Time Machine will not be invented

[DaveC426913]

PEP states that each fermion has it's own unique state associated with it in space-time (singular).

You show me where it says otherwise, and says a fermion can exist in two states in space-time.

I don't disagree.

Now you show me how my two atoms, a foot apart, are in the same place.

 

[Ash Small]

I don't disagree.

Now you show me how my two atoms, a foot apart, are in the same place.

They are not in the same place, but they violate the space-time component of PEP.

PEP states that each fermion occupies it's own unique state in space-time (singular)

(if A occupies x, then B occupies y, A cannot occupy y if it occupies x anymore than A and B can occupy x at the same time.)

 

[DaveC426913]

They are not in the same place, but they violate the space-time component of PEP.

PEP states that each fermion occupies it's own unique state in space-time (singular)

The two atoms (actually, particles) do not violate this.

One particle is at [x y z t] while the other is at [x' y z t]. Those are, indeed, unique places in spacetime (singular). I'm really not sure why you are not getting this.

 

[pallidin]

Uh, I would assume that going back-in-time violates a whole host of contemporary theories.

 

[pallidin]

Look, we have a clue in reality.
The past is observationally possible, but NOT interactive.

 

[Time Machine]

Yes there is. Occam's Razor and the Scientific Method.

We don't suppose faeries and unicorns for the same reason.

Aren't parallel universes in the same realm as faeries and unicorns. I'm sure a clever mathematician could conjour some ammusing calculations. The only reason it was mentioned by me was to do with an earlier comment in the thread that made a humerous remark relating to parallel universe. It was quite a long time ago.

Any-one got anything to say about my comment that did involve time travel?

 

[JaredJames]

Am I the only one who can see the logic in DaveC's view?

The PEP may say that two particles cannot occupy the same space-time, but if particle A was at [x,y,z,t] and also at [x',y,z,t] it isn't in the same space-time location. So it doesn't violate the rule.

I literally know nothing regarding this topic, but I can see what DaveC is saying. So far, none of the counter-arguments address this and simply restate the same point over and over.

 

[DaveC426913]

So far, none of the counter-arguments address this and simply restate the same point over and over.

Yyyep.

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh, I would assume that going back-in-time violates a whole host of contemporary theories.

I don' t think so, no. None that I can think of.

I mean, time travel might end up violating some theories, and thus may finally not work, but I don't know of any theories that a priori rule it out.

 

[Time Machine]

I had actually been following the dialogue about fermions but having nothing to add to this conversation about "particle physics" apart from perhaps making the suggestion that you guys are in the wrong thread or pointing out the fact that whilst the Big Bang Theory is wildly popular it is to all intents and purposes only a concept in itself and an abstract one at that.
Not an input that would have been welcomed too much no doubt.

Dave, you have complained that input has been off-track concerning this thread yet you continue to talk to me about a flip parallel universe comment that I have repeatedly told you was not serious, have no interest in and has nothing to do with this thread other than some-one else had brought it up, when the choice was there to respond to comment that I made that is related to this thread of "time travel".
Dave, I do realize that my approach to physics is unconventional and that my use of language is unusual. I see no reason that this should invalidate my input. I can assure you that I have extremely valid reasons behind this fact. If you care to contact me privately then I would be happy to explain.

Getting back to time travel, incase any-one visiting this thread is interested in my input! It occurs to me that if a potential time traveler used slow time/gravity variables to travel through faster time/gravity variables, that it actually would indeed be possible to arrive back at the place of your journey's start in your own past. Obviously it is debatable as to whether or not this is physically possible. If not then potential time travelers would probably avoid such occurances happening in their calculations when mapping out their journey.
The benefits of the time travelers time going slow whilst time outside the craft is going quicker, apart from getting to your destination in less time, would mean that engine revs could be kept down in slower speeds affording a more fuel efficient journey.
The difficulties that I mentioned before concerning containing a gravity field:
Perhaps somewhere in the work of Thompson Townsend Brown there lies a clue to the answer. If the walls of the craft were electrically charged: in an inward direction with slow time/gravity variables, in an outward direction with fast time/gravity variables and cancelling out charges were directed at each other between the inside and the outside of the walls that stopped each field leaking into the other, then perhaps this problem could be overcome.

Any comment on time travel?

 

[ZapperZ]

At some point, a thread on this topic inevitably leads to posts that are highly speculative and violates our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that everyone had agreed to. If this thread does not get back to discussion using valid physics AND back up unusual claims with proper citation, this thread (and this topic) will be closed.

Zz.

 

[Ash Small]

The two atoms (actually, particles) do not violate this.

One particle is at [x y z t] while the other is at [x' y z t]. Those are, indeed, unique places in spacetime (singular). I'm really not sure why you are not getting this.

Ok Dave, one last time, If fermion A is at point (x,y,z) at time t it can't also be at point (x',y,z) at time t. PEP states that each fermion has it's own unique state at anyone point in time.

Please show me where you think PEP says that a fermion can occupy TWO STATES AT THE SAME TIME?

I have read and re-read PEP and and all it says is that each fermion has it's own unique state (singular) at anyone point in time.

 

[Time Machine]

It's a long time since we heard from the OP.

Perhaps he really meant that a Time Machine will not be invented because he is a Time Lord and has already invented one.

No doubt this is one of posts you are referring to Zapper Z. There is nothing in mine that violates any rules and there are no "Holy Cows" in theoretical physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

I had actually been following the dialogue about fermions but having nothing to add to this conversation about "particle physics" apart from perhaps making the suggestion that you guys are in the wrong thread...

It is highly relevant. The claim is that time travel of any form, would violate PEP. If true, this thread topic is stopped in its tracks. But Ash has not made his case on this one.

or pointing out the fact that... whilst the Big Bang Theory is wildly popular it is to all intents and purposes only a concept in itself and an abstract one at that.

This is not true. It is a well-established and accepted theory that is virtually uncontested by any competent scientist except in the details. Make no mistake, we understand the formation of our universe back to within microsceconds of its creation.

Dave, you have complained that input has been off-track concerning this thread yet you continue to talk to me about a flip parallel universe comment that I have repeatedly told you was not serious, have no interest in and has nothing to do with this thread other than some-one else had brought it up, when the choice was there to respond to comment that I made that is related to this thread of "time travel".

All right. Consider it dropped then.

Dave, I do realize that my approach to physics is unconventional and that my use of language is unusual. I see no reason that this should invalidate my input.

I can assure you that I have extremely valid reasons behind this fact. If you care to contact me privately then I would be happy to explain.

If you didn't want it discussed, you wouldn't have put it out there. By ptuting it out there, you are expecting it to be challenged. I'll assume you'ree retracting it. No prob.

Getting back to time travel, incase any-one visiting this thread is interested in my input! It occurs to me that if a potential time traveler used slow time/gravity variables to travel through faster time/gravity variables, that it actually would indeed be possible to arrive back at the place of your journey's start in your own past.

No. No matter how much you slow a car down, it will never be slow enough to arrive back home.

Time travel, OTOH, is a reversal of direction.

The benefits of the time travelers time going slow whilst time outside the craft is going quicker, apart from getting to your destination in less time, would mean that engine revs could be kept down in slower speeds affording a more fuel efficient journey.

...despite the fact that it's a one-way trip in time.

If you let 100 years go by while you take only 6 years to travel to Gliese 581, all your loved ones are dead forever.

The difficulties that I mentioned before concerning containing a gravity field:
Perhaps somewhere in the work of Thompson Townsend Brown there lies a clue to the answer. If the walls of the craft were electrically charged: in an inward direction with slow time/gravity variables, in an outward direction with fast time/gravity variables and cancelling out charges were directed at each other between the inside and the outside of the walls that stopped each field leaking into the other, then perhaps this problem could be overcome.

Any comment on time travel?

It is important to keep in mind that there is dilation in only one direction. You can slow time via GR but you cannot speed it up. Free space, away from massive bodies is the fastest time is going to travel. Moving into a gravity well will slow time for you, but there'e no counterpart. There is no flatter space or negative curvature.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok Dave, one last time, If fermion A is at point (x,y,z) at time t it can't also be at point (x',y,z) at time t. PEP states that each fermion has it's own unique state at anyone point in time.

Please show me where you think PEP says that a fermion can occupy TWO STATES AT THE SAME TIME?

Boy, you just really don't get this time travel concept do you?


Please show me how any object can be in two places at the same time. It can't. Right?


Your argument really has nothing to do with PEP. Look, I'll use the exact same argument on a macroscopic object.

By the definition of person - a person cannot be in two places at once. Right? That doesn't require PEP; it is just common sense. In every way meaningful, one object cannot be in two places at once. Period. PEP is smply a specious argument that applies to atomic particles and their states.

The point here is that PEP does not add anything to the discussion about uniqueness of objects. If an object cannot be in two places the same time, then it can't be in two places at the same time, PEP or no PEP. Full stop.



Now we add time travel into the mix. As soon as we allow the possibility of time travel it becomes obvious how one person can be in two places at the same time. It also becomes obvious how any particles can be in two places at the same time - if we allow for time travel. It also becomes obvious that PEP has nothing to say about - this because PEP - like all our other sans-time-travel statements - doesn't account for time travel. PEP (like all the rest of physics) assumes that one particle exists only once at any point in time.

But with the advent of time travel, that is now a false assumption. PEP is now inadequate to describe our new situation.

 

[Ash Small]

I had actually been following the dialogue about fermions but having nothing to add to this conversation about "particle physics" apart from perhaps making the suggestion that you guys are in the wrong thread or pointing out the fact that whilst the Big Bang Theory is wildly popular it is to all intents and purposes only a concept in itself and an abstract one at that.
Not an input that would have been welcomed too much no doubt.

Dave, you have complained that input has been off-track concerning this thread yet you continue to talk to me about a flip parallel universe comment that I have repeatedly told you was not serious, have no interest in and has nothing to do with this thread other than some-one else had brought it up, when the choice was there to respond to comment that I made that is related to this thread of "time travel".
Dave, I do realize that my approach to physics is unconventional and that my use of language is unusual. I see no reason that this should invalidate my input. I can assure you that I have extremely valid reasons behind this fact. If you care to contact me privately then I would be happy to explain.

Getting back to time travel, incase any-one visiting this thread is interested in my input! It occurs to me that if a potential time traveler used slow time/gravity variables to travel through faster time/gravity variables, that it actually would indeed be possible to arrive back at the place of your journey's start in your own past. Obviously it is debatable as to whether or not this is physically possible. If not then potential time travelers would probably avoid such occurances happening in their calculations when mapping out their journey.
The benefits of the time travelers time going slow whilst time outside the craft is going quicker, apart from getting to your destination in less time, would mean that engine revs could be kept down in slower speeds affording a more fuel efficient journey.
The difficulties that I mentioned before concerning containing a gravity field:
Perhaps somewhere in the work of Thompson Townsend Brown there lies a clue to the answer. If the walls of the craft were electrically charged: in an inward direction with slow time/gravity variables, in an outward direction with fast time/gravity variables and cancelling out charges were directed at each other between the inside and the outside of the walls that stopped each field leaking into the other, then perhaps this problem could be overcome.

Any comment on time travel?

i agree that using relative speeds and gravity it is possible to slow time down, but this is not the same as time travel.

There is an argument that anti-matter travels backwards through time, but when it meets it's corresponding matter both are annialated, releasing energy.

While you could, theoretically, set out in a spacecraft on a ten year trip and arrive back here after 50 years had passed here, essentially traveling into the future (or your own future relative to others who stayed here) you could not arrive back here before you left.

It could possibly be argued that 'anything that travels backwards through time is antimatter' and will therefore be annhialated as soon as it comes into contact with matter, which travels forwards in time.

(All the above is based on accepted scientific theory)

 

[DaveC426913]

There is an argument that anti-matter travels backwards through time...

An argument, yes. For virtual particles.

It could possibly be argued that 'anything that travels backwards through time is antimatter'

This does not follow. If all dogs are mammals, are all mammals dogs?

(All the above is based on accepted scientific theory)

Please reference this accepted scientific theory.

 

[Ash Small]

Boy, you just really don't get this time travel concept do you?


Please show me how any object can be in two places at the same time. It can't. Right?


Your argument really has nothing to do with PEP. Look, I'll use the exact same argument on a macroscopic object.

By the definition of person - a person cannot be in two places at once. Right? That doesn't require PEP; it is just common sense. In every way meaningful, one object cannot be in two places at once. Period. PEP is smply a specious argument that applies to atomic particles and their states.

The point here is that PEP does not add anything to the discussion about uniqueness of objects. If an object cannot be in two places the same time, then it can't be in two places at the same time, PEP or no PEP. Full stop.



Now we add time travel into the mix. As soon as we allow the possibility of time travel it becomes obvious how one person can be in two places at the same time. It also becomes obvious how any particles can be in two places at the same time - if we allow for time travel. It also becomes obvious that PEP has nothing to say about - this because PEP - like all our other sans-time-travel statements - doesn't account for time travel. PEP (like all the rest of physics) assumes that one particle exists only once at any point in time.

But with the advent of time travel, that is now a false assumption. PEP is now inadequate to describe our new situation.

Dave, you macroscopic analogy of PEP does hols, as we are comprised mostly of fermions ourselves (per unit mass), therefore PEP is relevant.

If we were to travel back in time, the point that we travel back to (and all points that we pass through on the way) would already contain fermions (even space isn't a complete vacuum).

We would be violating PEP for a second time if our fermions were occupying the same space as other fermions.

The only way to avoid this would be to move those other fermions (the other 'matter') out of the way first, which would involve 'changing the past'.

Before you can argue that time travel may be possible, you first have to suggest a viable mechanism, based on scientificly sound principles, by which we can achieve this, and change history after the event.

How would you attemt to overcome these obstacles?

 

[Ash Small]

An argument, yes. For virtual particles.


This does not follow. If all dogs are mammals, are all mammals dogs?



Please reference this accepted scientific theory.

Dave, I'll leave aside the points we seem unable to agree on for now, and stick to the 'common ground'.

(BTW, antimatter isn't 'virtual particles', it has been observed and is real)

If the only thing we know of that travels bacwards in time is anti-matter, then it follows that any time machine capable of traveling into the past MUST be constructed purely from anti-matter.

While this may be theoretically possible, in practice, for obvious reasons, it is impractical/impossible, as it would be annhialated, along with any matter it came into contact with.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, you macroscopic analogy of PEP does hols, as we are comprised mostly of fermions ourselves (per unit mass), therefore PEP is relevant.

That's kind of my point. It's not that PEP rules out things being in two places at once, it's simply our conventional non-time-traveling physics. Once we posit time travel, we have to re-examine these assumptions about two places at once.

If we were to travel back in time, the point that we travel back to (and all points that we pass through on the way) would already contain fermions (even space isn't a complete vacuum).

We would be violating PEP for a second time if our fermions were occupying the same space as other fermions.

This argument is silly. By your logic, no atom can ever move, since to do so, it might "occupy the same space" as an adjacent atom.

Again, you do not understand PEP. PEP means that two electrons in the same atoms cannot both occupy the same state. It does not say that one whole atom pushing another atom out of its way somehow constitutes these two atoms occupying the same space and being in the same state.

You're really going off the reservation now.

Before you can argue that time travel may be possible, you first have to suggest a viable mechanism, based on scientificly sound principles

No I don't. That is an engineering issue, far down the road. We first posit that time travel may be possible in pirinciple. We then try to determine if there are any existing laws that prohibit it (the is where we are in the discussion right now). So far, we know of none.

 

[Ash Small]

That's kind of my point. It's not that PEP rules out things being in two places at once, it's simply our conventional non-time-traveling physics. Once we posit time travel, we have to re-examine these assumptions about two places at once.


This argument is silly. By your logic, no atom can ever move, since to do so, it might "occupy the same space" as an adjacent atom.

Again, you do not understand PEP. PEP means that two electrons in the same atoms cannot both occupy the same state. It does not say that one whole atom pushing another atom out of its way somehow constitutes these two atoms occupying the same space and being in the same state.

You're really going off the reservation now.



No I don't. That is an engineering issue, far down the road. We first posit that time travel may be possible in pirinciple. We then try to determine if there are any existing laws that prohibit it (the is where we are in the discussion right now). So far, we know of none.

Dave, here is a quote from the wikipedia article on PEP. This conclusively proves that I am correct here.

"In one dimension, not only fermions, but also bosons can obey the exclusion principle. A one dimensional Bose gas with delta function repulsive interactions of infinite strength is equivalent to a gas of free fermions. The reason for this is that in one dimension, exchange of particles requires that they pass through each other, and for infinitely strong repulsion, this cannot happen."

Time is one dimensional, so nothing can travel through time. Pauli clearly states that.

PEP clearly states that time travel is impossible.

The full article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

(I've already provided this link in my first post on the subject, If you'd read it you would already be aware of the above quote.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, here is a quote from the wikipedia article on PEP. This conclusively proves that I am correct here.

"In one dimension... bosons can obey the exclusion principle. A one dimensional Bose gas with delta function repulsive interactions of infinite strength is equivalent to a gas of free fermions. The reason for this is that in one dimension, exchange of particles requires that they pass through each other, and for infinitely strong repulsion, this cannot happen."

Time is one dimensional, so nothing can travel through time. Pauli clearly states that.

Nonsense. It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Once again you are using an "all dogs are mammals therefore all mammals are dogs" argument. There is no way you could understand what the quote was saying and still come to that conclusion logically.

x (of xyz) is only one dimension too. Next you'll be telling me that objects cannot travel through x. The whole point of spacetime is that it is freedom in all 4 dimensions simultaneously. Two particles at the same x coordinate can certainly coexist if they are not at the same y coordinate. For two particles to be "in the same place at the same time" all four coodinates must be the same.

You are really burning credibility now. You should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[Ash Small]

Nonsense. It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Once again you are using an "all dogs are mammals therefore all mammals are dogs" argument. There is no way you could understand what the quote was saying and still come to that conclusion logically.

x (of xyz) is only one dimension too. Next you'll be telling me that objects cannot travel through x. The whole point of spacetime is that it is freedom in all 4 dimensions simultaneously. Two particles at the same x coordinate can certainly coexist if they are not at the same y coordinate. For two particles to be "in the same place at the same time" all four coodinates must be the same.

You are really burning credibility now. You should have quit while you were ahead.

Dave, One question.

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point (x,y,z) at the time you arrive in the past?

(Or, for that matter, at any point in time en-route)

Unless you can ensure this, my reasoning above still holds.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, One question.

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point (x,y,z) at the time you arrive in the past?

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point xyz when you arrive at the cottage in your car?

Or are you going to insist that it is impossible for your car to move into the space occupied by other atoms near your cottage? Are your car atoms and the air atoms going to threaten to be co-incident in spacetime, meaning your car will not move? (No, you're not.)

Unless you can ensure this, my reasoning above still holds.

Your reasoning was about PEP. I'm glad you've finally abandoned this, it was fruitless.


Now we are simply down to an engineering aspect as to how time travel might be implemented, and how we might insert an object in a past time. Who knows?

The point was simply that - whether or not there are loads of implementation issues - we have yet to find a principle that excludes time travel.

 

[Ash Small]

How do you ensure that nothing else is at point xyz when you arrive at the cottage in your car?

The simple answer to that is that my car doesn't travel through time.

I will concede that my car will push air molecules, insects, rabbits, etc. out of the way, but it won't push larger vehicles, trees, buildings out of the way.

OK, Dave, I guess I'll have to concede that you can't (hypothetically) travel backwards in time without altering the past, because whatever was at (x,y,z) before you travel there will have to be pushed out of the way.

If you change the past you change the present, so by traveling into the past you will alter reality at the time you left the present.

This raises a different set of problems.

 

[Magnethos]

Possibly not, but there are some theories to look at first.

Possibly time travel won't be invented never. But I've read some different theories about "pseudoscience".

I think to travel into time, you don't need to go faster than light. Time travel means to dematerialize into this space-time continuum, travel in the hyperspace and materialize in the selected time, and in the selected physical reality.
The first thing to understand is to know how to materialize/dematerialize matter. That means that you need to understand alchemy (unconventional chemistry). Once you understand how to do this, then you can alter finite matter in a specific space-time continuum. In some texts have been documented the possibility to do this using some kind of non-hertzian waves (not electromagnetic energy). In pseudoscience texts it's very know that other kind of electrical manifestation exists. With that non electromagnetic waves you need to know how to interact with matter.

This thing can be proved with a simple idea. You can build a device to measure the resonance properties of materials, and then place a material between an electrical arc. After discharging some electrical energy, then you can "Scan" the material and look if some change has been made (some "transmutation").

Once you understand how to affect matter via electrical waves, you need to understand about time. You need to know that the space-time is a continuum, not an emptiness. All the universe is full of a non-electromagnetic energy. That kind of energy is electron deficient, it means that there is not electron flow. There is a sub-electronic particle that have very different names.
I have some books of an Italian man that build a device to read the acoustic phenomena recorded in materials. He explains that all matter has memory to record past events. He used some electrical equipment and demonstrated that he can "play" the information that was recorded in that stone (or other materials). So, if the physical matter has memory... Why not the ether has memory too? The ether is a chemical compound that is electron deficient. It means that he has not electrons, and it's a gas lighter than Hydrogen, because its atomic number is less than 1. For that reason it's called "Virtual Chemical Compound", since virtual means "massless".

So, if we would able to read the data that was recorded in the ether... we can materialize matter in other time, since we can read and affect time at a distance.

Of course, all this theory is pure hypothesis and it's non proven. But it's only a suggestion...

 

[JaredJames]

If you change the past you change the present, so by traveling into the past you will alter reality at the time you left the present.

There are a number of theories which negate this possibility.

Multiple dimensions and the whole "everything has already happened so whatever you do doesn't change anything" (can't remember the name for that one).

 

[Magnethos]

There are a number of theories which negate this possibility.

Multiple dimensions and the whole "everything has already happened so whatever you do doesn't change anything" (can't remember the name for that one).

I think the same. There are multiple spaces, so anyone can travel through time or through present but in different realities. The universe is running an extremely large amount of multiple realities at the same time.
It's like a world of possibilities. In the present, we're affecting the direction of each reality we're traveling to.
I mean, each little change in this present, affects the next "space frame" we're traveling to.

We're living in a space-reference but we can travel to other space-references, in the present and in other times. Only if the correct characteristics are given and you travel to an exact past space-reference, then could be possible that you affect this space-reference. But if you travel to other past space-reference, then nothing will happen in this space-present.

 

[Time Machine]

The original question was:

"Time machine will not be invented. we will never travel in time, not future, not past.

Why?
Etc.."

I will concur that in your present avenue of approach to time travel that it is highly relevant whether a fermion can be in two places at the same time.
I do believe that with a slight perspective adjustment in the way of thinking about time travel itself, that other methods can be considered and that even if Ash proves (good luck with that) a violation of PEP, that perhaps time can be traveled without the need for anyone to be in two places at the same time...

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is the best theory on the market and also very well funded.

Other not so well funded projects are probably not acceptably cited and therefore shall not be mentioned again. However on the basis that time travel itself is a purely speculative topic, I feel that I am not out of line in speculating that if gravity could be manipulated, that a time travel of sorts may be theoretically possible.

Your concerns, Dave, for the return journey are logical. I'm not seeing a way round this actually. Perhaps this is what puts off the OP's theoretical potential time traveling visitors from making the journey.

Thank you Ash for agreeing that it is (I think he did actually mean) "theoretically" possible to slow time using relative speeds and gravity.

Read your hypothesis Mognethos. Thinking on that...

 

[Brin]

While I'm done arguing since I wanted to pull my hair out (I <3 DaveC), I thought ANYONE interested in a serious and reasonable discussion of time travel might find the following philosophy of physics article interesting:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a brilliant source for discussions about these kinds of things. These guys are the experts.

 

[Magnethos]

Brin
Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works. People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.
So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...
In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

These kind of paraphysics include:
Quantum electrodynamics, vorticular physics, quantum numerology, vibratory chemistry, hyperdimensional physics, unified field theories, etc...
Another obstacle is that is very difficult to find information about these fields. The little I know, I have learned reading books in 5 different languages since 1920 to the actuality. And I have found very little amount of books. And you need to know about chemistry, physics, electrical engineering...
Almost an impossible task to achieve.

The only way is to read all kind of things with an open mind, get the points in common that the information has and put in practice very simple experiments. The only experiment I've proposed, is to interact with matter using non-electromagnetic waves, aka pure potential waves.
With this experimentation, it could be possible to learn how to affect matter with electrical currents. And, understand than materialization and dematerialization could be possible.
I've also some books in Italian that explains how to access to the memory of solid objects, reading past events.

 

[Studiot]

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works.

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

 

[pallidin]

Time travel, to the past, seems wholly plausible if considered as being only observational.

 

[Magnethos]

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.
I know, for example that time travel can also be achieved using non physical matter in the astral plane.

I will look at those post in a few hours, because I need to leave right now.

 

[Studiot]

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.