# Is It Possible?



## Majimaune (Nov 17, 2006)

I have been talking about this to some of my friends at school recently and we have come to this conclusion.

Time Travel... Is it possible?

We dont think it is because we think it could create a parallel universe or something like that.

Majimaune Leganimdonk (always curious).


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 17, 2006)

That one seems to be something of an ongoing debate. However, the majority opinion seems to be that yes, if you actually interacted with the past in any way, it would create an alternative reality rather than changing the reality that had produced you (and the concomitant circumstances) in the first place.

As for whether it's possible... I've seen a fair amount on the subject and I'm not quite as sceptical as I was about it being possible... but I still think it's highly improbable; and even if it does come about, it's unlikely to be anytime in the reasonably close future.... But it is at least now being discussed and examined as a possibility scientifically (as opposed to the proponents of such a thing having their heads examined, for instance....)


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 17, 2006)

As opposed to eternity one would think - eternity being outside of time so that one could travel backwards and forwards within it without changing a thing - probably just enjoying it!


----------



## Azathoth (Nov 17, 2006)

Sure!  I'm a time traveler.

*waits*

See, I just traveled into the future!     Sorry, corny joke.


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 17, 2006)

Majimaune said:


> I have been talking about this to some of my friends at school recently and we have come to this conclusion.
> 
> Time Travel... Is it possible?
> 
> ...



Hi Majimaune. See my post for more information:

http://www.chronicles-network.com/f...-experiment-may-prove-the-possibility-of.html


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 17, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> That one seems to be something of an ongoing debate. However, the majority opinion seems to be that yes, if you actually interacted with the past in any way, it would create an alternative reality rather than changing the reality that had produced you (and the concomitant circumstances) in the first place.
> 
> As for whether it's possible... I've seen a fair amount on the subject and I'm not quite as sceptical as I was about it being possible... but I still think it's highly improbable; and even if it does come about, it's unlikely to be anytime in the reasonably close future.... But it is at least now being discussed and examined as a possibility scientifically (as opposed to the proponents of such a thing having their heads examined, for instance....)



While I'm intrigued by the concept of parallel universes and multi-world theory, I don't think they actually exist because it would violate the laws of energy conservation. Yes, they have been experimentally proven to exist on a microscopic world, but that doesn't mean that they also exist in our macroscopic world as well. However, they do make good sci-fi stories for us to ponder about!  If you were to time travel into the past to prevent your parents from meeting, the most likely scenerio would be that your "past" self would never be born, but your "present" self would not be compromised because the moment you do the time traveling, you are free from the laws of time. In other words, you would be a person with no past and still be very much alive. Hence, there's no need to worry about erasing yourself from existence like in the Back To The Future movies. It would be a creepy world if that were to happen.


----------



## Paige Turner (Nov 17, 2006)

You can't travel in time. Time is an illusion.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 18, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> You can't travel in time. Time is an illusion.


 
Now, see, that's another controversy that I find fascinating ... whether or not time as such exists outside of our perceptions, or whether we are so constructed that we impose that view on a "continuum" that already exists (much like having an immense packet of still photos -- or frames in a movie, only laid one on top of another rather than sequential -- and it's our consciousness flipping from one to the "next" microsecond by microsecond, etc.). Of course, one of the things mentioned in connection with this is that, if all "time" exists simultaneously -- so to speak (we really are going to need a whole bunch of new terms to understand this, if this is the case) and therefore "does not exist" (as we understand it, with our limited abilities), then "space", too, as we understand it, is an illusion and a product of the nature of our consciousness.

At which point, though I find such speculations -- especially by people examining them as genuine models of reality rather than simply as speculatice hypotheses -- my brain simply seems to collapse in on itself and I tend to sit in the corner going "bibble, bibble, bibble".....

As for the alternative realities (or dimensions) and such ... a growing number of people in theoretical physics seem to be inclined to believe that they are at least possible and that, though the "laws" of conservation of energy are not invalidated, they may need to be modified (remember, these "laws" are not set in stone; they are merely the result of repeated observations that are indeed capable of falsification should a phenomenon be observed which violates them, requiring a reassessment of even the most fundamental of our assumptions regarding entity)... so I'm not so inclined to dismiss them, though I remain more than a little sceptical. (In other words, while I will accept the "possibility" of their existence, to accept the "probability" is going to require considerably more hard evidence. And this applies to their existence on a macrocosmic level as -- as Whitestar noted -- they seem to have been at least strongly indicated from results on a sub-atomic or particulate level.)

*Sigh* I really need to get back out there and dig out the latest research on these things, as I'm woefully out of date, I fear (which means that everything I say above may very well have been invalidated by more recent information.....) Regardless, it's fascinating stuff, and these fields of research are definitely in a ferment. Interesting times, so to speak....


----------



## Urien (Nov 18, 2006)

Time travel down the same time line seems improbable, as we would have probably met somebody from the future. Hence if it is possible the point at which one kills your grand father begins another time line, hence avoiding the paradox problem. 

I tend to have sympathies with J.D. on the frame concept of time, and it is our consciousness that shines like a light through each frame, thus illuminating it. 

An interesting question is why do we preceive time as only forward, most quantum physics equations work with time in either direction. 

This all tends towards the idea that we make reality, second by second we think it into existence. The theory (one of them anyway) being that the only "real" thing in the universe is consciousness.


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 19, 2006)

I just thought of something. Quite a few people think time goes in a circle (thats why clocks are round). If time goes round in a circle then you could travel into the future but the thing that your going to for example the birth of Christ is actually happening again but in a different time.

You never know...


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 19, 2006)

The thing is, time doesn't "go" anywhere. It doesn't move. We move through it (assuming it exists, which may not be the case). But the reason we think of time as a cycle is because of the cycle of day and night, and of the seasons, and the rhythm of our steps, our heartbeat (which we are aware of only on an unconscious level most of the time, but we're aware of it for all that, from before we're born probably) ... so many things in nature that do have a cyclical rhythm to them. But most especially the yearly round of the seasons and the alternation of day and night. However, this is an apparent connection that is just that -- apparent, not real. Time is not circular, nor does it flow, but our planet's revolution, and its orbit about the sun, make it appear so to us (or to our earliest ancestors, from whom we inherit the idea).


----------



## MadSpoon (Nov 19, 2006)

Maybe we ask wrong question ? I think that first we must define term time.
And to break edges in our mind ...


----------



## Majimaune (Nov 20, 2006)

Well moving through time is happening right now as I type this thing up but is it actually possible to "skip" something in time? I think thats what the orginal question was.

I think your right J.D.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 20, 2006)

Majimaune said:


> I just thought of something. Quite a few people think time goes in a circle (thats why clocks are round). If time goes round in a circle then you could travel into the future but the thing that your going to for example the birth of Christ is actually happening again but in a different time.
> 
> You never know...



Clocks are round 'cos we make 'em that way. If what you said was true calendars would be round as well and I know for a fact that they are rectangular.


----------



## Talysia (Nov 20, 2006)

I may not be qualified to answer a question like this, but I thought that time was a human concept.  The universe continues, but it was humans that gave the idea of time, probably because of the natural cycles of the Earth.
I don't know about travelling forward in time, maybe it will happen, maybe not, but it's true that you get a sense of going back in time when you set foot in a certain place.  A sense of the past through memories of its existence, rather than physically going back in time.
It reminded me of an oldish film, called Somewhere in Time, starring Christopher Reeve who tried to go back in time through similar means.  It may all be complete fantasy, but the concept of perception of the past and empathy - or anything stronger - of what happened appeals to me.


----------



## Joel007 (Nov 20, 2006)

We gave time a name, but that doesn't put us anywhere near being able to manipulate it. Most people only manage to travel through time at a rate of one day per day.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 20, 2006)

There are a number of physical theories that alow interaction in the opposite direction to standard; the thread cited earlier is one of the more probable ones. Firstly, no matter or energy is transferred, only information, so the conservation laws aren't touched (athough it would be possible to have particles travelling backwards in time without shaking them either; it's only discontinuities that bother us. The original H.G. Wells time machine, that existed in all intemediate timestrata, even if so diffusely that it didn't intereact, probably conserved quite adequately; it's merely the later models, hopping from eon to eon simal… whaterverously which give problems) Similarly, it requires a receiver, which means one cannot visit further back in time than the invention of the machine (explaining away the lack of a huge cheering aodience at, say, the crucifixion) It seems to me that the only way to get a time traveller, rather than a time _observer_(and the possibility that everything we say, do or possibly even thing is available to observers in the future is far more likely than that of physically moving matter into the past) into a previous period would be to send all the information about every atom, its position and enery state, bach to a receiver in the past, where he can be reconstructed from available materials; sort of teleportation with an added unknown.
The other thing about this theory is that it doesn't allow paradox; before the guy sets out he's read the journals that he's going to/has already written. Free will is an illusion caused by our inability to detect the rigid, unchanging four dimensional structure; no killing grandfathers.

There have been a number of recent alternate history stories involving inadvertent time displacement (surely the energies required are more likely due to a cosmic string cutting through a supernova than anything mankind is likely to master in the conceivable future) Storywise, this has the advantage you can't merely pop back and undo what you were going to had done just before you did, and paradoxes are negligible; conservationwise, if you move an equivalent mass forwards in time does the newly created universe end up with that much more matter/energy, or does the original, pre-transport, universe lack same (join us next week for more enthralling questions)     

Physics can't reject the possibility of the time travel common sense insists is ridiculous (physics doesn't listen to common sense much; too many things common sense has insisted upon have been _proved_ wrong, let alone those we're nearly sure are) and mathematics can prove anything given the correct postulates, but (perhaps fortunately) technology shows no signs of unscrewing the inscrutable and paradoctoring our existence in this ficton.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 14, 2006)

*Yes, but only forwards*



Majimaune said:


> I have been talking about this to some of my friends at school recently and we have come to this conclusion.
> 
> Time Travel... Is it possible?
> 
> ...


 
I have come up with several theories as to why it is not possible travel backwards in time.  I will explain how forwards is different after.

If one were to travel back in time, history would be changed simply by your merging with the earlier part of the time stream (if it exists), your mass would effect gravity ever so slightly, oxygen-CO2 functions, biological waste production, energy consumption and expenditure, and of course your knowledge will effect the future/present most of all, if you teach people the prinicples and theories and facts of today, you will eliminate from history most of the minds that the idea orriginated from, thus creating a time-stream branching or destroying this reality.

Similarly if the actions you caused in the past ment that you were not born or events did not happen to where you became the personality you currently are before you traveled back would lead to an infinite loop, causing the time-stream to warp erratically or to create an infinite braching of your arrival point in the past.

So, in conclusion traveling backwards in time should not be done if it is even possible, alternatively, instead of wracking my brain with the infinite possibilities of simply existing (meaning you calculate how EVERYTHING in the universe moves and acts to determine what could happen when you toss a pebble into a pond) I just  assume that attempts to travel backwards in time is fatal and your matter and whatnot are absolutely destroyed upon entering the time-space wormhole to the past.

Now, traveling to the future is easy, simply find a black hole or other super-dense mass, situate yourself and your ship or whatever you trevaled to the black hole in for a number of days, weeks, months, or years depending on when you want to emerge from temporal isolation and the mass of the black hole.  Viola, you're in the future.

Now, how this works is that gravity and acceleration are principally the same thing, you can travel at relativistic speeds or sit near an enormous mass, either way the effect is the same, time outside the distorted area will 'speed up' compared to you as they are experiencing less gravitational slowing than you.  To fully understand this in all its complexities, I suggest boning up on general and special relativity.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 14, 2006)

Joel007 said:


> We gave time a name, but that doesn't put us anywhere near being able to manipulate it. Most people only manage to travel through time at a rate of one day per day.


 
It is theorized that time and space are one and the same, that one could not exist without the other and vice versa.

Removing one dimension from our supposed 11 and that makes a very big equation to deal with, removing at most 10 and at least 8 dimensions is an even bigger equation.  So, with 11 dimensions woven together intrcately, just so, that our universe is how it is, it seems improbable that man should be able send something along one dimension without having to worry about the others.

What would happen if we were able to pull apart the weaving of dimensions that is the universe, how would it respond to being disassembled?

Further, just like our bodies are made of cells and all the smaller pieces that build upon each other like some vast and intricate universe in itself, what if we are pieces of pieces of pieces of something bigger?  If that something bigger is sentient, do we call it God?


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 14, 2006)

*Re: Yes, but only forwards*



Admiral Ryouhei said:


> I have come up with several theories as to why it is not possible travel backwards in time. I will explain how forwards is different after.
> 
> If one were to travel back in time, history would be changed simply by your merging with the earlier part of the time stream (if it exists), your mass would effect gravity ever so slightly, oxygen-CO2 functions, biological waste production, energy consumption and expenditure, and of course your knowledge will effect the future/present most of all, if you teach people the prinicples and theories and facts of today, you will eliminate from history most of the minds that the idea orriginated from, thus creating a time-stream branching or destroying this reality.
> 
> ...


 

That is not 100% correct....the control of light speed = control of time. The problem has always been the laws of our known physics. The missing piece to all of this is when we are not contained by earthly physics (this will come in time...just a matter of time). Time is layers (boundaries) and thus matter can occupy a specific layer...but not two layers at the same time. There is no evidence that one can alter the outcome of the present by going back in time. The only thing that possibly can happen is an influence via knowledge to a specific condition within that particular layer period (perhaps many different layer periods within one). Thus, only affecting one specific paradym not the entire layer. As for light speed our conventional means of propulsion can get us close to near light speed but not at light speed...the difference is the known physics. We simply do not have that knowledge as of yet. We may possess that knowledge 10,000 or more years from know (if you go by the theory of evolution). However, if you go by selective genetic manipulation, we should have that knoweldge soon...


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 14, 2006)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> It is theorized that time and space are one and the same, that one could not exist without the other and vice versa.
> 
> Removing one dimension from our supposed 11 and that makes a very big equation to deal with, removing at most 10 and at least 8 dimensions is an even bigger equation. So, with 11 dimensions woven together intrcately, just so, that our universe is how it is, it seems improbable that man should be able send something along one dimension without having to worry about the others.
> 
> ...


 
Admiral...Yes it's called God....your correct


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 14, 2006)

Disagreements with the previous post. 1. Our conventional means of propulsion can _not_ get us close to the speed of light. Not only do we have em vee squared (stupid computer can't do exponentials) conservation of energy to contend with, but em vee, conservation of momentum. Even if our reaction mass is expelled as photons, to get into the asymtotic part of the light speed curve would require ejecting nine tenths of our rest mass, and slowing down again nine tenths of the remainder. I can't think of anything of greater than atomic mass that you can say 
8yes, we nearly got that up to light speed; and even the small things we have got moving really fast, the reaction mass was a planet.
                        2 We may possess that knowledge 10,000 or more years from now. We may, but it won't be because of any evolutionary change. For that, 10,000 years is an eyeblink. I possess more knowledge than an ancient greek philosopher,but I do so because, between times, humanity has been amassing knowledge, because the dissemination and organisation of that knowledge has improved, and the effect is cumulative. Not because I'm any more intelligent, or capable of making inferences, than he. If mankind continues in its present mode, and information technology too, break-throughs are inevitable. And probably in considerably less time than you've stated, despite humans being no smarter (needless to say, it won't hurt if they are) Meme based evolution can advance several orders of magnitude faster than gene based.
The most convincing theories of time "travel" I've seen involve information transfer, with no matter or energy moving. This allows us to keep the conservation laws (big sigh of relief), about the only stable thing in physics. And even they don't nescessarily attack causality and allow for paradox: it could well be that the only reason you'r allowed to kill your grandfather is that you did.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Dec 15, 2006)

@_@ layers, like PB&J, I'm hungry now


----------



## Spartan27 (Dec 15, 2006)

chrispenycate said:


> Disagreements with the previous post. 1. Our conventional means of propulsion can _not_ get us close to the speed of light. Not only do we have em vee squared (stupid computer can't do exponentials) conservation of energy to contend with, but em vee, conservation of momentum. Even if our reaction mass is expelled as photons, to get into the asymtotic part of the light speed curve would require ejecting nine tenths of our rest mass, and slowing down again nine tenths of the remainder. I can't think of anything of greater than atomic mass that you can say
> 8yes, we nearly got that up to light speed; and even the small things we have got moving really fast, the reaction mass was a planet.
> 2 We may possess that knowledge 10,000 or more years from now. We may, but it won't be because of any evolutionary change. For that, 10,000 years is an eyeblink. I possess more knowledge than an ancient greek philosopher,but I do so because, between times, humanity has been amassing knowledge, because the dissemination and organisation of that knowledge has improved, and the effect is cumulative. Not because I'm any more intelligent, or capable of making inferences, than he. If mankind continues in its present mode, and information technology too, break-throughs are inevitable. And probably in considerably less time than you've stated, despite humans being no smarter (needless to say, it won't hurt if they are) Meme based evolution can advance several orders of magnitude faster than gene based.
> The most convincing theories of time "travel" I've seen involve information transfer, with no matter or energy moving. This allows us to keep the conservation laws (big sigh of relief), about the only stable thing in physics. And even they don't nescessarily attack causality and allow for paradox: it could well be that the only reason you'r allowed to kill your grandfather is that you did.


 
Crispy..again conservation laws? Do you think conservation laws apply to the universe? Finite beings can't do this. However, if we allow our selves to understand that fact, then we would progress.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 15, 2006)

Spartan27 said:


> Crispy..again conservation laws? Do you think conservation laws apply to the universe? Finite beings can't do this. However, if we allow our selves to understand that fact, then we would progress.


 
Spartan: Do you have any evidence to challenge them? The point being that, without such verifiable evidence, however fascinating an idea, your claim remains speculation, not science. On the other hand, if you do have evidence, please bring it in. I am quite serious in saying that it is something I'd be very interested in seeing, and I doubt that I'm alone in that.

As for your claim that "finite beings cannot do this" ... this implies an infinite being; and there we again step into the realm of faith or mysticism rather than science. All we have to go on is the very hard-earned knowledge accumulated over a very long time; what we'll find about things in the future only time will tell; but the idea that our knowledge is so shaky that it will be overthrown easily is questionable, to say the least. The more we've learned, the more solid our grounding has become. Modifications we'll see, yes; but major overturns, such as the laws of conservation overthrown ... that's a VERY dubious claim, to say the least.

I'm also curious about a phrase you used earlier: "... when we are not contained by earthly physics". That one seems quite dubious to me; it's as if you're setting aside Earth as somehow not a part of the universe, subject to the same laws -- that's how the phrase itself sounds, at least. If that is what you meant, I'm afraid you're 'way off beam there. While certain aspects are slightly different (our surface gravity is less than Saturn's and more than the moon's, for instance) the physics remain the same. (And, again, if you do have something to indicate otherwise, please share it. I _am _genuinely interested if that's the case!)


----------

