mather of sec all 4 mirors will capture the light. Turn of the flashlight and the light is back in the base( in your hand that hold the flashlight) If you would have suche device How I post before that we would be able to convert camera in to the electrons Than your flashlight would have (lat's say hard disk with the movie of the light traveling betven thouse mirors be able as well to slow down the motion of the speed that whan you replay the movie might also count the speed. ) It's all Just Idea Iam recently working on that in my basement.

PS:Sory for my engl.

[T-77]

Stumblebum-I like the balon theory It make even sance.

[T-77]

madscientist-Nice post thanks for the support Evkos it's all theory and we might discuss this subject forever. You can't speek on this matter with somebody don't boleve in future development I am glad I find this message board Readind every opinion and em impressed how many people thing about same thing . Iam enjoying this web . Every opinion is good even if sound primitive couse ferst you have look for everything the simple way before got harder.

[T-77]

One more thing to the balon theory: What is it around the balon space insight another and even bigger balon? Hmm You wil never came up with the answer.

It is behind imagination.

[Stumblebum]

Never say never. Let's make the inside of the balloon another dimension. Wouldn't it be hilarious if everything in our universe is actually concentrated in a lot smaller area with only a dimension we don't know about preventing us from crossing over.

[T-77]

hmm!!!

[1veedo]

Really. I'd be interested to see what units the movement of time are measured in, as well I'd like to see a credible source from whence you got this number, as well as an explanation for the statement "time is 2d in most cases".

When time is considered a quanta, its called the chronon.

 

10^-43 is planks time, and is how large a chronon is. Plank time is how long it takes a photon to travel planks length. Since nothing can go faster then light, nothing can take longer then 10^-43 to transition states. Thus, plank time (chronon) is the smallest unit of time.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/chronon.html

 

Time is 2D in almost every model except 4D relativity, and Newtonian mechanics. The discovery of sum-over-paths is why quantum mechanics has two, and sometimes more dimensions of time (dependent on the model there is one that has 1D of time). But yes, most theories have at least 2D of time.

[ydoaPs]

i just got an idea' date=' though i am sure i am no where near the first to have this one.

 

time could be like a DVD. it can be skipped forward and back, but not changed. you may be able to go back in time, but doing so would also revert you two how you were at the time which you are traveling two. basically, the universe in rewind. memories erased due to the reversal of chemical processes. if you go back farther, you could be spread across the world or even the cosmos, though you wouldn't know it.[/quote']

 

if this were the case, then i guess if you but a barrier between you and the rest of spacetime, it is possible that the rest of spacetime travels backward and you may stay the, same travel forward, travel back at a different rate, ect. now what could be a barrier? black hole? might work, but sounds painful and hard to get out of.

[MadScientist]

When time is considered a quanta' date=' its called the chronon.

 

10^-43 is planks time, and is how large a chronon is. Plank time is how long it takes a photon to travel planks length. Since nothing can go faster then light, nothing can take longer then 10^-43 to transition states. Thus, plank time (chronon) is the smallest unit of time.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/chronon.html

 

Time is 2D in almost every model except 4D relativity, and Newtonian mechanics. The discovery of sum-over-paths is why quantum mechanics has two, and sometimes more dimensions of time (dependent on the model there is one that has 1D of time). But yes, most theories have at least 2D of time.[/quote']

 

I can understand time acting as 1D forwards and backwards, I think I've got the grasp of how it would behave in 2D. Forwards, backwards but also sideways...

Something could exist now and here but also now and there as well, IOW an object could exist in two places at the same time.

Not only that an object could move diagonally - exist in a previous time and at two seperate locations in space. Same in a future time.

 

I've looked into the basics of string theory and they reckon that at the quantum level things exhibit weird behaviour patterns. Particles existing in two places at once, existing before they formed, jumping to the future etc..

 

Would that be applicable to a large object though or is it just individual quantum particles??

 

 

So assuming I can visualise the 2D time properly (as above) how would 3D or even 4D time manifest itself??

 

 

And if a quantum particle can exist in two places at the same time, could something really insane have happened and every single fundamental particle in the universe is the same one - just existing at the same time in different places and behaving slightly differently??

 

Could that be used to explain where everything came from out of the big bang?? The universe was originally just 1 single fundamental/quantum particle but it got "cloned" to exist in 2 places at the same time, then those 2 were cloned giving 4 and so on...

After cloning its neighbouring fundamental affects its behaviour in some way or the actual "cloning" process alters its behaviour.

 

Would that fit in with our model of the universe??

[Severian]

Time is 2D in almost every model except 4D relativity' date=' and Newtonian mechanics. The discovery of sum-over-paths is why quantum mechanics has two, and sometimes more dimensions of time (dependent on the model there is one that has 1D of time). But yes, most theories have at least 2D of time.[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. Most theories have one time dimension. How are you defining a time direction? I would say (and I think most physicists would say the same) that it is the signature of the metric which is important. I can assure you that Feynaman's path integral formalism uses the same metric as SR, and has only one time dimension.

[ydoaPs]

perhaps he meant the time dimension has two directions.

[MadScientist]

if this were the case, then i guess if you but a barrier between you and the rest of spacetime, it is possible that the rest of spacetime travels backward and you may stay the, same travel forward, travel back at a different rate, ect. now what could be a barrier? black hole? might work, but sounds painful and hard to get out of.

 

 

I have a typically mad theory for overcoming that black hole problem.

A ship with a powerful anti gravity generator, as you fly into the black hole you turn the anti grav up so there is more gravity going out from the centre of the ship pushing things out more than they're being pushed in.

A bit like increasing the pressure in a submarine so it can dive deeper..

 

Small problems...

How the hell would you build a device capable of generating enough gravity to overcome the gravity a black hole generates? You'd need something as powerful as a black hole in the ship.

Then the ability to control the amount of anti gravity it generated, whilst flying in normal space everything would be pushed outwards away from it.

 

Flying into a black hole without being affected by gravity would be pointless, you wouldn't get crushed into a small point or affected by time dilation, you'd just fly over it wouldn't you??

The same would go for just hovering near it, the time dilation effect would be negated by the anti gravity bubble you and the ship were in, wouldn't it??

 

But you should be able to turn the anti grav device down so you were still slightly affected by it but even then the time dilation would only be as powerful as the amount of gravity you could safely deal with from the black hole. You would need a really tough ship to survive the "pressure"..

 

 

 

Another mad theory.

The only "time barrier" method I can imagine is finding out how particles naturally travel from one time to another, then how to block that natural process.

Doing it on a human scale you could then prevent a person from moving forwards in time with the rest of the universe.

That would be difficult because the device blocking time would travel to the future along with the rest of the universe.

 

Then there's the problem of travelling through space too. If you stopped the person from travelling into the future while everything else naturtally moved forwards in time, the Earth itself would move through time and space so the person would drift out of the field you were generating.

So it would have to tow the person along frozen in time.

 

You would have to find out how particles naturally move forwards in time and not only how to block that process but how to apply more force to push the person backwards in time and how to aim them at a specific point in space.

 

If the Earth was moving xd, yd and zd you'd have to fire the person -xd, -yd and -zd but the Earth orbits in a circular/elliptical orbit and it's rotating...

BUT when you fired the person back the sun and Earths gravity would still be affecting the person in the same way.. Unless you fired them backwards too quickly so the gravitational effects didn't have enough time to affect the persons location in space.

Like watching a DVD running backwards of a car driving forwards at twice the speed the DVD normally plays, our eyes wouldn't see everything that happened.

 

 

And once you've got them moving backwards in time would they stop moving backwards or just continue going backwards forever??

It would have to act like moving upstream in a river, push the boat upstream and it moves against the flow for a while but eventually the current slows it down to a stop where it starts to move with the natural current again.

 

 

 

 

BTW infinity plus 1.0000000000000000000000000001

Your move.

[1veedo]

Would that be applicable to a large object though or is it just individual quantum particles??

The probability of a chair just appearing from no ware is very very small.

So assuming I can visualise the 2D time properly (as above) how would 3D or even 4D time manifest itself??

Dont ask me! As a physicist once said “I cant visualize multiple dimensions, I just let the math do all the talking.”

And if a quantum particle can exist in two places at the same time, could something really insane have happened and every single fundamental particle in the universe is the same one - just existing at the same time in different places and behaving slightly differently??

 

Could that be used to explain where everything came from out of the big bang?? The universe was originally just 1 single fundamental/quantum particle but it got "cloned" to exist in 2 places at the same time, then those 2 were cloned giving 4 and so on...

After cloning its neighbouring fundamental affects its behaviour in some way or the actual "cloning" process alters its behaviour.

 

Would that fit in with our model of the universe??

As for our universe popping into existence, I like quantum cosmology’s model. Maybe I’ll start a thread soon on the topic, I’ve mentioned it a couple times.

 

A + B = 0, we see A and B...

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. Most theories have one time dimension. How are you defining a time direction? I would say (and I think most physicists would say the same) that it is the signature of the metric which is important. I can assure you that Feynaman's path integral formalism uses the same metric as SR, and has only one time dimension.

Clasical theories have only one. But “modern” theories generally have two, and sometimes more. You’re lookign at the world in the eyes of Newton so to speak. Its mealy the averaging of quantum effects that give us a Newtonian experience.

 

For example, quantum mechanics.

 

delta(t) * delta(e) > h

 

Any time energy fluctuates less then h, t would fluctuate at a (multiple of?) 10^-43. IE -2 * plank. I think the big thing is that it can fluctuate at sqrt(-1) if delta(e) does ‘something special’ (I’m a little rusty on this subject).

 

Add in sumoverpaths and what you get is “multiple universes.” So basically, at every chronon, every possible out come occurs (sums), and ends up each in another “parallel” universe. You get a grid (X, Y). If you fluctuate back in time, [because of the conservation of information, not the actual existence of these universes], you end up not only along a different Y, but a different X as well. (So you can kill yourself and avoid a big paradox, because it branches off, and its not just one line.)

[ydoaPs]

in his book Fabric of the Cosmos, brian greene was talking about how time dialation is greatly exagerated at a distance. he said something like if you walk at 10 miles an hour in in a direction directly to a point 10 billion light years away, your "now" would include events 150 years in the future to objects 10billion light years away. though their future is in your "now", there would be no way of you to know of their future because of the length of time it would take light to travel that ten billion years.

 

madscientist, [math]\infty^\infty[/math]. now i win. game over.

[T-77]

I don't thing that anybody trying to race here something,this forum should be about discus possib. of the time travel put it out ideas,even primitive ideas,discus that all,and if you will- came up with solution. That should be the goal!!!

[MadScientist]

I don't thing that anybody trying to race here something,this forum should be about discus possib. of the time travel put it out ideas,even primitive ideas,discus that all,and if you will- came up with solution. That should be the goal!!!

 

I've no idea if you're joking or not but we were just having a laugh with each other, at least that's the way I meant it which is why I put the in there.

 

 

Edit:

BTW infinity to the power of infinity + 0.00000000000001, I reckon it's more like a draw. ;)

[T-77]

Ya you right maby I am too in to it my bad!

[Severian]

Clasical theories have only one. But “modern” theories generally have two' date=' and sometimes more. You’re lookign at the world in the eyes of Newton so to speak. Its mealy the averaging of quantum effects that give us a Newtonian experience.

[/quote']

 

OK - which 'modern theory' are you refering to? The Standard Model of particle physics? Nope, one time dimension there. String Theory perhaps? Nope, one time dimension there too (but plenty of space dimensions) (to be fair this one is slightly debatable since the metric in String Theory is not always so simple, since it deals with gravity).

 

For example, quantum mechanics.

 

delta(t) * delta(e) > h

 

Any time energy fluctuates less then h, t would fluctuate at a (multiple of?) 10^-43. IE -2 * plank. I think the big thing is that it can fluctuate at sqrt(-1) if delta(e) does ‘something special’ (I’m a little rusty on this subject).

 

The equation [math]\Delta E \Delta t > \hbar[/math] is saying that the system state does not simultaneously have a definite energy and definite time (ie. is not an eigenstate of both momentum and position operators). This has nothing to to with multiple time dimensions. If you make a measurement of a particle's momentum, then it will have an undefined position, and if you make a measurement of its position, then it will have an undefined momentum. But there is still only one time coordinate - you just don't know what it is for the particle.

 

Add in sumoverpaths and what you get is “multiple universes.” So basically, at every chronon, every possible out come occurs (sums), and ends up each in another “parallel” universe. You get a grid (X, Y). If you fluctuate back in time, [because of the conservation of information, not the actual existence of these universes], you end up not only along a different Y, but a different X as well. (So you can kill yourself and avoid a big paradox, because it branches off, and its not just one line.)

 

This is Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is by no means standard. It is also untestible since you cannot in principle return to a 'time line'. In essence, it claims that when you make a quantum measurement, rather than having one 'random' outcome (as per the Copenhagen interpretation) you have all outcomes because the universe splits into different 'time lines' each of which contains a different outcome. Then it is only which one of these you choose to follow which is random. But this should not be interpreted as an extra time dimension since it has none of the properties of 'time' in the traditional space-time sense. For example, you cannot make a Lorentz rotation from one time variable to the other. Indeed, you could could equally (un)justifiably call it a space dimension.

 

Feynman's path integral formalism also includes a 'sum over histories' where all possible things happen, but are weighted by the exponential of i times the 'action' for the path. But again, even though it contains multiple paths, it still only has one time dimension.

 

I have no objection to people not knowing what they are talking about (after all, one of the main goals of this site is to teach people about science), but you should not pretend to know about things you do not. You are just confusing people by presenting ill thought out and misunderstood ideas as fact.

[1veedo]

OK - which 'modern theory' are you refering to? The Standard Model of particle physics? Nope, one time dimension there. String Theory perhaps? Nope, one time dimension there too (but plenty of space dimensions) (to be fair this one is slightly debatable since the metric in String Theory is not always so simple, since it deals with gravity).

Thats ironic because many, many models of string theory have more then one dimension. Even in M-Theory (the most predominant model), time is represented as 1D but in M-Theory the mathematics are anticommunitive and antiassociative, and you have i. M-Theory technically has two dimensions of time, but it can be represented in 1D [the equations are very complex to say the least].

The equation is saying that the system state does not simultaneously have a definite energy and definite time (ie. is not an eigenstate of both momentum and position operators). This has nothing to to with multiple time dimensions. If you make a measurement of a particle's momentum, then it will have an undefined position, and if you make a measurement of its position, then it will have an undefined momentum. But there is still only one time coordinate - you just don't know what it is for the particle.

Well, this is how I remember the concept being explained. I think it was either one of Greene’s books or Hawking’s. Green I know mentions the fact that there are 2 dimensions of time but I think Hawking actually explains the concept in the universe in a nutshell.

This is Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is by no means standard. It is also untestible since you cannot in principle return to a 'time line'. In essence, it claims that when you make a quantum measurement, rather than having one 'random' outcome (as per the Copenhagen interpretation) you have all outcomes because the universe splits into different 'time lines' each of which contains a different outcome. Then it is only which one of these you choose to follow which is random. But this should not be interpreted as an extra time dimension since it has none of the properties of 'time' in the traditional space-time sense. For example, you cannot make a Lorentz rotation from one time variable to the other. Indeed, you could could equally (un)justifiably call it a space dimension.

many worlds asserts that these universes actually ‘exist,’ but the ‘standard’ model as you call it works with the conservation of information. Weather or not the universes used to sum the event exist or not is entirely irrelevant.

I have no objection to people not knowing what they are talking about (after all, one of the main goals of this site is to teach people about science), but you should not pretend to know about things you do not. You are just confusing people by presenting ill thought out and misunderstood ideas as fact.

I thought everybody knew the universe had two time dimensions.

 

The common belief that time has 1D is a assumed conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity is that our equations of motion lie in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space.

 

There are models with one dimension of time, and I’m not arguing that in the ‘real’ worlds there actually are, but in QM and many other theories there is more then 1 time dimension.

[1veedo]

If you really think about it, the past and future are merely illusions. There can be an infinite number of futures due to the randomness in QM, and there can be a number (probably infinite) of different pasts that could lead to the universe’s current state. With the conservation of information, the only actual physically real state is the right now, which is of course relative.

 

‘This’ state is only the preset of another state which is a fully random outcome in accord with QM. Mathematically, the only thing preserved is the information of the current state which can correspond to a number of previous states.

 

Thus, anybody who thinks the future is ‘out there’ is only deluding themselves.

 

The only reason we can ask ‘why are we here’ or ‘where we are going’ is because, were the current state any different, we would not be able to ask such questions.

 

Any thoughts?

[Severian]

1veedo: I will repeat, theories with multiple time dimensions are not conventional. They exist but are certainly not mainstream. M-theory for example, does not have multiple time dimensions.

 

Your claim that there are 2 time dimensions is just nonsense. In fact, there is even a well known proof that the number of time dimensions must be odd!

 

Furthermore, constraints on extra time dimensions have been shown to be prohibitive.

 

Unfortunately I was unable to find an M-theory text which explicitly says that there is pnly one time dimension (it is just assumed, because of the causality problem). However here is an M-theory basics (very basic!) page. It explicitly states that "A p-brane spacetime whose metric solves the equations of motion for a (p+2)-form field strength in d spacetime dimensions can be described using p space coordinates {yi} along the p-brane and (d-1-p) space coordinates {xa} orthogonal to the p-brane." which implicitly supposes that there are d-1 space dimesnions and thus 1 time dimension. (It is quite a nice site actually.)

[1veedo]

Maybe unconventional but necessary?

 

It depends on where you look. I know Alan Guth's model of inflation (multiple universe theory) has 2D, that's where I got the idea that quantum mechanics was 2D. Maybe not the original theory, but the mathematics are when applied to cosmology. I also know M-Theory cosmology is; simply, because each brane is not on one standard time and therefore the branes themselves lie in a higher dimension of time (and space). I've read on numerous occasions about models, especially in cosmology, that require more then one dimension.

 

I just remembered a chapter in The Universe in a Nutshell. In time travel, although Hawking doesnt think its possible, he sais that the most likely model is where time would diverge and could eventually converge again IF the characteristics of one universe were identical to the other.

 

I’m not trying to say that we *are* in more then one dimension of time, and I’m net even saying time exists. Personally, I think its pointless to say “this is the way it is” because such statements can only be made on current scientific knowledge. Instead, I was originally just pointing out that some theories have more then one so people wouldnt be so dogmatic about this concept.

 

PS: I'm pretty sure that proof applies to even space dimensions. Even so, thats just one hypothis, and may only apply to relativity to begin with.

[SubJunk]

If Hawking doesn't think it's possible that's good enough for me

[mEarly1102]

Perhaps the answer to time travel is not in a space ship but rather in the panets. If time dilation goes by speed, then if one were to live on a planet that has an orbit of a completly differnt speed then wouldnt time on the planet go at a different speed? if we can measure time dilation in small quantities on jet p[lanes then wouldnt it be plausible to measure the time dilation of the planets as they all travel at different speeds?

[MadScientist]

Perhaps the answer to time travel is not in a space ship but rather in the panets. If time dilation goes by speed, then if one were to live on a planet that has an orbit of a completly differnt speed then wouldnt time on the planet go at a different speed? if we can measure time dilation in small quantities on jet p[lanes then wouldnt it be plausible to measure the time dilation of the planets as they all travel at different speeds?

 

As far as I know the planet would have to be orbitting far FAR faster than our own OR we'd have to stay on that planet for a long time before we noticed the effects of time dilation.

 

The other thing is you could still only travel into the future, just at a different speed than we are on Earth.

You could let the Earth overtake you or overtake the Earth then return to the Earth.

What would be the point though?? It would be better to put yourself in suspended animation for a while and stay on Earth.

 

 

I think it might be interesting to do the same thing on a large scale though.

 

What's going to happen when we colonise other worlds either in this solar system or others??

 

If we colonised Mars or the planets with the fastest and slowest orbits, right now what would be the time difference for that colony in 100 years, at a guess I'd say - probably just a few seconds.

 

What would happen in another solar system though??

Could there be systems with stars that have far more gravity than our Sun and the planets orbit at greater distances??

I was wondering what the extra gravitational forces would have on time in a solar system like that.

Or say a black hole passed by close enough to distort time but not damage the system physically.

Or doesn't it work like that??