Time travel?

[space noob]

This is a good question, scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time, i'm not sure about the time being stopped thing but I don't see it being likely, you would probably have to be inside the event horizon for this to happen and you would never get out to witness whether time had stopped

[studiot]

When folks wish for time travel why do they always wish for something different from space travel and what makes them think that time travel would be any different?

[questionposter]

Okay so my theory on time travel is; when approaching the event horizon of a black hole( if you can even make it that far without whatever space craft your traveling in being stretched to it's absolute limit then being torn apart and swallowed) time seems to slow down untill it eventually almost seems to stop, but in reality, in the event horizon times seems to move at normal speed inside of it.But, on the outside looking in it looks as if your not moving at all. The laws of space time break down at the event horizon breaks down becuase there virtually is none. So, when you got back to earth you'd be in the future because you were basically in a place where time stopped or just didn't really exist, but on Earth, everything was still moving and time did work. I'd really like to hear opinions on this topic!

 

I think it's pretty close, but I don't think the semantics are completely right. To an outside observer, time doesn't "seem" to stop at the event horizon, it DOES stop at the event horizon, but to a frame of reference inside the event horizon, theoretically local space should be effected in the same way as the observer. It's not exactly so much that laws "break down", because I mean, gravity still exists, but we just don't have a cohesive theory that can explain both the relativity and quantum mechanics of a singularity black hole and we can't actually observe anything inside it.

Otherwise though, the interpretation of time on Earth I think is correct, because from the frame of reference of Earth, time is moving faster than anyone who has crossed the event horizon.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

This is a good question, scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time, i'm not sure about the time being stopped thing but I don't see it being likely, you would probably have to be inside the event horizon for this to happen and you would never get out to witness whether time had stopped

Can you please supply a citation for a scientist saying this? I'd like to see exactly what is meant by this.

[Airbrush]

"...scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time...."[

 

/i]

Can you please supply a citation for a scientist saying this? I'd like to see exactly what is meant by this.

 

I think what he means is that gravity slows time, so the more massive the gravity field, the greater time is slowed down. But to get very close to a very massive object requires you to travel very fast in orbit around it, and traveling faster also slows time.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Airbrush

[zapatos]

I think what he means is that gravity slows time, so the more massive the gravity field, the greater time is slowed down. But to get very close to a very massive object requires you to travel very fast in orbit around it, and traveling faster also slows time.

I was under the impression that we all move forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second. If I speed up or move closer to a massive body I still move forward in time at 1 second per second. I am wondering if the fact that our clocks run differently means that I have moved through time more quickly than you.

 

In fact, let's say me being near a black hole means my clock ticks once for every time your clock ticks twice.

For me to travel through time faster than you, wouldn't it have to be the other way around? Wouldn't my clock have to tick twice for every time your clock ticks once?

[Airbrush]

I was under the impression that we all move forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second. If I speed up or move closer to a massive body I still move forward in time at 1 second per second. I am wondering if the fact that our clocks run differently means that I have moved through time more quickly than you.

 

In fact, let's say me being near a black hole means my clock ticks once for every time your clock ticks twice.

For me to travel through time faster than you, wouldn't it have to be the other way around? Wouldn't my clock have to tick twice for every time your clock ticks once?

 

Your time slows down, or your clock ticks slower, when you travel faster or are closer to a large gravitational field, than other people. "Moving forward in time" is only a perception you have because your friends and family have clocks which tick faster.

[zapatos]

Your time slows down, or your clock ticks slower, when you travel faster or are closer to a large gravitational field, than other people. "Moving forward in time" is only a perception you have because your friends and family have clocks which tick faster.

Two things. If moving forward in time is only a perception, then it is probably not accurate to say that "scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time". Would you agree?

 

If my friend's clock ticks faster, then didn't he move forward in time? Doesn't the fact that he aged more quickly indicate that he is the one who moved forward in time more quickly than me?

[space noob]

Can you please supply a citation for a scientist saying this? I'd like to see exactly what is meant by this.

 

Well everyone with a physics degree knows that you can't travel at the speed of light which would slow down time,

 

The next option apart from that, would be a time machine, so that option is out the window

 

when I say the easiest way, it's the only do-able way, I was under the impression a lot of people shared the view

professor Brian Cox and Stephen Hawkins, both use this model in ways of travelling forward through time

 

"...scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time...."[

 

/i]

 

I think what he means is that gravity slows time, so the more massive the gravity field, the greater time is slowed down. But to get very close to a very massive object requires you to travel very fast in orbit around it, and traveling faster also slows time.

 

Thanks for helping but i'm a girl

 

Two things. If moving forward in time is only a perception, then it is probably not accurate to say that "scientists everywhere believe that orbiting an object with a super large mass is the quickest way to travel forward in time". Would you agree?

 

If my friend's clock ticks faster, then didn't he move forward in time? Doesn't the fact that he aged more quickly indicate that he is the one who moved forward in time more quickly than me?

 

That's were the saying - it's all relative- Comes into it, time can only be experienced at the same rate but when closer to an object of a higher mass looking outwards objects would be faster than before, for example time moves slower standing next to the pyramids but to the person standing there it makes no difference,

Edited May 8, 2012 by space noob

[studiot]

Folks still have the wrong impression of time travel.

[md65536]

If my friend's clock ticks faster, then didn't he move forward in time? Doesn't the fact that he aged more quickly indicate that he is the one who moved forward in time more quickly than me?

Your friend's clock ticks faster according to you.

All time is relative.

 

This all makes more sense if you talk about it in terms of relative rates of ageing, instead of "moving through time".

You age at the same rate as a local clock, which ages at a rate of 1s per second.

"Moving forward through time" or "time travel to the future" usually refers to you ageing a relatively small amount while some reference location (ie. your friend) ages a lot. So to your friend, you have aged very slowly. He has aged at a regular rate according to him, and at an accelerated rate according to you.

 

No, I don't think it makes sense to say that he moved "forward in time" more than normal. By whose clock has he passed through a great time? By his clock, he has passed time at the regular rate. By your clock, which is slow to him, he has passed very little time. There is no clock in this example that has aged an extraordinary amount according to your friend.

 

Another way to say it is that if you choose an arbitrary future clock time as "the future", you reach that point on your friend's clock relatively quickly. You really do end up experiencing accelerated rates of advancement/decay in your friend's world, and it feels like you've travelled to what you'd considered to be the future. Your friend does not reach any such "arbitrary future point" any quicker than normal, in any clock in this example.

 

Yet another way of putting this is that you're speaking of "forward in time" or the future as when your friend is much older, say. You may feel that your friend has "moved quickly forward in time" because he has aged quickly, but he has moved at a regular rate according to himself. Him being old may be what you consider the future, but it is always the present to him. He always moves to his own "future" at a regular rate. Your different experience of his ageing doesn't change anything for him.

Edited May 8, 2012 by md65536

[zapatos]

Your friend's clock ticks faster according to you.

All time is relative.

Also according to him, right? Hmm, let me rephrase. When we get together again and compare clocks, we'll both agree that his ticked faster while I was off circling the black hole, right?

 

This all makes more sense if you talk about it in terms of relative rates of ageing, instead of "moving through time".

You age at the same rate as a local clock, which ages at a rate of 1s per second.

"Moving forward through time" or "time travel to the future" usually refers to you ageing a relatively small amount while some reference location (ie. your friend) ages a lot. So to your friend, you have aged very slowly. He has aged at a regular rate according to him, and at an accelerated rate according to you.

Ah, I like that.

 

It sounds as if I cannot move into the future any faster than anyone else, regardless of how fast I am moving or how close to a massive body I am. There will clearly be a difference in ageing though, which many people interpret as time travel since it would have the same properties as you would see if you did indeed time travel (e.g. my son is now older than me.). Is that a reasonable way to look at it?

[md65536]

Also according to him, right? Hmm, let me rephrase. When we get together again and compare clocks, we'll both agree that his ticked faster while I was off circling the black hole, right?

Yes, you all agree that his ticked faster relative to yours, but I don't think he's going to accept your clock as an authoritative answer. If your friend was on Earth while you were in a spaceship, you might say that all clocks on Earth ticked faster relative to yours, but everyone on Earth might prefer to say that all their clocks ticked normally and that it was yours that was slow. Both make equal sense. Best is to just consider the clocks relatively, and not that any clock is absolutely slow or fast, because all working clocks tick at a normal rate in their inertial frame.

 

It sounds as if I cannot move into the future any faster than anyone else, regardless of how fast I am moving or how close to a massive body I am. There will clearly be a difference in ageing though, which many people interpret as time travel since it would have the same properties as you would see if you did indeed time travel (e.g. my son is now older than me.). Is that a reasonable way to look at it?

I suppose that's reasonable.. but when you say "the future" you can ask yourself "whose future?"

 

If you defined "the future" of a given clock (say Earth's, or your friend's) as some specific time relative to another arbitrary time on the same clock that you might define as "the present" (ignoring the common understanding that what we define as the present or future is always changing), then yes you can have that time pass quickly relative to your own clock (eg. with your fast spaceship), and move into Earth's future faster than Earthlings are.

 

"Future" is a confusing term because when you get there, it's the present! If you return to "a future Earth", it's Earth's present, and your present too. Nothing weird happens besides clocks ticking (and things ageing) at different rates.

Edited May 8, 2012 by md65536

[studiot]

Temporal duration is not a question of ticks any more than extent (distance) is the difference between inches and millimetres.

Edited May 8, 2012 by studiot

[mira]

it's odd, in all the duscussions about time travel to the future no one seems to notice an obvious problem, it is the fact that the traveler won't know how the advanced technonogy, and would experience the same problem some older people experience.

[Astrology]

Basively it be about zones

 

It is not possible to go in the past or the future

 

The past has past and the future did not happen yet

 

So wait till tomorrow and week and month and exetra to if you want to reminisce about the past

 

Thanks