Do you believe that time travel is possible?

[Whitelight]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

I hate thinking about that cus it blows my mind, like this planet is just a germ in a floating space and we're so tiny and really the world is massive and...

That germs on our planet have their own civilizations and...

Ahh..

I clicked no on time travel. I do think anything is possible but... I don't know... That's a hard one for me.

 

[Num7]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

I hate thinking about that cus it blows my mind, like this planet is just a germ in a floating space and we're so tiny and really the world is massive and...

That germs on our planet have their own civilizations and...

Ahh..

I clicked no on time travel. I do think anything is possible but... I don't know... That's a hard one for me.

What's you opinion on astral time travel ?

 

[Harte]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

We're about two posts shy of discussing sucking black holes.

LMFAO!!

Other than this pesky little hurricane that blew through here last week, I's be tolerable. Yourself?

I been pretty fine.

You get much damage from the storm(s)?

Harte,

You said electrons have no no volume and no size, but they do have mass right? I don't understand how a particle that has mass can not have any physical dimensions. On the other hand, I can understand how a photon would'nt because it's a massless particle, but at what point do things get so small they lose physical dimensions?

Baud,
I didn't say it was easy to understand, just that that's the way it works out in quantum theory.

In the example of an electron, you might be surprised to find that electron mass is expressed in volts! (Actually, electron volts.) This is an energy measurement, yes, but you already knew that mass and energy have a direct relationship, right?

If you really want to know, I suggest you begine with this search.

I understand there are diffeent "sizes" for atoms and particles, but some are often described as being bigger or smaller than others. Like the "Large Hadron" Collider for instance. Another thing, if gravitons do exist, how can it be so small that they can go into another dimension? I don't understand how the "size" of something determines which dimension it's in. I didn't know dimensions were determined by size. I was wondering if you might be able to explain a little of this?

It's just a theory, since gravitons have never been detected and the thing about other dimensions borders on speculation, though the way I read string theory, that "other dimension" part is a way of explaining why the force of gravity is so much weaker than the other forces (the only reason it seems strong is that there's an awful lot of particles emitting gravity.)

Here how it go:

There are ten physical dimensions (like length, depth and height) and one dimension of time, which gives eleven dimensions.

The seven other physical dimensions we can't see have been explained as having been coiled so tightly that they are almost as small as the Planck length. (That's as little as anything can get and still make sense to refer to the "length.")

These other dimensions, therefore, have no effect (typically) on us because they're too small. But when you get down to the sizes of the strings in string theory, these are so small that they actually can have existence in several of these "coiled" directions simultaneously. In other words, they can be tall, long or wide, as well as several other directions of measurement (call these others whatever you will - "tall2", "long2" and "wide2" might be three of them for example.)

What you're talking about with gravity "leaking" out of our three dimensions can be thought of as a string (or a loop of string) vibrating in several dimensions and at some point most of the vibration is going on in directions we can't detect - IOW one (or more) of the seven "other" physical dimensions. This string is analogous to one graviton particle.

I've also seen a take on the gravity "leakage" where the other dimensions are simply, for reasons unknown, "unreachable" to us but still exist right here with us. That would be similar to the "other dimension" stuff from science fiction.

I think I may never be able to really grasp these concepts though without going back to college. But if you could explain a little about what dimensions are in relation to size and how particles that have mass do so without haveing physical dimensions, I'd really appreciate it, thanks.

I would not try to get any of this from a college course were I you. They'll make you do the actual calculations, which, though not that difficult, require an understanding of the underlying quantum theory that is based on the mathematical version (the only actual version) and that might require you to take all kinds oif advanced math (namely, advanced algebra and or advanced vector analysis.)

Try reading some of the books on the subject written by scientists with the layman (you and me) in mind.

For the quantum theory, there's a pretty good book out there called "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat." I forget the author but googling will get it for you.

You can skip Tim Allen's book on this, by the way!

The string theory stuff that I know I've surmised from this sort of basic understanding of the quantum theories along with several articles (scientific american mainly) and a lot of Nova (and similar) programs.


Harte

 

[Keroscene]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

Thanks for the search results and recommending that book Harte. I'll be picking it up. I've been reading about it and it has alot of good reviews. I'll take a trip down to the library later and see if they have a copy. Thanks again.

 

[Num7]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

What do you think about sending informations back in time?

This can be considered a form of time travel, but I'm thinking about how it could be used. I mean, what's the point of sending informations in the past, if it can create a paradox. Even if we consider there's not such a thing as a paradox, people recieving the informations sent are not necessarily aware that these informations are from the future. How will they know ?

Here's a quick article about it. A guy who wants to send messages to the past. It's from 2007, so it's not from the future
US prof plans to send message back in time ? The Register

Num7

 

[Grayson]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

Zeshua has been beaming messages back through time for years now, so Cramer will probably be successful if he can create a stable quantum entaglement.

Personally, I favour the Bambleweenie 57 Sub-Meson Brain system hooked up to an Atomic Vector Plotter which is suspended in a Browian Motion such as a nice cup of strong tea as a means of communicating with the past. Forsooth, every now and then you'll see me slapping my head and muttering about things I'd almost forgot , but which I'd remembered 24 hours later and then used my system to send a message back in time to remind myself before I got into trouble.

It does require a lot of post-it notes and a big chart to keep track of where my memory might be up to with things, but a little hardwork tomorrow is better than a kick in the pants today I say.

 

[jurgen36]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

How would you know if backward time travel is possible? If you send some information back it would alter the present. So you could never prove anything at all. Only somebody outside your space time would be able to see both events.
Regards

 

[Num7]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

How would you know if backward time travel is possible? If you send some information back it would alter the present. So you could never prove anything at all. Only somebody outside your space time would be able to see both events.
Regards

I wonder if they could try to send informations in the past or future using the LHC. It's most likely that nothing at all will happen, but if they ever achieve to open a doorway, perhaps they're planning to send something through it.
Anyway, they couldn't prove it, like you said, J.

Num7

 

[JakeWarLock]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

I think this is a good written information here: I got this from another time travel site. Hmm.. the guy who wrote this had a nickname of 'TimeProfessor' and I have been very interested in this person, and read all of his posts. Interesting that he left the forum and never came back. Hmm..

Its about a wormhole involving time travel, when he posted this, no one at that forum site could answer him or debate him... or even give some theories on this.

-----------

You want to create a wormhole? For gawds's sake why?


THEORY:

So how do you create a wormhole? Well there are a number of ways.

It has been suggested that wormholes occur naturally, but only on very small scales. Normally on our macroscopically scales, space time is flat(if something is not bending it). But if you zoom in on it through the particle level and down to something called the Planck length(10-33cm) space time will get more and more severely warped and not smooth at all any more. So at this level where space time warps naturally and in a chaotic fashion, you should be able to find tiny natural wormholes. And then it would be possible to take one of them and enlarge it so that we could travel through.

Another possibility is to bend space time our self, already on macroscopically scales. Then move this little pocket which we just created to the place were we want to go, tear a hole into the space time in our pocket and the space time at the place we wanted to go to, and then "sew" the two rips together to create a tunnel(the worm hole). The problem is that the ripping part would create a singularity, and singularities are very nasty things, which have a tendency to first stretch people into spaghetti and then crush them into very small things. So we don't want a singularity but is there a way to create a wormhole without a singularity? Yes there is, the problem being that at the moment it is being created, time has to be distorted in all reference frames. Which means that at that particular moment you would be able to travel both forward and backward in time. So it's not certain that this works.

First lets see what happen to a body which is accelerated.

According to relativity, acceleration makes time slow down. But in the same theory every observation measures their own time as going at a normal rate. So if we have two observers with the extremely personal names A and B. Then A stays still while B accelerates up to close the speed of light. Now because of the acceleration, Bs time has to slow down, but at the same time he can't notice any slowing of time. So instead as seen from As point of view(reference frame) Bs time does slow down and he starts to move slower. But as seen frome Bs reference fram As time speed up instead! And that 'time speed up' around B compensates for th? fact that he sees his own time as going at a normal rate, if things speed up around him it is just as if he slowed down himself. The important thing is that both their times are "in the smae proportions" to each others, which means that in both reference frames A's time does go faster then B's.

Now we'll see the strange way in which time is connected though a wormhole.
A and B both have one mouth of the worm hole each. Then B speeds away at close the speed of light. Now he can either look back and directly observe A or he can observe A through his wormhole. If he looks back he sees A moving away from him, and so he knows that the are in different reference frames and he also notice that As time moves faster. But if he looks through the wormhole he get's one, stable view of A. A doesn't move away from him, it is just af if B himself was standing right beside him. At first glance this might look like it's just a trick, but not according to relativity. According to relativity, if two things doesn't move relative to one another and if none of them exist in an externally applied gravitational field, then they are in the same reference frame. So this leads to a strange observation; through the worm hole A and B is in the same reference frame but otherwise they're in different!

So now if A goes through his mouth of the wormhole he then comes out into Bs mouth, and Bs reference frame where time has been speeding up around him due to acceleration so then A has moved forward in time. But then if B goes through his mouth of the wormhole he'll come out in As reference frame, and in that frame time was moving normal (that is, slower then at B) and so B will have travelled back in time.

Now, there were some problems of course. What if a beam of radiation travelled from the still standing mouth to the moving one and into it, then it would travelled back into time and exited the still standing mouth just at the same time it originally started to move toward the moving mouth. Then it would meet up with itself and create a beam which where twice as strong and then start to move toward the moving mouth again, travel back into time, meet up with itself and the beam would get stronger, and so on. So an infinitely strong radiation beam would emerge and this beam would be enough to collapse the wormhole.

A beam normally travels in a straight path through space. But at a wormhole the space is warped which means that the straight lines bend. Therefore the wormhole would spread the beam out, making it impossible for it to add up with itself and create a infinitely strong beam.

But this isn't the end of the story. Another kind of radiation called electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations, and those beams when studied, it was found that they don't get spread out. Or more precisely, they first get spread out like the radiation above. But later they gather together all by them self to create the original beam and it goes through the wormhole and start to pile up on itself to create a beam that will collapse the wormhole. So the gravitational effect couldn't save us here, but it was also found that the intensity of the beam behaved in such a way that, first its intensity raised to very high levels but then the intensity died out. This created a radiation peak. And it was found that the time span when the energy levels got high enough to collapse a wormhole, happened within a time span of 10-43 seconds, the Planck time. And the Planck time represents such a tiny time interval that time doesn't have any specific direction, actions taking place under this time doesn't exist. Therefore the dangerous peak disappears and the energy never gets so high as to collapse the wormhole.

There was of course another problem. Time is something relative, you can't just say 10-43 seconds, you have to define in what reference frame. It had been thought that 10-43s from the reference frame of someone at rest in the wormhole . But instead it should be 10-43s as seen from the beam of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations. So the radiation beam could only be keept weak if the dangerous peak of energy happened in the time span of 10-43s from the radiations point of view. But a time span of 10-43s in the radiations reference frame looks like a time span of 10-95s from the reference frame of someone inside the wormhole which the previous calculations where based of. So then the time span would be to short to be able to cut of the radiation energy before it became too high.

But nothing is certain. 10-95s might very well be enough to cut of the energy in time. In order to know for sure we need better understanding of something called quantum gravity, which we don't. But right now it seems to point toward a wormhole collapse.

Quantum Gravity will be discussed sometimes in the future.

anyone else have any theories? hehe

 

[Harte]

Re: Do you believe that time travel is possible?

Jake,

Welcome to the site.

If you're gonna quote from another site, you should probably link to that site. I realize you credited the author and all so I'm not saying you plagiarized anything, it's just that (though you may not know it) this site once was a time travel site and there are probably lots of folks here that would like to have that link.

Also, please try using the "quote" function when you quote. It makes the quotes look like this:

Hey Jake, this is what a quote would look like if you used the quote function!

As you can see, it would be easier for us to tell what part is your voice, and what part is the voice of the guy you are quoting!

Just a friendly suggestion and, again, welcome to Paranormalis!

Harte