Time Travel to the future a Fact?

[mustang292]

Okay, I know there are other posts on Time Travel, but they seem burned out so, this is my own personal question anyway.

 

Am I to understand that Time Travel to the Future has been proven Fact? I was watching phycisist Brian Greene (I think that was his name) saying that Time travel to the Future has been proven by taking 2 identically set clocks, put one on a Pan Am Jet, and when it came back they no longer said the same time. The difference was extremely minimal, like Billionths of a second. But he also says that if we travel at almost light speed away from the earth for 6 months, and come back at the same speed for another 6 months that we would have only aged a year, while everyone else on earth may have aged decades.

 

Can someone give me a simple equation to soak in to try and understand this better?

 

I mean I would think I have been gone for 1 year, and there would be no difference here on earth.

[Johnny5]

Okay' date=' I know there are other posts on Time Travel, but they seem burned out so, this is my own personal question anyway.

 

Am I to understand that Time Travel to the Future has been proven Fact? I was watching phycisist Brian Greene (I think that was his name) saying that Time travel to the Future has been proven by taking 2 identically set clocks, put one on a Pan Am Jet, and when it came back they no longer said the same time. The difference was extremely minimal, like Billionths of a second. But he also says that if we travel at almost light speed away from the earth for 6 months, and come back at the same speed for another 6 months that we would have only aged a year, while everyone else on earth may have aged decades.

 

Can someone give me a simple equation to soak in to try and understand this better?

 

I mean I would think I have been gone for 1 year, and there would be no difference here on earth.[/quote']

 

1) Even if this did happen, it does not represent proof of travel into the future.

 

2) His conclusions are based upon the time dilation formula. If the time dilation formula is wrong, then so are the conclusions of his which use it.

 

You ask for a simple equation to help you understand it better. Obviously, you need the time dilation formula. It is this:

 

[math] \Delta t = \frac {\Delta t^\prime}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} [/math]

 

The LHS of the statement above, stands for the amount of time that passes in some inertial frame of reference, as measured by some clock which is at rest in the frame.

 

The RHS works as follows:

 

There is a second frame, moving through the coordinate system of the first frame, with speed v.

 

So the two frames are in relative motion, and v is the relative speed. c is the following speed:

 

[math] c \equiv 299792458 \frac{m}{s} [/math]

 

The units of c are in meters per second.

 

Now, the numerator of the RHS, is the corresponding amount of time which passes in the other frame, as measured by an identical clock at rest in that frame.

 

It must be identical, in the sense that when the two clocks aren't moving relative to one another, they tick at the exact same rate.

 

So let us suppose that your intuition is right, and not the formula. Then the following statement is true:

 

[math] \Delta t = \Delta t^\prime [/math]

 

In which case, if the clocks are synchronized, they remain synchronized.

 

Regards

[mustang292]

I guess I should have clarified 'simple' in simpler terms. lol

 

2) His conclusions are based upon the time dilation formula. If the time dilation formula is wrong, then so are the conclusions of his which use it.

 

So the time dilation formula is just a Theoretical equation?

 

So let us suppose that your intuition is right, and not the formula. Then the following statement is true:

 

So, Theoretically, I'm Right!

[Johnny5]

 

So' date=' Theoretically, I'm Right![/quote']

 

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

[swansont]

So the time dilation formula is just a Theoretical equation?

 

They're all theoretical.

[swansont]

It's not time travel in the normal sci-fi sense of the word.

 

Google on the twin paradox for more info on the relativity. And the experiment you described with the planes is the Hafele-Keating experiment.

[mustang292]

Thanks Swan. Guess I was right still though-->(Theoretically I'm Right!)

[Cadmus]

Am I to understand that Time Travel to the Future has been proven Fact?

Of course. You do it every day.

 

I was watching phycisist Brian Greene (I think that was his name) saying that Time travel to the Future has been proven by taking 2 identically set clocks, put one on a Pan Am Jet, and when it came back they no longer said the same time. The difference was extremely minimal, like Billionths of a second. But he also says that if we travel at almost light speed away from the earth for 6 months, and come back at the same speed for another 6 months that we would have only aged a year, while everyone else on earth may have aged decades.

This is well-documented in what is known as the twin paradox. However, you have it in reverse. You are also taking it to extremes. There is no need for "almost light speed". Anyway, when you speak of 6 months and 6 months, the only possible context for that is earth time. Therefore, the person who left was gone for 1 year of earth time. During this time, the people on earth will have aged 1 year, and the person who left will have aged almost not at all relative to them.

[syntax252]

Of course. You do it every day.

 

This is well-documented in what is known as the twin paradox. However' date=' you have it in reverse. You are also taking it to extremes. There is no need for "almost light speed". Anyway, when you speak of 6 months and 6 months, the only possible context for that is earth time. Therefore, the person who left was gone for 1 year of earth time. During this time, the people on earth will have aged 1 year, and the person who left will have aged almost not at all relative to them.[/quote']

 

Which proves?

 

Does it prove that time did not pass for the person traveling at the speed of light, or does it prove that people age at a different rate when traveling at light-speed?

[swansont]

Which proves?

 

Does it prove that time did not pass for the person traveling at the speed of light' date=' or does it prove that people age at a different rate when traveling at light-speed?[/quote']

 

What's the distinction between the two?

[syntax252]

What's the distinction between the two?

 

 

In the one case, time seems to stand still, and in the other case time actuall does stand still.

[Cadmus]

Which proves?

 

Does it prove that time did not pass for the person traveling at the speed of light' date=' or does it prove that people age at a different rate when traveling at light-speed?[/quote']

Everything travels at the speed of light.

 

However, if you use the speed of light the way that most people use it, as motion through space only, then nothing but light can travel at the speed of light. Perhaps you mean "approaching the speed of light".

 

Anyway, what the twin paradox demonstrates is that the speed of light is constant in space-time. As objects increase in their rate of motion through space, they decrease their rate of motion through time. Increases to speeds apporaching the speed of light are irrelevant. The greater the rate of motion through space, as in a space ship heading out at a speed approaching the speed of light in the example of the twin paradox, the less the rate of motion through time, and therefore the less aging by the person in the space ship relative to the aging of people who remain on earth.

[syntax252]

Everything travels at the speed of light.

 

However' date=' if you use the speed of light the way that most people use it, as motion through space only, then nothing but light can travel at the speed of light. Perhaps you mean "approaching the speed of light".

 

Anyway, what the twin paradox demonstrates is that the speed of light is constant in space-time. As objects increase in their rate of motion through space, they decrease their rate of motion through time. Increases to speeds apporaching the speed of light are irrelevant. The greater the rate of motion through space, as in a space ship heading out at a speed approaching the speed of light in the example of the twin paradox, the less the rate of motion through time, and therefore the less aging by the person in the space ship relative to the aging of people who remain on earth.[/quote']

 

Define "time".

[swansont]

In the one case, time seems to stand still, and in the other case time actuall does[/i'] stand still.

"Seem" is perception. What do you measure with a clock?

[Cadmus]

Define "time".

The universe as we know it now is a duality of space and time, known as space-time. Time is that aspect of space-ime that enables space to go in motion.

[mustang292]

Well, quite frankly after seeing all the posts, Thanks by the way. I just don't believe it to be possible AT ALL to travel to the Future or Past no matter how fast. However, Davinci was thought of as a crackpot too.

[Cadmus]

I just don't believe it to be possible AT ALL to travel to the Future no matter how fast.

How old are you, and how well developed is your body? Surely you are older and your body is more well developed than when you were born, and much more so than when your parents were born. Back when you were born, today was in the future, was it not? Yet, somehow you managed to travel to today. How did you get here, if you did not travel into the future?

[mustang292]

Cadmus, your not funny. You know what I mean. Or dooo yoou?

[Cadmus]

Cadmus, your not funny. You know what I mean. Or dooo yoou?

Yes, but do you know what you mean? You say that time travel is not possible. I claim that it is, and I showed a simple example. You should now be convinced that it is possible. Perhaps your question relates to time travel at a different speed into the future than others, so that a person might travel at a slower rate and move into someone else's future. You have said that you do not accept it. What can I say? Some people are religious, and ignore science entirely. That is acceptable. Some people accept Newtonian physics, but ignore relativity entirely. That is acceptable. I do not care why you want to ignore relativity. That is your personal reason. However, if you do ignore relativity, as you do, then of course you might doubt that time travel into the future is possible. What should I tell you? That you have to accept relativity, and then you will understand time travel? Would you find that more funny?

[mustang292]

Perhaps your question relates to time travel at a different speed

 

Yes, That. Now, go to my Jessica Alba Thread I created and release some of your tension. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9879

[Cadmus]

Yes, That. Now, go to my Jessica Alba Thread I created and release some of your tension.

I am sorry if your question is poorly phrased and I dealt with the question you asked and not the one you have hidden in your mind afraid to come out.

[mustang292]

I could say, Why do I pee? And you would say..."Are you sure that you do?" It's the same type of response you give everyone from what I see on your posts. You add nothing of interest, you just try and find problems, or create them.

[mustang292]

But he also says that if we travel at almost light speed away from the earth for 6 months, and come back at the same speed for another 6 months that we would have only aged a year, while everyone else on earth may have aged decades.

 

And if you had read this part of my first post you would see that your response was completely irrelivant and it was stated obviously as to which type of Time Travel I meant.

 

Now Go away Stalker.

[Cadmus]

I could say, Why do I pee? And you would say..."Are you sure that you do?" It's the same type of response you give everyone from what I see on your posts. You add nothing of interest, you just try and find problems, or create them.

I am sorry for responding to your posts. You seem so upset when you post something and I respond to it. Why not stop posting if you hate the repsonse that you get.

[Cadmus]

And if you had read this part of my first post you would see that your response was completely irrelivant and it was stated obviously as to which type of Time Travel I meant.

I did respond to this post. You have it backward, as I said. SInce you obviously don't understand what is going on, although the science is readily available and many people on this forum are aware of it, don't blame me if you decide not to learn about it but instead to come to conclusions based on whatever it is in your head.

 

Now Go away Stalker.

How odd. I am sorry if I made you cry. I will try not to do so again. To make it easier, why not post the responses that you want with your future posts, so that no one will do any thinking on their own, god forbid, that might make you cry again.