NationStates Jolt Archive

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distant future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.

It is only possible to travel forward in time, but probably not much faster than we are doing right now.

Not with our current understanding of physics, no. Faster-than-light travel is much, much more likely.

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distance future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.
*goes back in time and stops Greater Alemannia from creating this thread*

*goes back in time and stops Greater Alemannia from creating this thread*
I'll wish you had...

Yep. Go take a nap.

It is only possible to travel forward in time, but probably not much faster than we are doing right now.
Why forward and not back? That seems a bit confusing. I would have thought the mechanism by which you might alter your personal time would be either both ways or neither...

Why forward and not back? That seems a bit confusing. I would have thought the mechanism by which you might alter your personal time would be either both ways or neither...

to go back in time ou need a negative speed

to go back in time ou need a negative speed

Does moving backwards count?

to go back in time ou need a negative speed

I don't see how... It would be easier to create a wormhole in t/s.

I don't see how... It would be easier to create a wormhole in t/s.
Yeah, stick to the easy stuff.

I swear we have had this exact same thread already!

I don't see how... It would be easier to create a wormhole in t/s.

And how exactly would you get the other end of the wormhole back in time?

As far as I can tell, the wormhole theory in time travel is that you can take a wormhole, (you know, once we figure out how to make them) travel forward in time using the theory of relativity, and then, at that point, affix the wormhole in the future, to allow travel back and forth from the 'future' to the 'present'. So, you could (can, will be able to, have been able to) travel back in time, but only as far as the point when the wormhole was created.

So those future folks could, we can't.

I think.

I swear we have had this exact same thread already!

We haven't yet, but we will. ;)

And how exactly would you get the other end of the wormhole back in time?

As far as I can tell, the wormhole theory in time travel is that you can take a wormhole, (you know, once we figure out how to make them) travel forward in time using the theory of relativity, and then, at that point, affix the wormhole in the future, to allow travel back and forth from the 'future' to the 'present'. So, you could (can, will be able to, have been able to) travel back in time, but only as far as the point when the wormhole was created.

So those future folks could, we can't.

I think.

Well, I'm sure there will be a way. It would involve something along the line of wormholes, with plenty of spacetime tearing along the way. I imagine early time travel would send the traveller somewhere random.

Does moving backwards count?

no

I'm time travelling right now.

Well, I'm sure there will be a way. It would involve something along the line of wormholes, with plenty of spacetime tearing along the way. I imagine early time travel would send the traveller somewhere random.

So do you have future knowledge?

They've already set up the wormhole haven't they?

The future is running our government!

Get the...

Well tin foil doesn't work, so...

Damnit, just cover your head with your arms and run around screaming!

Why forward and not back? That seems a bit confusing. I would have thought the mechanism by which you might alter your personal time would be either both ways or neither...
There is one constant amount of mass and energy in the universe, if you were to travel back in time you would mess up the mass/energy balance, therefore it is impossible.

And how exactly would you get the other end of the wormhole back in time?

As far as I can tell, the wormhole theory in time travel is that you can take a wormhole, (you know, once we figure out how to make them) travel forward in time using the theory of relativity, and then, at that point, affix the wormhole in the future, to allow travel back and forth from the 'future' to the 'present'. So, you could (can, will be able to, have been able to) travel back in time, but only as far as the point when the wormhole was created.

So those future folks could, we can't.

I think.

Too bad a wormhole is only one way.

Too bad a wormhole is only one way.

And what are the others?

And if you say TARDIS, I may have to laugh at you.

And what are the others?

And if you say TARDIS, I may have to laugh at you.

Other whats?

...
...

Tardis.

If it is and I travel back in time, will my safety be guaranteed? :D

As far as I can tell, the wormhole theory in time travel is that you can take a wormhole, (you know, once we figure out how to make them) travel forward in time using the theory of relativity, and then, at that point, affix the wormhole in the future, to allow travel back and forth from the 'future' to the 'present'. So, you could (can, will be able to, have been able to) travel back in time, but only as far as the point when the wormhole was created.
The general idea is to somehow move one end of the wormhole near to a massive object such a black hole to get significant time dilation. Unfortunately that won't work as the gravity would also propagate through the wormhole, effecting the other end. This doesn't stop serious scientists from occasionally suggesting the idea, though...

If it is and I travel back in time, will my safety be guaranteed? :D
*sets up Time-Travel Insurance business*

There is one constant amount of mass and energy in the universe, if you were to travel back in time you would mess up the mass/energy balance, therefore it is impossible.
But what if there were an equal, but opposite mass/enegy transfer in the opposite temporal direction?

I think I need a nap :)

Wormholes can never exist anyway.

As far as I understand a wormhole is just a black hole and a white hole attatched to eachother.

Problem 1) White holes don't exist in reality, they only exist in mathematical terms.

Problem 2) Worm Holes will instantly implode as soon as they form because they are so unstable due to so much radiation etc....

If it is and I travel back in time, will my safety be guaranteed? :D
Sorry. We've only done this once before.

But what if there were an equal, but opposite mass/enegy transfer in the opposite temporal direction?

I think I need a nap :)
maybe we both do LOL

if you could figure out how to balance the transfer, so that you are taking energy to replace with your mass then I would suppose it would be theoretically possible, except for the fact that I am not sure how it would affect the present seeing as how the energy would have to come out on the other side (since you can't destroy energy) and then after we figured out what to do about that there would still be endless paradoxes.

Yes. If its possible that we have blackholes, then wormholes and time travel isn't that far fetched.

Wormholes can never exist anyway.

As far as I understand a wormhole is just a black hole and a white hole attatched to eachother.
Someone's been reading to much pulp sci-fi...

Problem 2) Worm Holes will instantly implode as soon as they form because they are so unstable due to so much radiation etc....
That's more of a problem. Current theories say they'd need negative energy to keep them open.

Am I too late to say 'TARDIS' so as to get a laugh out of Aeson?

If humans anywhere in the future had gained the ability to travel into the past, someone would have created a paradox (remembering that there is a lot of time to screw up between now and whenever time ends/infinity), considering that I am still here and the universe is too, I assume that time travel is impossible except for the standard 1 second/second (strange unit).

maybe we both do LOL

if you could figure out how to balance the transfer, so that you are taking energy to replace with your mass then I would suppose it would be theoretically possible, except for the fact that I am not sure how it would affect the present seeing as how the energy would have to come out on the other side (since you can't destroy energy) and then after we figured out what to do about that there would still be endless paradoxes.
But isn't an infinite number of paradoxes the same as no paradox at all?

Komyunizumu']Yes. If its possible that we have blackholes, then wormholes and time travel isn't that far fetched.
Black holes are a very different beast from wormholes, and only cause normal time dilation (but to a much larger degree).

If humans anywhere in the future had gained the ability to travel into the past, someone would have created a paradox (remembering that there is a lot of time to screw up between now and whenever time ends/infinity), considering that I am still here and the universe is too, I assume that time travel is impossible except for the standard 1 second/second (strange unit).
Travelling into the past does not create paradox; it writes history. If you travel into the past, you will always have travelled into the past, both before and after (in your own time) the actual travel itself.

But isn't an infinite number of paradoxes the same as no paradox at all?
you know what? I am going to have to talk to my daughter about that, she is watching cartoons right now though so you are going to have to wait.

If humans anywhere in the future had gained the ability to travel into the past, someone would have created a paradox (remembering that there is a lot of time to screw up between now and whenever time ends/infinity), considering that I am still here and the universe is too, I assume that time travel is impossible except for the standard 1 second/second (strange unit).
It is also possible that there are no paradoxes, as if someone travels to the past in the future, then they also aready did so in the past, so we would be unable to tell. If the past is going to be changed, then it already has been. Imagine how horrible things were that someone actually went back to make Hitler? :eek:

Travelling into the past does not create paradox; it writes history. If you travel into the past, you will always have travelled into the past, both before and after (in your own time) the actual travel itself.
you are thinking purely on a social level though, I am saying that traveling back in time would unravel the universe completely, it is physically impossible.

Travelling into the past does not create paradox; it writes history. If you travel into the past, you will always have travelled into the past, both before and after (in your own time) the actual travel itself.

Ah, but now we're going into how static time is.

you are thinking purely on a social level though, I am saying that traveling back in time would unravel the universe completely, it is physically impossible.
Wait, would it unravel the universe or is it impossible? How can it be both? 0_o

you are thinking purely on a social level though, I am saying that traveling back in time would unravel the universe completely, it is physically impossible.
Here are some other quoters that thought similarly. :D
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977)

"The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876)

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" (David Sarnoff's associates, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920's)

At least you're in prestigious company Smunkee.

Wait, would it unravel the universe or is it impossible? How can it be both? 0_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

It is also possible that there are no paradoxes, as if someone travels to the past in the future, then they also aready did so in the past, so we would be unable to tell. If the past is going to be changed, then it already has been. Imagine how horrible things were that someone actually went back to make Hitler? :eek:

stuff like the Great Siberian Fireball?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

I've heard of a theory based on quantum physics called the "Many Worlds Theory", there's even a fiction book based on it (Timeline - Michael Chrichton).
It states that there are many universes conected by wormholes, it's the same universe, except they keep dividing, example:
On one universe they killed JFK, it divided to one on wich it didn't.
There are also universes that are before in time. So we can travel through them...
Anyway, this theory does exist, it hasn't been proved, yet a theory nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
We are understanding of the concept of proof by contradiction, but this is seemingly not such a case as argued by the inestimable Smunkee, as there is no contradiction to be taken as demonstrated to be unequivocally so.

So there.

Wait, would it unravel the universe or is it impossible? How can it be both? 0_o
it is impossible to be successful, if you were to try the universe would cease to exist and then it would not be successful to travel back in time because there would be no universe for you to exist in.

I've heard of a theory based on quantum physics called the "Many Worlds Theory", there's even a fiction book based on it (Timeline - Michael Chrichton).
It states that there are many universes conected by wormholes, it's the same universe, except they keep dividing, example:
On one universe they killed JFK, it divided to one on wich it didn't.
There are also universes that are before in time. So we can travel through them...
Anyway, this theory does exist, it hasn't been proved, yet a theory nonetheless.
More of an idea than a theory. A theory has the ability to predict and be tested (see any argument over the idea if ID).

I've heard of a theory based on quantum physics called the "Many Worlds Theory", there's even a fiction book based on it (Timeline - Michael Chrichton).
It states that there are many universes conected by wormholes, it's the same universe, except they keep dividing, example:
On one universe they killed JFK, it divided to one on wich it didn't.
There are also universes that are before in time. So we can travel through them...
Anyway, this theory does exist, it hasn't been proved, yet a theory nonetheless.
yes, schrodinger's cat.

it is impossible to be successful, if you were to try the universe would cease to exist and then it would not be successful to travel back in time because there would be no universe for you to exist in.
But what if this has already happened? And more than once?

But what if this has already happened? And more than once?
if it already happened then we would not exist ;)

We are understanding of the concept of proof by contradiction, but this is seemingly not such a case as argued by the inestimable Smunkee, as there is no contradiction to be taken as demonstrated to be unequivocally so.
Smunkee's argument seems to be:

1) If time travel had/will happened, the universe would have ceased to exist
2) The universe exists
3) Therefore time travel has not happened

Here are some other quoters that thought similarly. :D
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." (Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977)

"The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876)

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" (David Sarnoff's associates, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920's)

At least you're in prestigious company Smunkee.
I'll give a cookie to anyone who can remind me what the name of this logical fallacy is (memory's not what it used to be...).

Sumnkee's argument seems to be:

1) If time travel had/will happened, the universe would have ceased to exist
2) The universe exists
3) Therefore time travel has not happened
not actually, but whatever. I should know better than to try to discuss this in the forums.

I'll give a cookie to anyone who can remind me what the name of this logical fallacy is (memory's not what it used to be...).
Oh I'm not saying that those quotes make her wrong. I just wanted to remind everyone that saying something is impossible does not make it impossible and that pronouncements by authorities (great or small) on a subject are not necessarily correct.

if it already happened then we would not exist ;)
Really? Why? If the universe ceased to exist, why would it be permanent? If we were a film, we'd cease to exist 24 times a second . . .

Oh I'm not saying that those quotes make her wrong. I just wanted to remind everyone that saying something is impossible does not make it impossible and that pronouncements by authorities (great or small) on a subject are not necessarily correct.
I suppose if we could figure out how to manufacture negative mass/energy it might be theoretically possible to physically travel back in time, although it still leaves paradoxes.

Smunkee's argument seems to be:

1) If time travel had/will happened, the universe would have ceased to exist
2) The universe exists
3) Therefore time travel has not happened
See post #56, my response to Smunkee ;)

Really? Why? If the universe ceased to exist, why would it be permanent? If we were a film, we'd cease to exist 24 times a second . . .
that goes beyond what I can reason on 2 hours of sleep...... I need a nap.

I'll give a cookie to anyone who can remind me what the name of this logical fallacy is (memory's not what it used to be...).
Straw boat. No, wait, straw hat. Straw hut?

...I thought I recalled reading once about a type of particle - or was it a wave - that propogates itself backwards through time as well as forwards through time. I think it was called a 'tau particle' or a 'tau wave'. The thought was it might be able to carry information to a previous point in time...

Oh I'm not saying that those quotes make her wrong. I just wanted to remind everyone that saying something is impossible does not make it impossible and that pronouncements by authorities (great or small) on a subject are not necessarily correct.
Well, no offence to Smunkee, but I don't think she's regarded as an expert on the physics of time travel anyway. It doesn't matter though - she's not saying that time travel is impossible because she decrees it to be so, but because it would create paradoxes and so cannot logically be possible (unless I'm misunderstanding her again).

that goes beyond what I can reason on 2 hours of sleep...... I need a nap.
Me, too.
*naps with Smunkee*
*but artistically, not some nasty way*
*you know, platonically? Not that I agree with Plato, or anything like that*

...I thought I recalled reading once about a type of particle - or was it a wave - that propogates itself backwards through time as well as forwards through time. I think it was called a 'tau particle' or a 'tau wave'. The thought was it might be able to carry information to a previous point in time...
Hmm... I think you might be talking about tachyons, which people often claim allow time-travel and faster-than-light communication. If you're not afraid of advanced physics, read this:

http://www.safalra.com/science/relativity/tachyons.html

Well, no offence to Smunkee, but I don't think she's regarded as an expert on the physics of time travel anyway. It doesn't matter though - she's not saying that time travel is impossible because she decrees it to be so, but because it would create paradoxes and so cannot logically be possible (unless I'm misunderstanding her again).
And I should trust her logic over my own because...?

...I thought I recalled reading once about a type of particle - or was it a wave - that propogates itself backwards through time as well as forwards through time. I think it was called a 'tau particle' or a 'tau wave'. The thought was it might be able to carry information to a previous point in time...
yeah, I don't remember much about that, but I remember my husband saying something about subatomic particles that travel backwards in time...I was trying to cook dinner though so I wasn't really listening.
Well, no offence to Smunkee, but I don't think she's regarded as an expert on the physics of time travel anyway. It doesn't matter though - she's not saying that time travel is impossible because she decrees it to be so, but because it would create paradoxes and so cannot logically be possible (unless I'm misunderstanding her again).

I am not an expert on anything, I know just enough about a variety of subjects to get myself way in over my head in a discussion about them. :p

Your understanding seems closer. I can't really in all actuality say that because something is illogical that it is actually impossible because I believe in God who is a paradox anyway. I thought I would try my hand at argueing the negative, but whatever, you know.

...I thought I recalled reading once about a type of particle - or was it a wave - that propogates itself backwards through time as well as forwards through time. I think it was called a 'tau particle' or a 'tau wave'. The thought was it might be able to carry information to a previous point in time...
I think I read the same particle article, but didn't the theory call into question our very definition of information?

And I should trust her logic over my own because...?
Are you saying paradoxes aren't logically impossible? I could understand you disputing her physics (maybe the universe would act to prevent paradoxes) but not the logic that uses that fact.

Are you saying paradoxes aren't logically impossible? I could understand you disputing her physics (maybe the universe would act to prevent paradoxes) but not the logic that uses that fact.
Isn't the definition of a paradox that it isn't logically impossible? Otherwise, where's the paradox?

And I should trust her logic over my own because...?

No one is stopping you from going against the laws of physics. If you do believe in the laws of physics however, time travel is impossible.

Are you saying paradoxes aren't logically impossible? I could understand you disputing her physics (maybe the universe would act to prevent paradoxes) but not the logic that uses that fact.
Ah, but there is a difference between what seems to be a paradox to someone and an actual physical impossibility. For the record though, yes I am doubting her interpretation of the current state of the art in physics as it relates to time travel.

I think I read the same particle article, but didn't the theory call into question our very definition of information?
By potentially rendering the information gleaned from 'downstream' invalid due to interventions 'upstream'? I guess it depends on what type of Universe we dwell in. Or, Multiverse. Erm, thing.

No one is stopping you from going against the laws of physics. If you do believe in the laws of physics however, time travel is impossible.
Refers Hydesland to Feynmann's QED

There is one constant amount of mass and energy in the universe, if you were to travel back in time you would mess up the mass/energy balance, therefore it is impossible.

Entropy>Time Travel

If I don't believe in the laws of physics hard enough, can I go back in time and kill my past self? Wait, then I wouldn't exist in the future to go back in time to kill myself to not exist to go back in to the past! PARADOX!

Entropy>Time Travel

If I don't believe in the laws of physics hard enough, can I go back in time and kill my past self? Wait, then I wouldn't exist in the future to go back in time to kill myself to not exist to go back in to the past! PARADOX!
maybe it would create an alternate reality, therefore there would be multiple realities, some would include you not being born, some would be where you did go back in time but were unsuccessful in killing yourself.......ect.

maybe it would create an alternate reality, therefore there would be multiple realities, some would include you not being born, some would be where you did go back in time but were unsuccessful in killing yourself.......ect.

Ah, the multiverse theory at work. Don'tcha just love it?

The general idea is to somehow move one end of the wormhole near to a massive object such a black hole to get significant time dilation. Unfortunately that won't work as the gravity would also propagate through the wormhole, effecting the other end. This doesn't stop serious scientists from occasionally suggesting the idea, though...

Ooh... like that one episode of Stargate?

Ooh... like that one episode of Stargate?
I should probably pretend that I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, it was in two episodes...

I should probably pretend that I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, it was in two episodes...

:D

If a discussion can't be tied back to Stargate, it's probably not worth discussing, eh?

Isn't the definition of a paradox that it isn't logically impossible? Otherwise, where's the paradox?
it must be logically impossible and logically possible at the same time.

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distant future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know enough, it may be possible in the physical sense but not possible in terms of energy expenditure and general cost.

In one sense, though, we time-travel daily, through memory, study of history, imagination.

It all comes down to how one perceives time to determine if time travel is possible. I tend to look at the world in terms of a dynamic "now" where the past is an explanation for the effects of the present moment and the future is an explanation for the causes made in the present moment.

Can you travel in time? No. If you are already there, you obviously can't travel there.

Don't know enough science to give indepth commentary on time travel but I'd like to think it possible, however there are too many dangers with it and I'd hate to think some freak would go back to 1945 tell Heitler a couple of things and we'd all be speaking German rights now (not that there is anything wrong iwth the German language!)

There was a film made in 2002 , the name escapes me it was supposed to be a special effects extravaganza about time travel to go dinosaur hunting ans what can go wrong however floods destroyed the set where ever in Europe it was being flimed, and some German flim company bought the rights to it and well the special effects are better in star wars 4-6! The film didnt' even get a release in Europe, but its huge in Thiland!

I'm not going to go into the endless reasons why time travel is a really, really, really...REALLY, bad idea...

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distant future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.

NO. If it were, the space-time continuum would have been eradicated by now. The past is done with forever, the future will not happen until it does, and then it is the past. Time travel is absolutely nonexistent.

However, you can travel to the future... via use of a cyrogenic metabolism- freezing bed.

Even if it were (which I am so glad it is not) it would make everyone's life worse, so I would be forced to destroy all time travelling devices, whether or not people wanted me to.

Novikov self-consistency principle.

Enough said.

there may not be any paradoxes if you time travel. Affecting the past course of events from your present would cause the past universe to split away from the present universe in your timeline, thereby being an alternate reality. For this reason you wouldnt be able to get back to your own present.

NO. If it were, the space-time continuum would have been eradicated by now. The past is done with forever, the future will not happen until it does, and then it is the past. Time travel is absolutely nonexistent.

However, you can travel to the future... via use of a cyrogenic metabolism- freezing bed.

Even if it were (which I am so glad it is not) it would make everyone's life worse, so I would be forced to destroy all time travelling devices, whether or not people wanted me to.

question, if there is no past as it is already gone, and there is no future if it is yet to happen, is there any present, if what is present continually becomes past with the onset of the future? I think we need a new tense to describe what it is we are living in.

there may not be any paradoxes if you time travel. Affecting the past course of events from your present would cause the past universe to split away from the present universe in your timeline, thereby being an alternate reality. For this reason you wouldnt be able to get back to your own present.

That does make sense in a scientific view, but it really seems inadequate at a philosophical level. I like my theory better. It leaves no open ends.

Unless your theory is like how it is in most cartoons... in which case, **head explodes**.

question, if there is no past as it is already gone, and there is no future if it is yet to happen, is there any present, if what is present continually becomes past with the onset of the future? I think we need a new tense to describe what it is we are living in.

Yes, there is a present... present is infinity^-1 seconds long (basically no time at all). It is the line between past and future. And present is fine as a tense, as it refers to now. (The present perfect helps out a little here.)

Well. I think that we can all assume that since we are still existing at this point in time, either we eventually invent time travel and have used it remarkably safely, or not at all.

Also, I read this fascinating book about how the past doesn't affect the present as much as the future does. But I'm too tired to go into specifics right now. It's in a chapter of "Star Trek: I'm Working on That: A Trek from Science Fiction to Science Fact" by William Shatner.

Well. I think that we can all assume that since we are still existing at this point in time, either we eventually invent time travel and have used it remarkably safely, or not at all.

Also, I read this fascinating book about how the past doesn't affect the present as much as the future does. But I'm too tired to go into specifics right now. It's in a chapter of "Star Trek: I'm Working on That: A Trek from Science Fiction to Science Fact" by William Shatner.

that definetly does not make sense, unless it refers to human behavior and not Nature in general.

that definetly does not make sense, unless it refers to human behavior and not Nature in general.

My advice: Read the book and similiar articles and you will be enlightened.

If so send me to the 90's and get me out of the mad world!

I'm skeptical about the whole notion of conceiving of time 'spatially', so I dont know that I even believe that 'time-travel' is a possible concept (in other words the nature of time might be such that regardless of paradoxical effects, and/or technical constraints, applying the concept of travel to time may in itself be nonsensical).

I'm not certain that conceiving of time spatially is a fatally flawed approach to understanding time, but that I'm not convinced it isnt a fatally flawed approach.

If it is and I travel back in time, will my safety be guaranteed? :D
No. I've only done this once before.

No.

Now would someone please direct me to Shara Coner?

Your average physicist holds Relativity quite strongly. It has been tested again and again with an accuracy of many decimal places. They hold onto Causality even tighter. Without Causality the entire structure of physics crumbles. Causes must preceed effects, or it becomes impossible to make predictions. If it is impossible to make predictions, it would be best to give up physics for a more profitable line of work. That and there are a lot of technical problems with time travel that I won't go into because I have work in the morning.

No.

Now would someone please direct me to Shara Coner?
Is that a plasma rifle in the 40-watt range you've got there, or are you just glad to see that chick from the Twenty-Minute Workout?
http://www.aerobicise.com/images/bess_head.jpg

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distant future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.
Are you asking if it's possible for humans to invent a time travel machine or something? I'd say no, I imagine it'll take a whole lot of energy (more than this earth can provide) to start ripping holes in time/space. I suppose we could fly a spaceship through a wormhole and hope the crew survive the journey. Although like you I doubt we'll be able to travel that far in space, It's not something that will be happening anytime soon and us humans don't have long left. :(

Simply put....NO.


Time does not exist, it was created by us as a form of control and for a more organized society.

Simply put....NO.


Time does not exist, it was created by us as a form of control and for a more organized society.
Time isn't real?! :eek:

Well, at least I'll never grow old...

Time isn't real?! :eek:

Well, at least I'll never grow old...

rofl, I explained that bad. I hope you get what I'm saying, if not I'm not gonna bother explaining ;)

rofl, I explained that bad. I hope you get what I'm saying, if not I'm not gonna bother explaining ;)
I suppose distance and weight doesn't exist either. After all, meters and grams were only invented by us, right? If they don't exist then that means I am 0 meters tall, and weigh 0 grams. I don't exist! :eek:

Simply put....NO.


Time does not exist, it was created by us as a form of control and for a more organized society.
You refer to the theory in physics that time is a perception, a social convention, a mathematical convenience, yes?
Time can, however, also be treated as a dimension. Now, if you take a piece of paper and draw two dots on it, you can fold the paper so that the two dots touch. By manipulating the 2-space of the paper in 4-space, we are able to "travel thru time" as perceived by hypothetical beings within the 2-space.
So, if we, as 4-space beings, can learn to manipulate 6-space, time travel may indeed become possible.

I believe this is not happening any time soon ;)

If mulitverse theory is correct- 1st law of thermodynamics wont allow time travel
If it doesn't and the universe theory is correct- the law of causality wont allow it
but there is a point i would like 2 make- if a negative energy is needed to circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics, Antimatter does exist and as matter and energy are interchangeable why cannot anti- energy exist? just a thought

but there is a point i would like 2 make- if a negative energy is needed to circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics, Antimatter does exist and as matter and energy are interchangeable why cannot anti- energy exist? just a thought

Because anti matter is not really a proper name. It is not really "anti" matter, it is...matter. It has mass, it has volume, it is a form of matter. "anti" energy, which is normally refered to as "negative" energy is theoretically possible, but while it is true that matter and energy are interchangeable, if you convernt anti matter to energy you don't get "anti" energy, you just get....energy.

Negative energy may exist in theory, however negative (or anti) energy is not the conversion from anti matter. Antimatter converted to energy simply yields energy.

Another thing- before einstein every physicist believed there was only 1 thing left to prove and that everything to do with physics would be known. It was the existence of the Aether that had to be proved and the experiment designed to prove it returned a null result. Not long after this Einstein published his paper on Relativity. We could just be at another time like this and only need another Einstein or Hubble to help us

Time can, however, also be treated as a dimension.

Can it? I know it can be conceived of as a dimension, but do we know for a fact that it can be treated like one? :confused:

If it is not a dimension then how can we certain that it can be treated like a dimesion in any particular respect?

Does NSG think that time travel is actually possible or not?

I think it may be, in the extremely distant future. We'll probably destroy ourselves first, though.

Forward is easy. Backward is a bit trickier. *nod*

Forward is easy. Backward is a bit trickier. *nod*

And sideways is just a bloody nightmare! :p

Yes, time travel is possible under know physics, but only within a closed timelike curve.
A Tipler Cylinder is a hypothetical object theorized to be a potential mode of time travel—an approach that is conceivably functional within humanity's current understanding of physics, construction of the device notwithstanding.

Frank J. Tipler suggested in 1974 that if a sufficiently long cylinder with the mass of several neutron stars was induced to spin along its longitudinal axis, the cylinder should create a frame-dragging effect and warp spacetime in its locality as the spin approached the speed of light.

This frame-dragging effect causes the light cones of objects in the cylinders proximity to tilt, so that part of the light cone then points backwards along the time axis on a space time diagram. Therefore a spacecraft accelerating sufficiently in the appropriate direction can travel backwards through time along a Closed Timelike Curve or CTC.

CTC's are associated, in Lorentzian manifolds which are interpreted physically as spacetimes, with causal anomalies such as going back in time and potentially shooting your own grandfather. They have an unnerving habit of appearing in some of the most important exact solutions in general relativity, including the Kerr vacuum (which models a rotating black hole) and the van Stockum dust (which models a cylindrically symmetrical configuration of rotating pressureless fluid or dust).

Some physicists argue that since Tipler Cylinders allow Closed Timelike Curves they violate Roger Penrose's cosmic censorship hypothesis, as naked singularities would be visible. Others argue that since causality is not built into Einstein's field equation, these regions may actually be able to exist (see also Godel's universe).

A limitation of the Tipler Cylinder is that it is only possible to travel to times (and places) in which the cylinder already exists. Thus, one could not travel backwards further than the date that the cylinder was activated. One could hypothesize that this is why humans have not yet encountered a time traveler.

Though Tipler's paper originally suggested that the cylinder might have to be of infinite length, later calculations indicated that the model would function if it were "only" a few thousand kilometers long; however singularities appear at the end.
So yes, we can travel back in time, but only so far as when the time machine was created, hence why we have no visitors from the future appearing to say hello.

Forward is easy. Backward is a bit trickier. *nod*
Mel Gibson Movie and Futurama. *nods*
Opposing
Stargate
Terminator.
Hmmm..........

And sideways is just a bloody nightmare! :p

Which is exactly why I choose to wander aimlessly. ;)

Which is exactly why I choose to wander aimlessly. ;)

Through time?

If you see Capt Bastable or Una please pass on my greetings and best wishes!

But not to that bastard Jerry!