Time Machine will not be invented

[DaveC426913]

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.

I don't see where you're having difficulty. Yes, time is as continuous as any of the spatial dimensions. My car, headed North along Hwy 400 is going from [y t] to [y' t']. I can easily move it smoothly from [y' t'] back to [y t''] if I want. (I add the t > t' > t'' element simply for completeness since it can't remain stationary in the t dimension.)

By analogy, my stationary car (and everything else) is going from [x y t] to [x y t']. Why would I not be able to move it smoothly from [y t'] back to, say [y' t]? (In this case, I translate it through y so it does not end up on top of itself.)

No beads.

 

[Studiot]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

My car sits on my driveway, very much stationary. It traverses the t dimension constantly, but none of the others.

EDIT: before anyone says "but your car is moving because the earth/galaxy etc is, let's take it as a fixed, completely stationary point.

 

[Studiot]

constantly

What forever?

 

[JaredJames]

What forever?

Does time stop?

 

[Studiot]

Does time stop?

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

 

[JaredJames]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant. The matter/energy always exists, just in a different form.

If the car doesn't move in the x,y,z frames, it still moves through t. On basic principle, if a time machines were possible, why would you not be able to move backwards through t instead of forwards without moving the other three (or at least only enough to compensate so you don't run into the car again)?

Anyone seen the film The Time Machine? The guy builds a time machine and it shows him moving through time (forward or back) with the machine staying completely stationary all except time. (They ignored 'collisions' with other objects). That is the sort of thing myself (and DaveC I believe) is referring to.

 

[Studiot]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by this. Just because you don't appreciate the point, doesn't give you the right to declare it irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry; I've gotten lost. What exactly is the problem again?

 

[Magnethos]

I know for some people the next information would be irrelevant. Check the next video, of a scientist explaining what is time.
Remember, it's non-oficially accepted, but this other version to ear to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmjMVXO506A&feature=related"

Start in 5:50, before nothing is very important.

Update #1

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.

There would be another option that we need to look at.
We can have different types of "time travel", and I think the time axis would be more than 1.
When saying about time travel, we usually think about selecting a portion of the X, Y, Z (space entity in a reference) and sending it backward or forward in time.
But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

@magenthos?
So you are saying our time dimension is a bivector produced by a more complicated physical entity or set of entities?

 

[Magnethos]

Studiot
Something like that, yes. Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.
I have to read more about that. I can think something about that, but just right now I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.

Not sure what you mean here I have never heard of this.

For those who are interested, Wiki give a good exposition of Bi vectors.

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

Nevertheless none of this affects what I had to say or my analogies.

 

[DaveC426913]

But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

You could speed up an object (cat gets old), you could slow down an object (cat is in stasis), but you could never reverse time this way - you could never "make the cat get younger" - even in principle.

Consider the cat's memories as one example. Let's pretend you put the cat in your time chamber and switch it on. The cat is still seeing the walls of the test chamber, which means it is still moving forward in time - new things being sensed new memories are being implanted in its brain. It's brain is growing, just like its body is.

In order for the cat to be traveling backward through time, it would have to be experiencing everything in reverse - it is pulled out of the time box, food is pulled from its mouth, it is put back in its cage, where it sucks its urine back into its body. The cat's memories get younger even as its body gets younger.

Even if the cat in the chamber is moving backward through time, how can this happen? A half hour ago, it was stretched out to its full length, sleeping under its favourite smelly blanket. The chamber is only a foot long. How can the cat be in the chamber, having moved back a half hour (and therefore back to sleeping, and under its fuzzy blanket that it can smell) if its new space does not accommodate everything it was expereincing?



Time travel in the sense of speeding up and slowing down time is pretty straightforward - it can be done with SR and GR tricks.

No, when people speak of time travel, they are almost always talking about moving backward in time.

 

[JDługosz]

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

Your idea, interesting for a bad Sci-Fi movie as an unusual twist on the idea, doesn't actually make sense.

Imagine the example done with a salt crystal. You say you move the "birth" and "death" positions of the salt crystal to new locations. But, why does the time machine care about your concept of the crystal being "the thing" to move? The atoms existed before they came together to form that crystal. The "birth" has no physical meaning. The sodium atoms, for example, were in the ocean, then underground, then an ocean again, then part of a cell, etc. Does the entire world-line of each sodium atom get so-translated?

Well, what about the "birth" of the atom? It was forged in a star out of primordial hydrogen and electrons. Do all those particles get translated too?

 

[Studiot]

You say you move the "birth" and "death" positions of the salt crystal to new locations.

And every temporal (or spatial) point in between.

But, why does the time machine care about your concept of the crystal being "the thing" to move?

Because that is the defined object to be moved. If I pick a sugar cube out of the sugar bowl and put it in my tea (spatial movement) I do not care that this sugar was once sap in a plant or a liquid in a sugar factory tank or that it touches the side of the bowl or other sugar cubes.

But I still move the whole cube, not a part of it.

Consider this experiment.
I have a stack of blocks on the table.
I remove one of them and place it by the side of the stack. ( a spatial movement )

If it is the top one there is no further disturbance in the universe (spatial consequences)
If it is the bottom one the whole pile comes tumbling down and there are spatial cause and effect consequences, because there are blocks depending upon the bottom one, but not the top one, for support.

There seems to be an argument which runs that a temporal movement of the block will create a paradox ( temporal consequences) therefore time travel is impossible.

I am simply saying that if a block is moved in time or space there may be cause and effect consequences. However the time axis seems to be jam packed full, compared to the space axes where it may be possible to arrange movement without consequences. Perhaps we could posit a totally isolated block that could be moved in time with no effect on the rest of the universe?

 

[Ash Small]

And every temporal (or spatial) point in between.



Because that is the defined object to be moved. If I pick a sugar cube out of the sugar bowl and put it in my tea (spatial movement) I do not care that this sugar was once sap in a plant or a liquid in a sugar factory tank or that it touches the side of the bowl or other sugar cubes.

But I still move the whole cube, not a part of it.

Consider this experiment.
I have a stack of blocks on the table.
I remove one of them and place it by the side of the stack. ( a spatial movement )

If it is the top one there is no further disturbance in the universe (spatial consequences)
If it is the bottom one the whole pile comes tumbling down and there are spatial cause and effect consequences, because there are blocks depending upon the bottom one, but not the top one, for support.

There seems to be an argument which runs that a temporal movement of the block will create a paradox ( temporal consequences) therefore time travel is impossible.

I am simply saying that if a block is moved in time or space there may be cause and effect consequences. However the time axis seems to be jam packed full, compared to the space axes where it may be possible to arrange movement without consequences. Perhaps we could posit a totally isolated block that could be moved in time with no effect on the rest of the universe?

This is the pont I was trying to make using PEP, Studiot.

Every particle has it's place in the universe and in history. If anything went back in time it would go back to where it was at that time.

If one were to travel back in time one would not be aware of it, as the future would not have happened yet.

 

[Magnethos]

I like very much the theory, but I have a question...
Does anyone start trying some kind of electronic test? I say you that because I have some books (some of them very old and very rare), that describes theories about the matter, time, etc...
My question is if someone want to collaborate with me into replicating these experiments and working together in the development of the devices.

The first experiment would be a device to alter matter using radiations. Basically it consists in a non-hertzian wave generator (potential waves transformer), a circuit and a computer program to measure the composition of the object through resonant properties, and a "spark gap" to put between the object we want to be irradiated. This is absolutely experimental and it requires some knowledge in the electronic field.

 

[DaveC426913]

This completely fails to grasp the very concept of time travel.

Every particle has it's place in the universe and in history.

This is an utterly philosophical belief of choice, bereft of any physics-esque teeth.

It is also tautological. 'Time travel is impossible because I've defined it in a way that says time travel is impossible.'

If anything went back in time it would go back to where it was at that time.

Why? Time is a dimension. I can go from y to y' and back to y again. We are simply talking about going from t to t' and back to t again. No one said x or z have to remain fixed in either case.

If one were to travel back in time one would not be aware of it, as the future would not have happened yet.

That is not time travel.

If one goes somehere, by definition, one takes one's mind with one.

Consider the analogy to traveling back in space. If I go to the cottage, do I only have with me the things I brought last time I came back from the cottage? No. A change in direction does not imply an undoing of the previous direction. This trip to the cottage is with the current me. I have new luggage in my trunk and new tires on my car.

As it is with time travel, I travel in time, meaning I bring all my current thoughts with me.

 

[Ash Small]

This completely fails to grasp the very concept of time travel.



This is an utterly philosophical belief of choice, bereft of any physics-esque teeth.

It is also tautological. 'Time travel is impossible because I've defined it in a way that says time travel is impossible.'


Why? Time is a dimension. I can go from y to y' and back to y again. We are simply talking about going from t to t' and back to t again. No one said x or z have to remain fixed in either case.


That is not time travel.

If one goes somehere, by definition, one takes one's mind with one.

Consider the analogy to traveling back in space. If I go to the cottage, do I only have with me the things I brought last time I came back from the cottage? No. A change in direction does not imply an undoing of the previous direction. This trip to the cottage is with the current me. I have new luggage in my trunk and new tires on my car.

As it is with time travel, I travel in time, meaning I bring all my current thoughts with me.

Dave, I appreciate the points you make, but consider this:

If you travel from (x,y,z,t) to (x',y',z',t'), you pass through every point on the x-axis between x and x', similarly for the y,z and t axes.

If you then take a different route back to (x,y,z,t), you again pass through every point on each axis between (x',y',z',t') and (x,y,z,t).

When traveling along the t axis you either get older or younger, depending on your direction.

You cannot travel along the time axis in either direction without your age changing.

If you are getting older you are traveling forwards in time, not backwards.

 

[DaveC426913]

When traveling along the t axis you either get older or younger, depending on your direction.

You cannot travel along the time axis in either direction without your age changing.

This is not true.


If I travel West 10 miles, then East 8 miles, I personally have traveled 18 miles (and so has every aspect of my car), even if to an outside observer it appears I have only traveled 2. (The observer does not see gross distance and duration of trip, observer only sees net result).

If I travel 10 years into the future (at 1 year per year, like everyone else does), then travel 8 years back into the past (at 1 year per year), I will be 18 years older, not 2.

So that even if I travel 8 years back into the past taking only 8 seconds instead of 8 years to do so, I personally am now 10 years+8 seconds older.

 

[Ash Small]

This is not true.


If I travel West 10 miles, then East 8 miles, I personally have traveled 18 miles (and so has every aspect of my car), even if to an outside observer it appears I have only traveled 2. (The observer does not see gross distance and duration of trip, observer only sees net result).

If I travel 10 years into the future (at 1 year per year, like everyone else does), then travel 8 years back into the past (at 1 year per year), I will be 18 years older, not 2.

So that even if I travel 8 years back into the past taking only 8 seconds instead of 8 years to do so, I personally am now 10 years+8 seconds older.

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

If you travel 10 years into the future then 8 years into the past you will only be two years older.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

 

[Time Machine]

Quote from Dave
...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.
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.[/QUOTE]

Having given this some thought, I think that according to what you have said above that there may be the possibility of a return journey.

I will re-itterate my idea in the interests of this posts coherency...

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, I can see that "a" concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time may be created IF gravity could be controlled.
When traveling in very fast time/gravity variables, such as found in outer space, in a slow time/gravity controlled craft, to spell it out, your time would be happening at a much slower rate than time outside the craft.
On the basis that there is no "flatter space" or "negative curvature", could the possibility of an all the way round trip exist?
If your time on the craft were set at a slower rate than Earth's time and the rate, or rates, that time happens at in space were known, a clever mathematician could theoretically navigate the craft in a "round trip" back to Earth not long after it's departure without the need for anything to be in two places at the same time and one's loved one's would still be alive.
The crafts speed would be a factor in these calculations.

There is of course the considerable problem of controlling gravity. As my input to such a discussion would be zero, I realize that it would be unfair of me to ask anyone else to embark in such and will now leave the subject alone.

 

[Time Machine]

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.

I whole-heartedly agree with you statement above and would like to add:
Early man encountered many round things before a slight change in perception and perspective in the way of looking at these things brought about the advent of the wheel.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

Do you know what displacement is in comparison to distance travelled? If I run five miles to work every morning and five miles home every evening, after a week I will have traveled 50 miles in distance, however I will have a net displacement of 0 miles.

If you travel 10 years into the future then 8 years into the past you will only be two years older.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

If you travel within a time machine, your own personal timeline isn't affected by the changes in time around you.

If you have a time machine and travel 8 years back. Everything outside the time machine will become 8 years younger, everything inside remains at their current age plus the journey time. This is the concept you aren't grasping here. This is what people mean when they say time travel (reference: any movie involving time travel).

 

[Time Machine]

If you travel within a time machine, your own personal timeline isn't affected by the changes in time around you.

If you have a time machine and travel 8 years back. Everything outside the time machine will become 8 years younger, everything inside remains at their current age plus the journey time. This is the concept you aren't grasping here. This is what people mean when they say time travel (reference: any movie involving time travel).

Personally I think the field is wide open for all kinds of time travel. Using a (theoretical if only gravity could be controlled) slowing of time in the craft, one could control how much older one became on the journey.

 

[JaredJames]

Personally I think the field is wide open for all kinds of time travel. Using a (theoretical if only gravity could be controlled) slowing of time in the craft, one could control how much older one became on the journey.

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

 

[Time Machine]

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

O.K. You got me there. The definition was indeed a "Time Machine" and from the OP as well.
I shall busy myself now with trying to figure out how to "create time."
Don't expect a timely answer on that one.

 

[Time Machine]

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

No change on the "creating time" project, but just to ask did you actually read my method of time travel post? Because what I was suggesting (not withstanding the considerable gravity control problem) was that one's age would stay at the same rate or perhaps (taking into consideration intensity of gravity survival rate) slightly slower while everything else went past very quickly in fast time/gravity variables, out in space.

 

[JaredJames]

No change on the "creating time" project, but just to ask did you actually read my method of time travel post? Because what I was suggesting (not withstanding the considerable gravity control problem) was that one's age would stay at the same rate or perhaps (taking into consideration intensity of gravity survival rate) slightly slower while everything else went past very quickly in fast time/gravity variables, out in space.

I haven't, if you point me to it I'll certainly have a gander at it.

I must say, the whole "body ageing normally whilst time goes very fast outside the craft" premise is basically traveling really fast. No gravity involved.

If I travel at 0.99C, time to me would pass 'normally' and I would age as per usual. It would take circa 8 years to reach proxima centuri and come back. However, to those who remained on Earth it would have been significantly longer. So, put simply, I aged (and lived) 'normally' wrt my time frame, and it went quickly outside of the ship (from my perspective).

 

[Time Machine]

I haven't, if you point me to it I'll certainly have a gander at it.

I must say, the whole "body ageing normally whilst time goes very fast outside the craft" premise is basically traveling really fast. No gravity involved.

If I travel at 0.99C, time to me would pass 'normally' and I would age as per usual. It would take circa 8 years to reach proxima centuri and come back. However, to those who remained on Earth it would have been significantly longer. So, put simply, I aged (and lived) 'normally' wrt my time frame, and it went quickly outside of the ship (from my perspective).

It's the last post on page 8.

 

[JaredJames]

It's the last post on page 8.

 

[Time Machine]

Oh, I don't see why you should be grumpy. I have included these links about time and gravity. If you don't get where I'm coming from, I won't push my point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58548.aspx#ixzz11ulsv9o7

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=24201

 

[pallidin]

Hate to tell you this, but, distortions in time/space are possible, yet this in no way provides for "time travel"
It's a local event ONLY.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

Really? Ask your jogger friends how many miles they've jogged - how many miles of jogging they have actually experienced in that two weeks.

Do you think they will say 0? Or do you think they will say 140? You tell me.

Time travel is about what the individual doing the traveling experiences on their journey.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

See above.