Time travel

[ericc]

I have a problem with Steven Hawking’s suggestion that if time travel were possible there would be loads of tourist from the future here already.
There could not be any from the past as a time travel has not been invented yet.
As far as the future is concerned there has not been any yet to come back from. How can you touch the future unless you are there. At that stage it becomes the present. We can only be there together.
Or can someone explain why my thinking is wrong

 

[Classical Motion]

It's like star travel. It's impossible. Time can not be changed.....with velocity or anything else. Time and length never change. ALL star light has an absolute velocity. Because time and length do not change.

If the light of 13 BLY ago has the same velocity, then time and length were the same at that time too.

If one could find light with a different velocity, then one might have some evidence of these science fiction theories.

And since no one knows the dynamic of mass/light interaction, there is a good chance that we have measurement error. Especially with high rates of change motion. Such as light or spinning particles.

The goal in the study of motion is to remove all probability, all randomness, all chaos....... from it.

These are man made veils, and after you remove them, the only thing that remains is understanding.

 

[Atlan0001]

I have a problem with Steven Hawking’s suggestion that if time travel were possible there would be loads of tourist from the future here already.
There could not be any from the past as a time travel has not been invented yet.
As far as the future is concerned there has not been any yet to come back from. How can you touch the future unless you are there. At that stage it becomes the present. We can only be there together.
Or can someone explain why my thinking is wrong

How far in coordinate point SPACETIME (light-time) is the Moon away from the Earth? Mars ? Jupiter? The Centauri System? The Andromeda Galaxy? The galaxy we've so far discovered nearest the farthest horizon in the observable universe?

Every point of every place I've asked about above is a relative point of past history (t=+1) relative to the Earth (t=0). And to get to the unobserved, unobservable reality of all those places (t=0), you are going to have to time travel past histories' past light cone (t=+1) alongside and through future histories' future light cone (t=-1) to reach the unobserved reality (t=0) of any of them whatsoever!

And, as you do, accelerating forward ((t=+1) (t=-1)) in time to the unobserved reality (t=0) of any of them, you will be displacing the reality of Earth (t=0) into the past histories past light cone (t=+1) . . . anywhere from a split second in Earth's past (t=+1) in coordinate point SPACETIME to 13-billion plus years . . . or about 8-billion years (t=+1) before Earth supposedly existed (t=+1), no matter how short (t=-1) or long (t=-1) a time by ship's clock (t=0) it would take to get there (t=0) to the reality (spontaneous concurrent REALTIME (t=0)) of the place in the universe traveling the past histories' past light cone (t=+1) alongside and through the future histories' future light cone (t=-1). That is the reality of time travel via space travel.

There isn't a cosmological physicist that I've read, including my favorite read Stephen Hawking, that knew or knows how to place a traveler back in the past histories' past light cone of a destination, any destination at all, so to travel it and the future histories' future light cone, both at one and the same time. so to reach the offset in time unobserved unobservable reality of any destination in space! And even without self-powered flight, a constant of acceleration, it will be a matter of matter of acceleration/deceleration (sic) to some degree to even move from point A to point B.

 

[billslugg]

We can look into the past but not go there.
We can go into the future but not look at it ahead of time.

Time travel into the past is impossible because:
- It would require two universes, one for the home base and one where the traveler went to. It would violate conservation of mass.
- Heat flow would need to be reversed. Heat won't flow from cold to hot. Entropy law violation.
- You could change history to where you were never born. It would violate causality.

 

[Atlan0001]

We can look into the past but not go there.
We can go into the future but not look at it ahead of time.

True.

Time travel into the past is impossible because:
- It would require two universes, one for the home base and one where the traveler went to. It would violate conservation of mass.

There are many worlds, many universes. When we break out to far reaches of this our own universe we will find worlds where our humanoid kind still live in caves, where even the age is an age of dinosaurs or Star Trek and/or Star Wars. Just because we here may not have been visited and forced to leap normal ages into some future, does not mean it doesn't happen.

- Heat flow would need to be reversed. Heat won't flow from cold to hot. Entropy law violation.
- You could change history to where you were never born. It would violate causality.

There is always heat flow from cold sources to hot forges, via countless many third order means. And it is the infinity and immortality of mind always violating causality by time traveling eternally backward and forward, and sideways. We've lived many lives and died many deaths, We remember many places and many times nonlinearly, and many times act upon those remembrances changing history.

As to entropy, there are positive energies and negative energies . . . positive entropies and negative entropies. I'm not a 1-dimensional thinker or being.

 

[E.B.E1]

i've always been fascinated by the thought of travelling through time and as theoretical science says that time travel is possible but our limited knowledge of physics at this time dictates faster than light speed is not possible and if it was then the greatest minds say that we can travel into the future but can't travel back in time and my problem with this is if travelling into the future could happen then it doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that our future has already been set and has already been fated to happen, has happened will happen and if that is wrong and our futures have yet to be written then it wouldn't be possible to travel into our future "correct" this has bugged me for many many years now and i have came to only one conclusion that fate exists and free thought doesn't mean a thing because no matter what choice or decision made by us in life won't be able to change the future which is fated to happen has happened will happen but i realized that the only thing we can change is our destiny

 

[Anumi]

Do we live in the future, or is there a future of this same place in a parallel universe

 

[E.B.E1]

Do we live in the future, or is there a future of this same place in a parallel universe

if u believe that there are an infinite number of universes or multiverses which i subscribe to among other things then there are an infinite number of you living an infinite number of lives encompassing the infinite number of choices and decisions available to us during the course of that particular life and reality, hence fate meaning that every life journey is mapped out and if so all we can change is our destiny and even then that's not a gaurantee

 

[billslugg]

Anyone can assert the existence of an infinite number of universes since our universe is defined as all we can see.
We can look into the past all we want, but we cannot go into the past and change events such that today's status is changed. Such a tool does not exist since, if it did, it would be all over late night TV commercials, which it isn't.
We can go into the future at whatever rate we choose, it's just a matter of acceleration ability. We cannot look into the future. See above reasoning.

 

[E.B.E1]

Anyone can assert the existence of an infinite number of universes since our universe is defined as all we can see.
We can look into the past all we want, but we cannot go into the past and change events such that today's status is changed. Such a tool does not exist since, if it did, it would be all over late night TV commercials, which it isn't.
We can go into the future at whatever rate we choose, it's just a matter of acceleration ability. We cannot look into the future. See above reasoning.

nice input, and yes I'm just assuming.
The truth is that nobody knows what lies beyond our observed little tiny piece of this cosmos.
Perhaps one day (not in our lifetime) the human species may advance enough scientifically and technologically by ourselves or with help to be able to answer these questions eh.
We live in hope

 

[Classical Motion]

We live in the present. Because our senses can not sense the past or the future, only the present. All life forms, except man, only concept the present. Only man can imagine, guess and reason the past and the future. Or attempts too. We rationalize time. To make sense of life. Not knowing that looking up, senses the past. And we can't make sense of that either.

In the future when we realize light, we will see that time and length are omnipresent. And all motion can ONLY occur.......in the manner that is does.

One universe. There are no other possibilities. Chaos, randomness and probability are strictly forbidden.

And in all that area and all the time of it, only in one little spec(here)........there is choice. We can't change action, but we can choose which action. And we think we are gods.

 

[E.B.E1]

We live in the present. Because our senses can not sense the past or the future, only the present. All life forms, except man, only concept the present. Only man can imagine, guess and reason the past and the future. Or attempts too. We rationalize time. To make sense of life. Not knowing that looking up, senses the past. And we can't make sense of that either.

In the future when we realize light, we will see that time and length are omnipresent. And all motion can ONLY occur.......in the manner that is does.

One universe. There are no other possibilities. Chaos, randomness and probability are strictly forbidden.

And in all that area and all the time of it, only in one little spec(here)........there is choice. We can't change action, but we can choose which action. And we think

Great answer sir, hats off to you for that.
Give me some time to process and think about your comments, which are very well put.

Watch this space for my repartee.

 

[Atlan0001]

What fine answers, or try's for answers. And I'm just realizing why a time traveler can travel into the past light cone speeding up in the future of past histories and change history as soon as they arrive anywhere by their sheer presence anywhere.

To use Einstein's phrase concerning "spooky action at a distance" concerning any distance whatsoever, the universe splits! There are then two SPACETIME universes (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))), two observers then (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))), and two travelers then (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))).

The observable traveler (t=+1) is observed to speed from the past (t=+1) to rendezvous with the observer (t-0). The unobservable traveler (t=-1) (t=0), though, is speeding from the future (t=-1) unobserved to the rendezvous with the observed observer (t=+1) and unobservable observer (t=0). Upon arrival all those travelers arriving )t=0) from the future (t=-1) change histories. Spooky actions (mergers -->|<-- from and of pasts and futures, from and of past light cone and future light cone, effected in REALTIME)) NOT at a distance!

I already understood and had described much of the above before, except neglecting to realize that REALTIME (t=0) travelers in coming out of the future histories (t=-1) future light cone will always CHANGE histories!

 

[E.B.E1]

We live in the present. Because our senses can not sense the past or the future, only the present. All life forms, except man, only concept the present. Only man can imagine, guess and reason the past and the future. Or attempts too. We rationalize time. To make sense of life. Not knowing that looking up, senses the past. And we can't make sense of that either.

In the future when we realize light, we will see that time and length are omnipresent. And all motion can ONLY occur.......in the manner that is does.

One universe. There are no other possibilities. Chaos, randomness and probability are strictly forbidden.

And in all that area and all the time of it, only in one little spec(here)........there is choice. We can't change action, but we can choose which action. And we think we are gods.

yes it's a fine line between confidence and arrogance and that makes some people think even believe they are Gods, which we are certainly not.
not sure if i understand you correctly but there has got to be chaos and randomness within any universe whether there is only one or many, entropy dictates the chaotic randomness (order to disorder).

scientists say that time didn't exist before the BB and when you think about it our universe must be expanding into something, so the question is could a highly advanced intelligent civilisation have discovered a way to travel into the this timeless place and if so that would explain how interplanetary and intergalactic travel could be plausible if not possible, but heh it's fun to exercise our imagination and be oblivious to however many levels of crazy it may take us to.

 

[E.B.E1]

What fine answers, or try's for answers. And I'm just realizing why a time traveler can travel into the past light cone speeding up in the future of past histories and change history as soon as they arrive anywhere by their sheer presence anywhere.

To use Einstein's phrase concerning "spooky action at a distance" concerning any distance whatsoever, the universe splits! There are then two SPACETIME universes (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))), two observers then (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))), and two travelers then (observable past (t=+1) and unobservable future (t=-1) (the REALTIME (t=0))).

The observable traveler (t=+1) is observed to speed from the past (t=+1) to rendezvous with the observer (t-0). The unobservable traveler (t=-1) (t=0), though, is speeding from the future (t=-1) unobserved to the rendezvous with the observed observer (t=+1) and unobservable observer (t=0). Upon arrival all those travelers arriving )t=0) from the future (t=-1) change histories. Spooky actions (mergers -->|<-- from and of pasts and futures, from and of past light cone and future light cone, effected in REALTIME)) NOT at a distance!

I already understood and had described much of the above before, except neglecting to realize that REALTIME (t=0) travelers in coming out of the future histories (t=-1) future light cone will always CHANGE histories!

mind boggling answer my head hurts now, I'm sure Einstein's quote spooky actions at a distance were a reference to quantum entanglement and not time travel

 

[E.B.E1]

another thing that bothers me about travelling into the future is that if u do travel into our future then u can't travel back intoour past so u couldn't come back

 

[billslugg]

The expanding universe does not expand into something since it has no edge. There is nothing "outside" the universe to expand into. The universe just gets larger by itself.

 

[Classical Motion]

I see things differently. Entropy is an ordered process. It has no chaos or randomness. You will find no disorder in this cosmos. All is moving in the only way it can move.

Life has real time choice. And results are not known until choice is made. This is your mystical concepts.

But take choice away, and all is predictable. Like the rest of the cosmos.

Life can not be included in the discussion of the cosmos and the motion of it.. Life is super cosmos. Super motion. Choice motion. It's not used in this cosmos. Only locally here.

Don't use a rouge tumor(earth) to describe the whole body organism(cosmos).

 

[Atlan0001]

The expanding universe does not expand into something since it has no edge. There is nothing "outside" the universe to expand into. The universe just gets larger by itself.

Since the Universe (U) is going nowhere into nothing, it is going everywhere into everything . . . and vice-versa. That is an infinity of territory and no territory at all. Just leaves locality . . . going somewhere "into something." Or something like that.

 

[Gibsense]

I have a problem with Steven Hawking’s suggestion that if time travel were possible there would be loads of tourist from the future here already.
There could not be any from the past as a time travel has not been invented yet.
As far as the future is concerned there has not been any yet to come back from. How can you touch the future unless you are there. At that stage it becomes the present. We can only be there together.
Or can someone explain why my thinking is wrong

That there are no visitors from a future is an assertion that may be wrong. I suggest a future rather than the future
I do not wish to upset anyone by crossing red lines here but the "Elephant in the Room" becomes a "Blue Whale" when you mention UAPs.

 

[Gibsense]

The expanding universe does not expand into something since it has no edge. There is nothing "outside" the universe to expand into. The universe just gets larger by itself.

This is an assertion dependent on a flat universe of infinite extent. If we substitute 'boundary' for 'edge' then there is a justification for asking what is 'outside the boundary'. Clearly, I suggest that if the universe is spherical a boundary exists.

It may still be the case that the sphere is all that there is however nowadays discussion of the existence (or not) of branes is quite acceptable if unproven; the fashion changes.

It would be too silly of me to suggest that the outside is a room with a computer so I will contain myself.

 

[Gibsense]

another thing that bothers me about travelling into the future is that if u do travel into our future then u can't travel back in toour past so u couldn't come back

A difficulty we all have is separating the time for us and other objects from the "Now" time of the universe. If something has ever had a speed (most things) then its time is dilated when compared to anything else. It means time becomes personal and unique to itself.
This means the future is relative - I give in here. Read about the 'Twin Paradox' and its solution. Then read it a few times more

 

[Helio]

This is an assertion dependent on a flat universe of infinite extent. If we substitute 'boundary' for 'edge' then there is a justification for asking what is 'outside the boundary'. Clearly, I suggest that if the universe is spherical a boundary exists.

The only "boundary" or "edge" is in our limited observability beyond this region. The use of "flat" is not in the sense of something like a pancake. It means that two parallel rays will stay parallel regardless of time and distance, ignoring the bumps along the way and assuming perfect flatness. An "open" or "closed" universe alters these rays from remaining parallel.

It may still be the case that the sphere is all that there is however nowadays discussion of the existence (or not) of branes is quite acceptable if unproven; the fashion changes.

Yes. Laura Mersini-Houghton's new book "Before the Big Bang" suggests the "Cold spot" in the CMBR is some evidence for the multiverse model. But there can be other explanations for the cold spot, so this is not strong evidence, apparently.

 

[Gibsense]

The only "boundary" or "edge" is in our limited observability beyond this region. The use of "flat" is not in the sense of something like a pancake. It means that two parallel rays will stay parallel regardless of time and distance, ignoring the bumps along the way and assuming perfect flatness. An "open" or "closed" universe alters these rays from remaining parallel.

Flat means parallel as per the surface of a cylinder for example but not excluding flat as in a pancake. A closed universe has a boundary (except for any ongoing expansion). I keep making that mistake of not saying 'and Euclidian' - or just Euclidian.
I expect the only reality of anything outside the universe is spatial dimensions (any number, minimum 4) without space as we know it. And, they (dimension concepts) would only exist because 'something' exists. I would not expect an equivalence to our space which contains virtual particles. It is just conceptual allowing for 'something else' other than our universe to be real. To say 'Nothing' is too much

 

[Helio]

Flat means parallel as per the surface of a cylinder for example but not excluding flat as in a pancake. A closed universe has a boundary (except for any ongoing expansion). I keep making that mistake of not saying 'and Euclidian' - or just Euclidian.

Yes, that's helpful. Interestingly, Lemaitre's GR model (1927) separated time from three space dimensions and, and with homogeneity, found it to be Euclidian, or close to it, IIRC.

He had seen the error in de Sitter's model -- which was also void of matter -- that violated heavily the principle of homogeneity. But de Sitter was highly respected because his model offered an explanation for observed redshifts, whereas Einstein's own cosmological model had matter but no explanation for redshifts. Both these models were stuck in viewing the universe as static (non-expanding or shrinking). [An infinite view of the universe goes back to Newton since he showed that mass would collapse a non-infinite one. The earliest infinite idea predates history, no doubt.]

I expect the only reality of anything outside the universe is spatial dimensions (any number, minimum 4) without space as we know it. And, they (dimension concepts) would only exist because 'something' exists. I would not expect an equivalence to our space which contains virtual particles. It is just conceptual allowing for 'something else' other than our universe to be real. To say 'Nothing' is too much

Yes. There is no reason not to assume something else was outside the universe from the beginning, just as easily as to assume there was not. Supposition requires objective evidence, however, to advance it to a scientific level, of course. That seems impossible for now, though the multiverse ideas are to be relatively respected.