like a .45 to the head

[reaper239]

so, my mind is working overtime here, and i'm about to blow a gasket, so i need to write this down, and i need to bounce this off of someone. (btw the title of this thread is about blowing minds)

so i was recently listening to a conversation about light speed and time travel. the conclusion was that time travel is possible if you can exceed the speed of light because you would watch things in reverse. the problem here is that you are watching things in reverse as you get further away, so you cannot actually interact. my conclusion is that time travel via physical travel is bs. the example given was this: if you travel away from a clock at light speed for one second, the clock face would not have changed, and so time would not move forward. the flaw here is that back at the clock, it would have in fact increased by one second. you're seeing a snapshot of the clock in time, but you are not static in time. here's another way to look at it: forward. if you are moving away from the clock face for one second, you are moving towards something else for one second, and so while the clock would appear to stand still for one second, the object you are moving towards would appear to advance by two. my conclusion here is that the concept of time travel by speed is merely a concept of perception, and only perception facing one direction.

light, is a medium of energy that carries a specific data with it, in this case, light is translated by our nerves as sight, and the data is translated into a picture. an example is this: if i write a message down on a paper air plane and then throw it, i have transmitted that data. if i run ahead of it and intercept it, i can recieve that data, but that doesn't negate the fact that the data was transmitted, or negate the possibility of more data being transmitted after it. i have merely traveld ahead and recieved the data i transmitted.

i'm not a theoretical physicist, but i do think logically and this seems like sound reasoning to me. if anyone knows anything to the contrary, or has any data to support or discredit this idea, i'd be interested to hear it. thanks.

[LiamKerrington]

Kind of a braintwister.

I am not into this subject of time-travelling and such. But I support your logic.

For me it is kind of odd to consider yourself travelling back in time, while you yourself and the device you are using to do so are advancing in time. So, while you travel at ftl (faster then light) and therefore "see" or "recognize" things from the past as they were, you simply cannot change anything about it.
Maybe it is like watching a movie or listening to a recorded broadcasting - or much better: it is like watching a "life" broadcasting on TV or listening to something on the radio, because even those things are already slightly delayed - and if it is only by fragments of a second. The reason for this is simply because even the recording and transmission and reflection through radio/ tv take their time as well. This becomes especially obvious when you watch the live-broadcasting of the super-bowl taking place in New Orleans, while you stay and watch it in Johannesburg (South Africa). And this is no different then what you see and get when travelling at ftl and therefore catch up with things broadcasted way back in the past. It really does not matter if this is kind of an active broadcasting or just a passive "broadcasting" like the reflection of light or other wavelength-radiation ...

Ah, well ... As I said: a braintwister ...

All the best!
Liam

[turbo]

Very interesting, I believe with traveling at the speed of light in order to time travel would only work with going forward, not backwards. The future is unknown but with that speed it can possibly be done, going back in time, not so possible. Light doesn't go in reverse, only forward.

Now this will be going through my head at work... The .45 may have struck my mind a little

[reaper239]

Very interesting, I believe with traveling at the speed of light in order to time travel would only work with going forward, not backwards. The future is unknown but with that speed it can possibly be done, going back in time, not so possible. Light doesn't go in reverse, only forward.

Now this will be going through my head at work... The .45 may have struck my mind a little

but would you really be traveling through time? or would you be traveling through light? here's what i mean, if it takes five years for light to reach us from another planet, and you travel light speed to that planet, it will look like things have advanced by ten years, but you were really seeing things as they were five years ago instead of as they were at that moment, so when you arrive you no longer have the time delay it looks like you traveled five years in the future during your five year trip, but you really just traveled against light traveling at the same speed and carying an image of the planet.

[LiamKerrington]

but would you really be traveling through time? or would you be traveling through light? here's what i mean, if it takes five years for light to reach us from another planet, and you travel light speed to that planet, it will look like things have advanced by ten years, but you were really seeing things as they were five years ago instead of as they were at that moment, so when you arrive you no longer have the time delay it looks like you traveled five years in the future during your five year trip, but you really just traveled against light traveling at the same speed and carying an image of the planet.

Well ...
- Centauri Planet reflects the light of Alpha Centauri, and the light needs 5 years to reach earth.
- When you fly into the direction of Centauri Planet at the speed of light, this would require you to take 5 years of flight-time.
- Which means: You start with the knowledge of the planet's situation at year 0; but after five years of travel-time you'd reach the planet at the age of year 10.
- The point is: Since you play "against" the light shed by Alpha Centauri/ reflected by Centauri planet, you would "see" through the time of ten years; but you would not fly back in time.

[turbo]

but would you really be traveling through time? or would you be traveling through light? here's what i mean, if it takes five years for light to reach us from another planet, and you travel light speed to that planet, it will look like things have advanced by ten years, but you were really seeing things as they were five years ago instead of as they were at that moment, so when you arrive you no longer have the time delay it looks like you traveled five years in the future during your five year trip, but you really just traveled against light traveling at the same speed and carying an image of the planet.

Ah okay so we would see what is going on but would arrive at the same time?

[reaper239]

Ah okay so we would see what is going on but would arrive at the same time?

yes? i think i'm confusing myself. you would percieve the passage of ten years on alph centauri, however five years would've passed

[scbubba]

The FTL travel thing has been explored in a lot of sci-fi over the years but really in the Golden Age of the genre (60's & 70's).

I recently finished yet another re-read of "Ender's Game" and "The Forever War". In these, interstellar distances are covered at relativistic and FTL speeds. The outcome is that the travelers perceive a few months and biologically age a few months while time for the non-relativistic travelers has passed at regular speed. So, our hero on the space ship has doen a few tours of duty and has a biological age of 43 but was born on Earth 827 years ago.

Not exactly time travel, but it fits (AFAIK) into the theory of relativity and perceived time.

Actual time travel would be something like - you stop "being" in one time/place (New York on August 12th, 1987) and start "being" in another time/place (Paris on May 24th, 1921). This, to my feeble and limited brain, would probably mean that all instances in time exist simultaneously and independently of each other. Like an infinite number of strips of movie film, for instance, where you can move from a spot on one film to a spot on another one.

Then, maybe, going faster than light doesn't cause some sort of time dilation effect on the traveler but instead allows him to punch out of his time/space and into another one....

Ugh. Now my brain hurts....

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

The two things:

You have to be light to be able to travel at light speed.
You will have to use a device that emits an ridiculously high amount of energy to accelerate to light speed or even a fraction of it if you possess a mass.

[reaper239]

The two things:

You have to be light to be able to travel at light speed.
You will have to use a device that emits an ridiculously high amount of energy to accelerate to light speed or even a fraction of it if you possess a mass.

we're talking theoretically. light is pure energy, so of course we can't go that fast, but the idea of time travel still applies

[Wicked Sid]

How about this:

If you travel a distance, via a fold in space or some other form of travel greater than the speed of light, far enough, you would be able to turn around and, given the passage of time with light, see yourself entering the fold as the light reflected off of you from when you entered the fold will reach your destination in a certain amount of time.

Simpler way to say it: If you travel one light minute away, turn around and wait, you should, theoretically, see yourself as you were one minute ago when the light that reflected off of you reaches you.

You would essentially be in two places at the same time, in regards to your perception.

----

There is also the fact that time, most likely, acts differently around the gravity well of a massive object, be it hyper-dense or otherwise, sling-shot yourself a few (hundred) times around one of those and you would travel forward in time.

[Robzombie]

we're talking theoretically. light is pure energy, so of course we can't go that fast, but the idea of time travel still applies

Just to add...what I usually hear physicists mention is 'near'-light speed, not actual light speed when talking about travel. Also, I've heard of the idea of 'hitching a ride' on photons. So you wouldn't need to be actual energy to travel the speed of light or near the speed of light.

A concept I read about sounds really cool.
nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive (http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/)

But this all has more to do with space travel and not necesarily time travel in the way I think of it and as scubba explains so well above. Yet time is relative which can be affected by speed.

[reaper239]

How about this:

If you travel a distance, via a fold in space or some other form of travel greater than the speed of light, far enough, you would be able to turn around and, given the passage of time with light, see yourself entering the fold as the light reflected off of you from when you entered the fold will reach your destination in a certain amount of time.

Simpler way to say it: If you travel one light minute away, turn around and wait, you should, theoretically, see yourself as you were one minute ago when the light that reflected off of you reaches you.

You would essentially be in two places at the same time, in regards to your perception.

----

There is also the fact that time, most likely, acts differently around the gravity well of a massive object, be it hyper-dense or otherwise, sling-shot yourself a few (hundred) times around one of those and you would travel forward in time.

but you wouldn't be in two places at once, you would only see yourself, like a mirror.

also, we don't know how time reacts in the presence of strong gravity, for all we know time is actually a flat universal constant and it is only our perception that shift.

[LiamKerrington]

You have to be light to be able to travel at light speed.

Only when you stick 100% true to the relativistic theory as far as I know; I know of at least two theories which would allow you to travel faster then light.

edit: deleted bogus.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Only when you stick 100% true to the relativistic theory as far as I know; I know of at least two theories which would allow you to travel faster then light.

edit: deleted bogus.

That is so great about theories, falsification. If the relativistic theory is wrong, it is indeed wrong in a damn good way.

[LiamKerrington]

That is so great about theories, falsification. If the relativistic theory is wrong, it is indeed wrong in a damn good way.

Exactly. ;)

[turbo]

Now how do we take this into consideration? Scientists have broken the speed of light

http://m.gizmodo.com/5908206/did-scientists-really-just-break-the-speed-of-light

Also check this out, recording a light beam in slow-mo

http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/28/photographing-the-speed-of-light-ramesh-raskar-at-tedglobal-2012/

[Nathan.Luiz]

This thread has made my head hurt....

I don't think it'd be physically possible to actually go back in time (As in start, say, today, and end up in the same place 3 weeks ago) but the thought of using light speed to "see" into the past is interesting, and maybe in the future could be developed, I think it could produce some interesting results. But actually travelling back in time is, in my opinion, impossible.

[Osiris]

Cliffs on this clusterfuck?

[Wicked Sid]

Cliffs on this clusterfuck?

The Universe is crazy interesting, yo. And we don't really understand anything about it. We can talk about the details, but when we hit the details of the details, we, as in humans in general, have not reached appropriate scientific literacy in regards to anything.

[Osiris]

The Universe is crazy interesting, yo. And we don't really understand anything about it. We can talk about the details, but when we hit the details of the details, we, as in humans in general, have not reached appropriate scientific literacy in regards to anything.

That was succinct as fuck. This thread is magick.

[Osiris]

Right. Having read the thread, I'll say this:

Time is an illusion created to give context to the way individuals experience the universe around them. Each universe is populated with other beings with we interact with, so time is merely a way of coordinating with other beings and objects that populate the an individual's reality with another's.

Example:

We are standing together in a room, you and I.
In the room is a ball, a table, and a door.
I pick up the ball, roll it under the table, and as it rolls across the floor, I leave the room via the door.
You watch all of this happen.
Time has moved for you, and me, but what has time not moved for?
The table.
The table isn't interacting with either the ball, the door, or the two people present in the room.
It isn't aware of our presence in the room, nor is it aware that the ball roll below it across what it does not know to be a floor.
However, it is affected by time.
With the passage of years we will see that the table decays.
Is the table experiencing time or are we experiencing time through the deterioration of the table?
Time is subjective based on those experiencing it, as such there is no need to travel faster than light to move through time.
All you need to do is focus your attention on the details of what has happened, is happening or will happen.

[buzzbros2002]

My brain has overloaded from even just reading the first two pages of this thread. TARDIS. That's all I have to contribute to this conversation. Carry on.

[Wicked Sid]

God, this thread makes me want to watch Primer again.

[Osiris]

God, this thread makes me want to watch Primer again.

Primer was ok. I really enjoyed both of these.

Safety Not Guaranteed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73jSnAs7mq8) is amazing, Aubrey Plaza is fucking awesome in it.

Timecrimes was just complex enough to make you shake your head, but not so much that you focused more on the how as opposed to the what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrzI3lVzQnM

[Wicked Sid]

Primer was ok. I really enjoyed both of these.

Safety Not Guaranteed* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73jSnAs7mq8) is amazing, Aubrey Plaza is fucking awesome in it.

Timecrimes was just complex enough to make you shake your head, but not so much that you focused more on the how as opposed to the what.

Slight Spoilers for Primer. Go watch it first.

Honestly, the how is why I liked Primer as much as I did. It made me feel like an idiot for not understanding at first, but thinking on it after it makes a strange type of sense, even if every possible explanation is not fully understood. Even after you think you've figured out how they traveled through time, you then get to think on the actual story, how the vessel tore their friendship apart. How they manipulated and exploited their colleagues. And that it was an indie film made for like 8k, I think.

*Fixed your Link for Safety as well.

[Osiris]

Yeah from what I recall it was made for nickels. Not at all a bad flick, it just didn't do it for me.

[Solanine]

Physics makes my Brain hurt.

The only equation I need is Chemistry+Biology=Awesome.