NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't believe anyone will ever invent a way to go back in time. When's the last time you saw someone who looked like they were from the future. I mean in person, and not at a trade show or a convention. Besides, I'm sure some nutjob would have come back and assassinated one or more of our more recent presidents by now.

Okay, the question of "WELL WE WOULD'VE SEEN A MAN FROM THE FUTURE DURRRRRRRRRRRR" has been raised countless times. Sorry that the thread poster has raised the same question and I'm forced to quote that version of the same question, but I'm sick of it.

If a man from the future comes to A.D. 2004 or earlier, ya think he/she would make him or herself noticable intentionally?
Think of the chaos that would bring upon the world if we were suddenly shown a nuclear weapon within a pen and shown how to use it...at THIS day and age.

What if they're already trying to make contact with us?
John Titor, although fake IMO, is a good example. People wouldn't believe these people if they told you they were from the future.

Lack of a base
It's rather impossible to get your message from the future out if you have nothing of significance on you. The media would ignore you, society would label you psyco, and the cops will drag you to jail for domestic disturbance

i'm a child of the 70s transported into the 21st century by means i'm not sure i recall. each year i feel like more and more of a time traveller.

If I were to say "yes, there will be time travel, eventually", would that mean that there actually WOULD be time travel eventually? Assuming it is never invented, I just made an idiotic, incorrect assumption. The same naturally follows for the opposite.

you guys arent going to tell me that the Terminator trilogy was all made up are you.

you guys arent going to tell me that the Terminator trilogy was all made up are you.
well it was heavily modified from the real story. it was the jews who sent an agent back in time to kill the mother of the...

No; I don't even think it's even theoretically possible, let alone technologically possible.

well it was heavily modified from the real story. it was the jews who sent an agent back in time to kill the mother of the...
well i guess some dramatisation is understandable.

No; I don't even think it's even theoretically possible, let alone technologically possible.

I'd have to agree. Fully.

I'd have to agree. Fully.
I reiterate, just because you think something doesn't make it true.

i don't know, doc hawkings said he couldn't rule time travel out, and he knows more about what's theoretically possible than you kids.

No, we'll never time-travel. Aside from the present moment, no other time exists: it has either been swallowed up or has yet to be birthed.

No, we'll never time-travel. Aside from the present moment, no other time exists: it has either been swallowed up or has yet to be birthed.

got any proof of that?

got any proof of that?
does anyone have any proof of any of this shite? no. Which is why it's pointless to argue about it.

"There are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe." - Einstein.

No; I don't even think it's even theoretically possible, let alone technologically possible.I'm not an expert on this but I know a little about the theories of time travel.

Actually several of the theories of time time travel already exist. I like the theory which argues, in a variation of Scrosinger's cat, that one can invent time travel (into the past instead of the normal way we use constantly) but once one uses it and changes time, then time travel can no longer have been invented, so either one can invent time travel or travel in time, but not both.

But let us consider how to define time travel, if we accept that traveling faster than the effect radius of something would be defacto timetravel (travelling faster than the speed of light), which is generally the reason for positing the speed of light as an absolute limit on speed, then electrons apparently time travel continuously, since the electron tunneling phenomena is instanateous over a distance and the electron is in its new location before the effect of its displacement from its old location reach its new location.

got any proof of that?
Show me the physics that can be controlled by man to even remotely suggest the ability to shift time.

got any proof of that?

Do I need proof?

Time is not like space, with dimensions through which we are free to move in any direction. Otherwise, we'd have done it. We only exist in the present moment. Our existence in the past has ceased, and our existence in the future is yet to be.

Really, though, the burden of proof would be on those who say otherwise.

i don't know, doc hawkings said he couldn't rule time travel out, and he knows more about what's theoretically possible than you kids.

True, but other physicists would disagree with that assesment; and Hawkings has been wrong before on issues relating to black holes (his specialty), so who is not to say he's wrong on time travel.

Anyway, I went to a seminar once in college were a physics professor proved that for time travel to occur, we'd have to use infinite energy. The math was pretty gruesome, but the picture he painted for time traveling was pretty bleak.

Anyways, there's no real way of proving any of this, so this is only my educated opinion.

does anyone have any proof of any of this shite? no. Which is why it's pointless to argue about it.

"There are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe." - Einstein.

then why both posting...


ps. there are scientific theories on the nature of spacetime, just because no one here is that knowledgable on the subject doesn't make it unknowable.

i don't know, doc hawkings said he couldn't rule time travel out, and he knows more about what's theoretically possible than you kids.
Well time can be warped as soon as we are able to move objects at close to the speed of light. I think %50 of light speed is sufficient to have noticeable effect. Thats probably how the jews sent that robot back in time to kill the mother of california's budget deficit.

No, we'll never time-travel. Aside from the present moment, no other time exists: it has either been swallowed up or has yet to be birthed.
by that rationale, we had all better vote for bush so he can ban abortion cause otherwise the future must happen.

Do I need proof?

Time is not like space, with dimensions through which we are free to move in any direction. Otherwise, we'd have done it. We only exist in the present moment. Our existence in the past has ceased, and our existence in the future is yet to be.

Really, though, the burden of proof would be on those who say otherwise.
no the burden might be on someone to prove time travel is possible, not necessarily on someone arguing against you view of the nature of time.

No, we'll never time-travel. Aside from the present moment, no other time exists: it has either been swallowed up or has yet to be birthed.

by that rationale, we had all better vote for bush so he can ban abortion cause otherwise the future must happen.

Huh?

ps. there are scientific theories on the nature of spacetime, just because no one here is that knowledgable on the subject doesn't make it unknowable.
But they're theories with little experimentation behind them.

no the burden might be on someone to prove time travel is possible, not necessarily on someone arguing against you view of the nature of time.

All right, then. Who here is presently existing ten minutes before the time he reads this? Or who here is presently existing ten minutes after the time he reads this? Anyone?

So . . . the premise that we can presently exist in the past or future is based on what empirical information, exactly?

IF we could get instantaneous matter transportation/teleportation or FTL travel would that count as time travel?

Are either of these more feasable than time travel?

We currently have instantaneous energy/data transportation - matter is just a refinement and scaling of the process.

Huh?
well i have been reading the anti abortion threads and if the future is going to be birthed then apparently the bible says it must possess a soul at least 9 months prior to that therefore the future has already happened and we must ban abortion or the future might not happen at all.[/joke]

I think the better question is, would we want it? Nevermind the questions of historical corruption, et cetera. More important than that, more fundamental to our being, is that if we all could go back and relive any moment again, it would utterly destroy the beauty of the here and now. It is the fact that this will never be again that gives our mortality meaning by forcing us to live each moment as if it were all there was of life.

On the other hand, many of us work or dream our lives away. Encasing ourselves in a cocoon of artificiality, so many of us are enslaved to our systems of commerce, technology, and social organization; always looking to the future untill we find ourselves staring into the abyss of oblivion...and then we relive our past in the fevered dreams of our death beds. Almost none of us have freed ourselves enough to simply be here now...perhaps one more bit of technology, one more artifice of the human mind, cannot blaspheme any more against the sanctity of living than we already have.

IF we could get instantaneous matter transportation/teleportation or FTL travel would that count as time travel?

Are either of these more feasable than time travel?

We currently have instantaneous energy/data transportation - matter is just a refinement and scaling of the process.

The problem is that you can't really have "instantaneous" exchange; everything is limited by the speed of light, including gravity, magnetic fields, and electric fields. I guess, theroetically, a small enough particle, something like a muon, with no mass, might travel faster than light, but I don't think that's been proven. And anyways, photons are massless, and they are limited by the speed of light, so even that assumption rests on a shaky foundation.

All right, then. Who here is presently existing ten minutes before the time he reads this? Or who here is presently existing ten minutes after the time he reads this? Anyone?

So . . . the premise that we can presently exist in the past or future is based on what empirical information, exactly?
i existed ten minutes in the past and i probably will exist ten minutes in the future, you have no proof that those moments cease to exist or don't exist, only that we no longer, or haven't yet perceived them. we percieve the present, we remember the past their is no proof it no longer exists just because we can't normally return to it. that's like saying the world out of your line of sight doesn't exist until you look upon it, and ceases to exist when you look away.

The problem is that you can't really have "instantaneous" exchange; everything is limited by the speed of light, including gravity, magnetic fields, and electric fields. I guess, theroetically, a small enough particle, something like a muon, with no mass, might travel faster than light, but I don't think that's been proven. And anyways, photons are massless, and they are limited by the speed of light.
Isn't light affected by gravity?

they have got paired electrons to react at the same time to an effect on one of them (smashing it into a wall). The other electron loses the properties of being a paired electron at that time, even when they are kept at such a distance that the time taken for the information to get to the electron is greater than the time it takes by a few orders of magnitude...

(sorry its vague, and not referenced, i am going with what i remember reading and talking about at uni... but i am a BioMed Major, not a Physics Major.

Isn't light affected by gravity?


I think gravity only affects light through the shaping of space-time, not because photons have mass.

i existed ten minutes in the past and i probably will exist ten minutes in the future, you have no proof that those moments cease to exist or don't exist, only that we no longer, or haven't yet perceived them. we percieve the present, we remember the past their is no proof it no longer exists just because we can't normally return to it. that's like saying the world out of your line of sight doesn't exist until you look upon it, and ceases to exist when you look away.

BUT you don't exist there PRESENTLY. There is no physics I know of that suggests that we are transcribed in what we do, and to think that we are can pose the question of: Are we just the past of something?

Isn't light affected by gravity?
yes it most certainly is

I think gravity only affects light through the shaping of space-time, not because photons have mass.

Hmm...when I get to physics in a few years I will ask my professor, BUT, I'm a Biochem major, so I could very well be wrong. *shrug*

I think gravity only affects light through the shaping of space-time, not because photons have mass.
photon must have mass for black holes to exist. or is it just an infinite warpage of space?(that doesn't seem right)

All right, then. Who here is presently existing ten minutes before the time he reads this? Or who here is presently existing ten minutes after the time he reads this? Anyone?

So . . . the premise that we can presently exist in the past or future is based on what empirical information, exactly?

i existed ten minutes in the past and i probably will exist ten minutes in the future, you have no proof that those moments cease to exist or don't exist, only that we no longer, or haven't yet perceived them. we percieve the present, we remember the past their is no proof it no longer exists just because we can't normally return to it.

You existed and you probably will exist. But are you existing in either the past or the future?

that's like saying the world out of your line of sight doesn't exist until you look upon it, and ceases to exist when you look away.

Except that no one else presently exists in the past or in the future of whom we can possibly know.

Hmm...when I get to physics in a few years I will ask my professor, BUT, I'm a Biochem major, so I could very well be wrong. *shrug*

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's right. Einstein showed that the duality of photons was interesting; photons behaved both like waves and like particles, but they didn't have mass.

But then, in his theory of general relativity, he came up with the space-time continium. Most importantly, this theory was proven by an astronomer after he proved that there was time dialation around a star; in other words, light was affected by gravity. Since photons didn't have mass, the conclusion was that gravity must affect photons through spacetime.

photon must have mass for black holes to exist. or is it just an infinite warpage of space?(that doesn't seem right)

I think that the theory behind black holes deals with a large amount of mass appearing in a small amount of space (theoretically mass in infinitisimal space, which basically means infinite density). This causes a huge change in spacetime, which then allows the black hole to swallow light.

Again, I think it has to do with spacetime and not the mass of light.

photon must have mass for black holes to exist. or is it just an infinite warpage of space?(that doesn't seem right)Well a black hole is not usually concieved of as being an "infinite" warping of space-time, just a major distorion of the shape of it.

If we accept the space-time model of reality, then FTL (faster than light) travel is time travel. Theoretically then time travel does occur for electrons (which have mass incidentally) do indeed travel FTL. An electron in an atom always exists in one of several discreet locations, and travels between these locations instantaneously without crossing the intervening space (according to most models) - travelling FTL, thus traveling in time.

Well a black hole is not usually concieved of as being an "infinite" warping of space-time, just a major distorion of the shape of it.

If we accept the space-time model of reality, then FTL (faster than light) travel is time travel. Theoretically then time travel does occur for electrons (which have mass incidentally) do indeed travel FTL. An electron in an atom always exists in one of several discreet locations, and travels between these locations instantaneously without crossing the intervening space (according to most models) - travelling FTL, thus traveling in time.

but if photons have no mass, and black holes are not infinite why can't the photons escape from within the event horizon.

Well a black hole is not usually concieved of as being an "infinite" warping of space-time, just a major distorion of the shape of it.

If we accept the space-time model of reality, then FTL (faster than light) travel is time travel. Theoretically then time travel does occur for electrons (which have mass incidentally) do indeed travel FTL. An electron in an atom always exists in one of several discreet locations, and travels between these locations instantaneously without crossing the intervening space (according to most models) - travelling FTL, thus traveling in time.

While that's true, there are two important aspects that make it almost meaningless. First, since we are talking about quantum physics, we are talking about probability, and on average, the information transmitted during these events are still only the speed of light (actually less). Worse yet, there is no way of knowing when it's going to happen or who is going to do it so there is no useful way of actually transmitting information, or time traveling.

Although, technically speaking (or at least as defined by Einstein), yeah those electrons and some photons, and other particles do time travel. But it's all gibberish, they hold no information.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Never.

Unless of course you're talking about travelling "forward" through time at the "normal" rate... in which case, sure, it's possible.

I was reading something about how it is theoretically possible, but only into the future, not into the past. Something about the nature of time at light speed, and how light does not travel backwards in the fourth dimension. Maybe someone who understands this stuff better than I can explain what I'm saying more eloquently.

i wish it could but nah the reasons are
Fry from Futurama is his own Grandfather so the only way he could have been born is he gets thawed out in the future goes back to the past meets his grandmother has "relations" his father is born who has him?
How could he be his fathers son and his fathes father?
OR
Terminator
The Terminator is created when man finds robotic arm right?
He studys it makes Terminators latter in future Terminators take over world go back in time you know the story Terminator dies arm is left guy makes Terminators
And isnt Sarah Connors "relation" her grandson and he has his father who has him?
these are reasons that are illogical but outside of these rules then maybe!!!

I was reading something about how it is theoretically possible, but only into the future, not into the past. Something about the nature of time at light speed, and how light does not travel backwards in the fourth dimension. Maybe someone who understands this stuff better than I can explain what I'm saying more eloquently.
Heres something the whole steven hawkings being famous thing is built around Black Holes and yet he admitted his theory was wrong earlier this year maybe anythings possible??

Yes, Time Travel it possible in theory, with a couple of caveats. First the technology required may be beyond our ability to make, at least in any forseable future. Secondly if we are able to create the technology to do such a thing our travel backwards in time would be limited to the moment of activation of the first time travel device. For more information go read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Fabric of the Universe

it must be going to have
because if it hadn't will be
the etruscans would never have invented the stirrup
and the flying wedge
and there never would have been a roman empire
and beliefs would not have become belligerant and fanatical
and the library at alexandria would never have been burned
as a resault of their doing so
and there would not have been the socalled middle ages that
resaulted from that
and the age of steam would have started a thousand years
earlier (as it did on our timeline before a renigade time
traveller messed with it) and lasted a thousand years longer
no frantic 20th century to make up for the time that would
not have been lost
and we would be out among the stars by now
among other things

tecnology was arrising just fine without making war on
nature before the time interferance disaster occured.

minoan crete and celtic western europe were the centers of
innovation and creativity. the only waring states period
was a direct resault of alexander's short lived tyranny.

quicly ended by the advantages of tecnological dissemination
realized by doing so

even by plato's time, alexander having been another product
of temporal interfierance, in dreams our ancestors lived the
timeline that would have been had not this interferance
taken place. it is from these dreams that arose the
legends of atlantis which was in reality no more then an
untemporialy corrupted minoan crete would have been.

even in my own dreams i wander the world that today would
have been this earth's, had not the great temporal
interfierance disaster not occured.

=^^=
.../\...

cyrogenics would be a good way of psuedo-time travel.

cyrogenics would be a good way of psuedo-time travel.
The WHole Futurama thing

i think it might be possible to travel to the future but not to the past

If (backwards) time travel was created it would have been abused. Unless of course, you can't go back to before the time machine was built.

i think it might be possible to travel to the future

You're doing it right now.