Time dilation via near-lightspeed jets proposed for time travel

Time Travel Mechanics & Theory
,
1

I have ben tinking a lot about time travel and I realized that time travel is more than possible.
But also imposible with tehnology we have.

I have an interesting idea.
Does, anyone remember the experiment with two jets and atomic counters?
One plane was flying arround the globe, while the second was on the airport.
when the first plane returned the difference between two timers was in miliseconds.
whel if you coud travel faster than that jet, much faster, close to lightspeed, you shoud
be in the past for a short period of time, but to materialize there you must bring
great amount of energy in front of your vecile and open a hole in space and time.
And you shoud stay in past.
The greater the speed, earlier you’ll go in time.

I apollogise for gramatical erors.
My english is bad.

If you found this teory interesting, and you want to discuss about it,
you can contact me at navy@teleport.co.yu

2

Can you explain why you think this?

3

That jet thing with atomic clocks basically showed that gravity affects time, it was not to do with light, and even so it is the opposite of what you say, it proves time travel into the FUTURE is possible.

The delay is relative, the clock on the plane runs slower, so obviously the clock on earth is faster, therefore earth is AHEAD of the plane.

If we was to do this at an extreme, you would land and find the people on the ground were older than when you left not younger.

Well time travel into the future has no real argument, because we do it all the time, the flow difference is relative.

4

whell nobody knows why great speed lags time but shurely if it can slow it down,
can stop it, and even reverse it. I think that at lightspeed time stops.
actualy I think that there is no souch thing as lightspeed.
there is only timespeed. I cannot explain this very whell
because my english is bad. however, answer is not in electronics,
computers, and tuff like that. speed is time. everything has it’s density, even vacum.
vacum is easiest to break because of its low dansity. there are several
so called “dimensions”. it is not a magic realm behind mirror, its all arround us.
you must break the vacum bringing hudge amount of energy in one spot.
the explosion must be hudge, to open a microscopic hole.
to open passage to another time big enough for you to pass, you need power of supernova.

There is just one thing I’m confused about.
If you actualy menadge to go back in time or in future,
how far you coud go? Coud you go in time before you was born and after you died or
you coud only travel trough your lifetime.
In witch Shape you will be materialized?
I meen if you go, at period when i was 9, will I be materialized as a boy,
will I remember anything, or if i go in time before I was born will I
be desintegrated, because I never exsisted.

Or I coud be materialized as I am now, and shake hand with NAVY boy.

In every case computers and electronics, and calculations
canot be used in time travel. seconds are the unit manmade, and
it, canot be sinhronizet to time speed.

It will take a long for man to make time travel safe.
at first it will be unprecize and dangerus.
we need to determine how fast you need to go, to go back in time 1 cecond.
it will be hard. time cange is not linear.

Whell Im going to drink a few beers.
If you think I’m insane, Send me a virus.
have a pleasant night.
I know I Will.
Belgrade city is full of aportunities.
)

5

Navy,

You’re describing the “Hafele-Keating” jet experiment done in 1971.

Here’s the answer to the conundrum. It’s a straight Special Theory of Relativity situation. The Earth rotates counter-clockwise - eastward - as viewed from above the North Pole looking down at the Earth. At the equator, the angular velocity at the surface is approximately 1,000 mph.

The rest frame is the center of gravity - the center of the Earth’s core.

First let’s assume that both planes travel at the same altitude and velocity. We can discount any gravity issues because at the same altitude the effect is the same for both aircraft. We can plug in 500 mph as their velocity. They makle their journey along the equator. Last, we put an observer at the Earth’s core in the rest frame and have that observer report what s/he sees:

Jet #1: Jet #1 travels east at 500 mph. But the Earth is turning to the east at 1000 mph - 500 mph faster than Jet #1. Our observer sees Jet #1 traveling 500 mph to the west. From the observer’s point of view Jet #1 can’t keep up with the speed of the rotation of the Earth.

Jet #2: Jet #2 travels west at 500 mph. Again, the Earth is turning to the east at 1000 mph. Jet #2 gets a 1,000 mph boost in velocity from the POV of the observer. Our observer sees Jet #1 traveling 1,500 mph to the west.

This explains why the clocks end up being a few nanoseconds different at the end of the flight. Jet #2 was traveling 1,000 mph faster than Jet #1 with respect to the rest frame. Its clock will tick more slowly than the clock on Jet #1.

If we apply the Lorentz Transformation to each airplane we discover that Jet #2’s clock ran ~2.23^-12 seconds slower than Jet #1’s clock (2.23 picoseconds) during the ~25,000 mile trip.

You might thnk that this situation sounds illogical. But remember, it is from the point of view of the rotating observer at the center of gravity. S/he turns through the same angle in the same time that the surface turns through. That’s why s/he can add or subtract from each plane’s velocity (Remember “velocity” - not “speed”.. Velocity is a vector - it has both magnitude and direction. That’s a central issue in this problem.)

In the case of Jet #1 s/he is turning in the same direcction as the aircraft. It loses 1,000 mph from her POV no matter how fast is it moving. She sees it moving 1,000 mph less than its indicated ground speed. Jet #2 is moving opposite her angular velocity. She sees it moving 1,000 mph faster than its indicated ground speed.

If she correctly reported their velocities with reference to her angular motion she should say that Jet #1 was traveling at minus 500 mph and Jet #2 was traveling at minus 1,500 mph.

I had to throw that last paragraph in for the purists and mathematicians. )

6

Navy,

You should be able to buy a copy of Einstein’s “little” book in Belgrade. The book is “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. In America the cost is about $10.00. It was originally printed in German language and has been translated widely. You can probably find it in Yugoslavian.

Its a great little book and it explains in popular science terms both theories. Its a great starting point for exploring time travel.

7

Thanks, Darby, I shell look for that book.
I’m still new in timetravel, and most of this is my imagination.
But it seemed logical to me.

But what do you think about Nikola Tesla’s time travel experiments.
And do you have any of your own TT teories?
And what about teleport teories?

8

I do not like the idea of teleportation, due to the economic damage from the point of view of employees,
it would put alot of people out of work, so i couldnt morally bring myself to support it, when you imagine how many jobs involve transport and movement.

As a shareholder who depends on income, and as a worker who depends on income i say NO, GO AWAY!!

I’m not sure it would be possible to transport humans due to the fact that i wonder where your mind is when you are killed, to transport things it requires destroying them at A, copying at B and the result at C, i think if you was cloned you would come out as a zombie because your memory gets lost in the process.
I could be wrong, but there might be other flaws, currently the main problem is it can only be done with photons rather than things with mass.

But i will not invest!

9

Arachnotron,

You’ve got it right re. the biological problems. Michael Crichton also got it right in his novel “Timeline”.

In that book, as you recall, the time travelers are also teleported to the destination and there reassembled. But this process is based on quantum mechanics and machines. QM introduces random errors that cannot be overcome. And no matter how precise the machine is it too introduces errors. Between QM and the machine the TT’ers can’t be precisely reassembled. Thus, in the novel, the TT’ers have a limited number of trips that they can make before the DNA damage is debilitating or fatal.

10

Navy,

I hate to burst your bubble on this one, but there’s no evidence that Tesla had any interest in time travel. You find a few articles online where in 1895 he’s being quoted about an experiment gone awry. Then the article stops quoting and inserts words indicating that he somehow lost contact with his present and future.

That the articles (all based on a single article definitely not from 1895 but from about 1995) stop quoting him at just that point in the story should be telling.

And there’s another tiny problem with the story. It quotes Tesla as saying that he was hit by a 3.5 million volt charge in the shoulder and the only thing that saved him was the quick action of his lab assistant who turned off the current.

The article doesn’t mention the amperage but for the sake of argument let’s say that it was 1 millivolt. That means he would have taken a 350,000 watt hit. If it was .1 millivolts he would have been hit with 350 watts. In either case he would have been dead. In the former case its possible that his internal liquid (like blood) would have par-boiled him before his assistant could have formed a thought to move let alone actually pull the off switch.

Tesla was a brilliant man. Our modern society owes him a huge debt for pushing AC current over Thomas Edison and Westinghouse Electric’s DC current. He invented dozens of products and had more than one patent battle with Thomas Edison.

But I think that we end up demeaning his reputation when we start believing all of these Internet fables about the man. For some reason, it seems, there are people who can’t accept him as he was. They have to place him in the UFO/Cargo Cult Science group. I think that one reason for this fabledom is that the man was, shall we say, a bit eccentric in his old age…i.e., he became senile. As a young man, brilliant though he was, he was a bit on the lazy side. He’d start a project, get bored with it and then never follow through.

(Hmmm…maybe he wasn’t so much a lazy person as a person who had too many great ideas floating through his noggin all at once. He couldn’t keep up with himself. This isn’t atypical of good inventors. ))

Now, if some hard and fast proof could be put forward I might change my ideas. One thing that they would have to show is that Tesla, 10 years prior to the Special Theory of Relativity being published, seriously disagreed with Newtonian Mechanics. I’ve never seen anything written that would suggest that. All of his science, inventions and documentation were firmly embedded in Newtonian physics.

11

Hi Darby

I think it would be more appropriate if you use milliamps instead. As milliamps is a measure of amperage. In my electronics course in high school the instructor informed us that it would take at least 1/10 of an amp to kill a person. He said it wasn’t the voltage that kills, it was the amps. So in your scenario a milliamp is 1/1000 of an amp. This amperage would not be enough to kill a person regardless of the voltage present.

Now this does seem to support how stage performers can withstand the huge arcs from tesla coils that travel through their bodies. Very little current is present in the discharge, just a lotta volts. So using watts to measure the product of the current times the voltage wouldn’t be an accurate way to assess damage to the human body. Obviously high wattege levels can be tolerated as long as the current levels remain very low.

12

Sorry Darby, but Ill have to agree wiht Einstein at this one.
Its ampers that kills you, not volts.
High frequency curent is harmles to human body.
as long the amperage is low, it wont harm you.
you just need appropriate coil for high viltage.
he made such devices capable of making 12 meter lightnings.
but there was a problem. he coudnt fix it at one point.
it was all arround.
nevermind that, however I agree with you about the fulish internet stories about him.
but I tink that we will agree at this one. he was a siantist to advanced for his time,
maby to advanced for him self. but he was no full. he have up many of his projects, because
he realized that there is no point in continuing working on projects fr example as “energy transfer” if energy is all around us and you just need reciver to collect it.

I have every respect for Edison but come on, he had patents like letter glue.
Almost all of his patents are transcended while most of Teslas are still in use today.

Does anybody know something about Teslas project from WW2?
He offered Britan electric defencive system that woud burn every aircraft
that comes into Britan airspace.

Oh yes, and this one.
woudnt teleportation help wrold.
you coud transport great ammount of suplies in no time.
It woud help in situations of acsidents, hunger in Africa, and much more…

13

I was a bit confused about your posts and then I re-read my post. “Millivolts”? Yikes! I meant mA not mV - amperage.

14

So is time passing slower or does it just take longer for time to register as passing because of the mechanics of the clock?

15

bogz,

In Special Relativity problems don’t get hung up on the idea of a “clock”. Clocks and watches don’t represent anything that is particularly “fundamental” to physics. They’re just machines.

But time does, indeed, pass more slowly in a fundamental manner in the moving frame relative to the “at rest” observer.

But you do bring up a good thought about clocks. If you want to run an experiment to test how time passes at different rates you have to be careful about what it is you want to use as your “time piece”. You use some form of an atomic clock that keeps time by counting nuclear decay particles. Good old Mr. Timex isn’t going to cut the mustard. There are far too many ways to affect changes in regular clocks and watches that have nothing to do with the theory of relativity.

BTW: I gave you the simplified answer about time running more slowly in Special Relativity. It isn’t quite that straight forward. I won’t get into the minutia but technically what occurs requires the situation to be analyzed via differential geometry. In that analysis the clock doesn’t run slower. It takes a shorter geodesic pathway through spacetime. The spacetime metric looks very familiar - and it should. Its a derivitive of the Pathagorean Theorem in Euclidean geometry.

Instead of the familiar 2D c^2 = (a^2 + b^2) to solve for the hypotenuse “c”, in the Special Theory of Relativity it takes the 4D form of:

ds^2 = -dt^2 + 1/c^2 (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) where “s” is the interval (seperation) between two events in space and/or time.

16

I like that explanation of taking a shorter path through spacetime. What about the human mind as a timepiece. Say you put two legendary precussionists Neil Pert and John Bonham on those planes and they both counted 1-eh-and-a, 2-eh-and-a up to “x”-eh-and-a. Assume they go on a long enough trip for us to expect both drummers to be out of sync because we know ones of them take a shorter geodesic pathway through spacetime and have the math to prove it.

I can’t shake the feeling that they will both walk off the plane perfectly in sync at at the same count. Until all time pieces are covered, I like your wording “It takes a shorter geodesic pathway through spacetime” very much =)

Geodesic was an interesting wikipedia article btw. I wish derivatives and integrals were part of basic math libraries in every coding language.

17

Let’s try this gedanken experiment:

Instead of Neil and John we put two clocks and two metronomes on a spaceship. We set up one clock and one metronome at each end of the ship. It’s a huge ship – 1 light second long (300,000 km).

Here’s how it will work. The ship starts at rest with respect to our space station. I set up in the exact middle of the ship and send out a signal that starts both metronomes ticking at mm 60 – 60 beats per minute. The signal also starts our rather special clocks ticking. When each clock ticks it sends a light pulse to the other end of the ship. When that pulse arrives it hits the clock at that end of the ship. The clock ticks and sends out another light pulse. That should set our clocks to ticking at mm 60 in synch with the metronomes.

We assume that we’ve set up our apparatus perfectly. The clocks and metronomes, all four of them are ticking simultaneously at mm 60.

Now we accelerate the ship. The clocks and metronomes will get out of synch. When the aft clock sends out its light pulse that pulse will have to travel a distance greater than 300,000 km because the fore bulkhead is moving away from the spot where it was when the pulse left the aft clock.

When the fore bulkhead clock sends out its pulse it will arrive at the aft clock in less than a second because the aft clock is moving toward the spot where the fore clock was when it last transmitted.

The clocks are Neil and John. The metronomes theoretically stay in synch but the clocks don’t.

I said “theoretically” because we can’t verify that they remain in synch until we are no longer accelerating. Any sort of information passed between the metronomes (or observers at each end of the ship) will suffer that same consequences as the clocks as long as the ship is accelerating. Once we turn off the engines we can bring the metronomes together by moving them as slowly as possible so that we can compare them. We don’t want to move them together at any appreciable velocity because they are then accelerated with respect to each other.

BTW: This is another example of how the reality is a longer geodesic rather than contraction or expansion of the ship. As the ship continues to accelerate and gets very, very close to light speed the time for the aft pulse to arrive at the fore bulkhead tends to infinity. The speed of light wasn’t altered in any way.

If we put John and Neil at opposite ends of the ship the fiorward observer would detect a pulse that was becoming every more red shifted. The other one had better watch out. The pulse going aft would eventually become a cosmic ray laser beam due to blue shifting. )

18

some people say that universe is spreading and eventualy it will be to big to support
its own mass. than it will implode.

what do you think about that and does it affect time?
what do you think about dark holes, and the way they affect light?
some say that at the end, one dark hole will be big enough to implode universe,
and does it have anything to do with big bang?

is there a place where time doesnt flow and does anyone have some realistic teory of time travel?

If you have any answers please respond.
NAVY wonders…

19

Darby, thank you for the comparison. I think I can visualize that now.

If you rotated them 90deg would they go out of sync?

20

NAVY,

I think that you’re refering to the “Big Crunch” (the opposite end of universal evolution from the Big Bang). One family of cosmologies predicts that at some future point in time (in about 10-20 billion years) the overall expansion of the universe will stop and a re-collapse will begin. The Big Crunch would then occur about 30-40 billion years later.

The current majority opinion (since the late 1960’s) is that this won’t occur.

The ultimate evolution of the universe depends on the average density of matter throught the universe. That depends on the total mass of the universe.

At this time the information suggests that the total mass of the universe, thus the average density, is only about 10% of what is necessary for the universe to undergo gravitational collapse. The overall gravitational field of the universe versus the average velocity of the expansion suggests that we are flying apart too fast for gravity to stop the expansion. Everything is flying apart at a velocity that exceeds the equivalent of “escape velocity”.

It appears that the universe will continue to expand forever and that the only massive things left will be black dwarf stars (white dwarfs that have cooled to about 1 Kelvin temperature), black holes, neutron stars and frozen planets with an average seperation between them tending to infinity. Eventually even the black holes will evaporate through Hawking radiation. That only leaves black dwarfs, neutron stars and frozen planets. And even the neutron stars might also evaporate (and liberate molecular hydrogen). So we might add that there could be a thin hydrogen gas in addition to black dwarfs and frozen planets.

Isn’t that a joyful outlook for “tomorrow”? )