Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity & Apollo

Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity & Apollo

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div>
OK, I don't get it - Perhaps someone can finish this story?

A leaves B specific instructions - go into the next room wait in one minute write a note, come back in and hand it to me.

A then jumps into his almost speed of light ship and flies around, returning to the exact location he left 59 seconds (at least that is what his wrist watch shows) later....

What happens next? Is B confused at A's absence? Is A absent?[/b]
Click to expand...
Fanavans,
What happens next depends on what you mean by "almost speed of light." At some point not too far in the past, I posted the equation that would solve this problem for you right here in a response I made somewhere on this board. Don't remember it exactly now, but even if I did, I can't do a square root in my head. It's a fairly simple equation though, and fun to play with. It tells you how much time will go by on Earth given Mr. A's speed and time of absence. You can probably find it with the search utility here or you can google "Einstein's field equations special relativity."

Anyway, the gist of it is, if Mr. A was going only a tiny fraction of the speed of light, Mr. B would become irritated because A is late. But A would show up after a short while, after which if they were Irish they'd have a huge argument about whether or not A was late (A's watch would show him on time, B's watch would show him several minutes late.) After that they'd probably make up, go to the pub and have a few pints.

Now, if A was actually traveling at "almost the speed of light", say 99.999% of lightspeed, then Mr. B would get really really irritated. He would eventually give up on A and go home. Then in due course he would grow old and die. Civilizations would rise and fall. Several ice ages would come and go. Charleton Heston would discover apes running the world and curse with his naked butt hanging out in front of the remains of the Statue of Liberty. The sun would eventually go nova, killing everything in the solar system. Mr A would return , be surprised and say "what the hell's wrong with that Mr. B? I told him to meet me here and he just blows me off?"

Harte
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

At really high speeds, near the speed of light, time slows down. That would mean that if an astronaut flew the 4 light years to our nearest star (not couting our own sun) and back, people here on earth would be 8 years older when he got back since it took him 8 years to travel that disctance. The astronaut though, for him time would have slowed down and he might just have aged 3 or 4 years. His clocks and computer times would all show he had been gone shorter than the 8 years people experienced back on earth.

This isnt because the spaceships speed warps time or anything like that. This is strange to us because we think of time as something constant when its not.
Time and space are _relative_.
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

Thanks Harte, I finally get it, and although it might accord with experiment, I just don't buy it! I am reminded of what Tesla thought of Relativity:


\"magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...'
Click to expand...
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div>
Thanks Harte, I finally get it, and although it might accord with experiment, I just don't buy it! I am reminded of what Tesla thought of Relativity:









​
[/b]
Click to expand...

Fanavans,
I don't get how you can on the one hand see that experimentally this happens, yet continue to disagree with the explanation. What on earth is your theory to explain the established fact that the flow of time differs for observers in different reference frames? Clocks running slow? Relativity (general and special) are excellent explanations for well-establish (albeit wierd) facts that can be and have been repeatedly observed.

Relativity does not go far enough to explain everything, but that is why physicists seek a new overall theory of existence, what Einstein called a Grand Unified Theory, now referred to as Theory of Everything. Current thinking on this is that a method must be found to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics. The most recent theory proposed, Superstring theory ( also called M theory) does exactly this. The problem here is that it is exceedingly difficult to find any new predictions in this M theory that can be experimentally tested.

Harte
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

<!--QuoteBegin-\"][size=-1]The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles .[/b][/quote]

This guy is a bit of a champion of this theory, check out his theories www.mkaku.org
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

I don't get how you can on the one hand see that experimentally this happens, yet continue to disagree with the explanation.
Click to expand...

Harte,
It's only AN explanation. I take issue with it because it is useless to me. No doubt, it has a use somewhere in the field of human endevour (EG GPS satalites), but it does not assist *me* in understanding the nature of the universe or myself. All of this goes double for M and superstring theories (I've read a bit on these).

To illustrate: Scientist have started talking about 10 dimensions - I actually think that it is likely that these exist - but what good is it to if some number comes up on some computer screen and confirms what I think? Oh, that's good I say, comprehend intellectually what I cannot physically, and get back to my sandwich.

So when I say I don't 'buy' it, I mean that even though it may be true on some abstract mathematical level, and even though that abstraction might accord with experience, I don't care for it; it does nothing for me and does not advance my quest to know the mind of god.

What on earth is your theory to explain the established fact that the flow of time differs for observers in different reference frames?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not nearly that smart by half. But something a little more lyrical then what we have.
 
Re: Time travel, Multiverse, Relativity &amp; Apollo

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div>
...Well, I'm not nearly that smart by half. But something a little more lyrical then what we have.[/b]
Click to expand...

You want lyrical? I'll give you lyrical!

There was a young woman from Wight
Who's speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.

Harte
 

Top