"The future ain't what it used to be."

time travel

G

Guest

The flaw in time travel is with the 'special theory of realitivity.
This is a selfcontadicting flawed theory that allows for many imposiable things.
 
Actually, not quite.

Any "real" theories of Time Travel originate with Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity, Special OR General. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity DO NOT reconcile.

There is actually nothing in Relativity, (if you accept the speed of light limit) that even addresses the issue of Time Travel. Relativity has no bearing on it. Relativity only addresses the differences that arise due to different frames of reference. It is the flawed methods of measurement in Quantum Mechanics that have led to 'serious' postulations of Time Travel due to particle/wave duality and the so called "collapsing wave" theory that tries to explain an appearent reverse of causality in experiments where fundamental particles are generated.

I DO agree with your second point however that Relativity is not a perfect theory. I'm not sure what you mean by "self contradicting", but I do believe it is flawed and so did Einstein. He was never able to put his finger on exactly how though, and as yet, neither have we. Otherwise we would be finding ways to exceed the speed of light without having to resort to hypothetical supralight particles like 'tachyons' which are themselves attempts to explain problems in Quantum Theory, not real particles that have ever been observed.

Finally, to harp an old point of mine, the REAL flaw in Time Travel theory is that we humans actually (and mistakenly) believe there is a tangible Past or Future as if it were some material space/time we can "travel" to. This is a fundamental error in conceptual thinking in the first place.

After almost a month of conversing on the subject on this message board, no one has yet answered my original friendly challenge to describe a Time Travel scenario (to the past OR the future) that DOES NOT lead to some form of paradox. I have yet to see anyone do it.

(And one STILL has to solve the POSITIONAL problem James Anthony brings up below, which is an entirely different matter, but equally important. To me, THAT problem stops the theory of Time Travel dead in it's tracks. No pun intended.)
 
Re:Re:time travel

Mow...Firstly, i must say that i am only 16 years old and i have many questions. First of all, Who says an object cannot travel the speed of light? Is there any proof to back this up? This could really clear some things up for me in regard to the Relativity equation...
 
Re:Re:Re:time travel

You are quite correct that the speed of light "limit" is NOT proven. It exists as a result of the mathematics which apply to Relativity and many of THOSE equations HAVE been tested and proved, including the Time Dilation effect. We actually have no way to really test that limit at this time except possibly in the feild of Quantum Mechanics. This is where the 'tachyon' hypothesis comes from.

Notice that I said "if" one accepts the limit, then relativity has no bearing on Time Travel. Since it is accepted at this time in the scientific community as a valid theory, I won't make hypotheses that ASSUME it is wrong. It has to be proven, or at least accepted to be, wrong first before I can use theories that consider superluminal velocities. You'll find those who will devise hypotheses that make the assumptions that certain generally accepted scientific theories are incorrect, but I'm not one of them. Even tho I do question some very fundamental theories that are popular in Quantum Mechanics (QM), I DO NOT assume my postulations are fact, nor do I base theories on assuming they are wrong. That would be bad science.

If you go down the board and check some of my earlier postings, you will find my specifics regarding the problems I see with QM, so I won't repeat them here.

Time Dilation however, IS NOT Time Travel. For example:

If we send an astronaut on a journey near the speed of light, and his journey only ever takes him on an elliptical orbit in our own solar system, we will never lose sight of him, or our ability to communicate directly with him, delays due to distance and doppler shifting notwithstanding. He also has a telescope aboard his craft and never loses sight of Earth.

He stays on this journey for 60 years, then returns home. The fact is, in that sixty years the dilation has caused him to age only 5 years lets say. He has STILL not traveled to any future but the collective one WE ALL proceded forward into, even if it didn't seem as long to him from his frame of reference.

Here's a question to ponder. If we never lost sight of each other, and we endured 60 years while he only endured 5, did he, during his flight see the Earth orbit the Sun 60 times or 5? Even tho we've measured time dilation, (or at least believe we have), does this scenario not seem like a paradox in itself?

Enjoy, and thank you for your question.
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Very Interesting....That should give me something to think about. Now i understand that we could not nearly move as fast as the speed of light with the relativity to the earth but is it possible to move the speed of light with relativity to a much slower object. Like other factors speeding an object along. For example A really wide train flying by at 300km/h with a car going on top of it at 200kn/h. Neither of the objects are going the speed of light but w/ relativity to the ground the car would be moving at 500km/h. Now say that that train was moving half the speed of light and the car moving the other half. With relativity to the ground the car would be moving the speed of light. Which, i would assume make the car disappear to ppl viewing it on the ground b/c according to the time dilution formula it would take 0 to move to any point. So, what i am theorizing is that we do not need to go the speed of light to go back in time but we would need at least a substantial fraction of that speed to hit the speed of light with relativity to another object. What do u think?
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Actually what you are referring to is called the Lorentzian effect. It has also been measured and paradoxically, the speed of light remains a constant no matter WHAT frame of reference it is measured from.

i.e. - An object travelling AWAY from the source of light will measure the light velocity at 186k mps just as an object travelling TOWARD the source will. Regardless of the velocity of the measuring frame of reference.

Strange as it seems, this is a measured, proven and well documented experiment that has been performed many times.

There are new theories that have alternative explanations for what this effect means including ones that attribute it to errors in perception of measurement that involve particle/wave duality, and another theory that postulates something called 'absolute time'.

They are too lengthy for me to go into in this response.

Suffice it to say that your thought experiment is an old one and was settled in the early part of this century.

But don't give up trying. We bloody well NEED to find a way around the speed of light if we are ever going to engage in any SERIOUS space travel.
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Thanx a lot...
I can't come up with anything if i don't understand it...
So i might as well get informed...
 
Ok...Here i go again.
I understood some of it. But it is a lot to take in.
I have a question though and it is this.
I found this in the reading
"if you measure the speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, the answer will, in general, differ from c." Now according to this... Would C be greater or lesser? and say with my example above with relativity to the train u would not be going the speed of light but to the ground u would right? This is all quite confusing but it would be nice if u could explain to me in plain english it would be really helpful...
 
It is indeed a very difficult subject to express in layman's terms and be brief about it. Since I cannot do it without taking up several browser pages of space on the board here, I'm going to give you ANOTHER reference to someone who has already done this as well as I've seen. He's as big a skeptic of the time dilation effect and has to delve into the very issue of your example to get his point across. He does it with a space ship and spools of thread. Very interesting!

So... try this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ortech/time.html

Enjoy.
 
Re:Re:time travel

Here's one for you. Imagine that two individuals are in a large room. There is a door 40 meters away. If both of those individuals leave together at the same time, at the same pace, they will exit the room at precisely the same time. However, imagine that one of the individuals runs for the door before the other can get started. The one that exited the room first will have to wait for the other individual to "catch up" before they will be in the same "time". I ask you this, did the first indidual travel faster through time? Is "time" not required to accomplish any task?
 
Re:Re:Re:time travel

The individual who "ran" traveled faster through space, not time.
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Yes. VERY SURE in fact.

Actually, if you want to get technical, the individual who ran ACTUALLY moved SLOWER thru time NOT faster, due to time dialtion of relative velocities. We'd be HARD pressed to measure how much with present technology however.

If you have a better answer, lets hear it.
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Going with "classical" very "classical" ideas, If the individual ran he would be going faster through time.
 
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:time travel

Then stop tap dancing around the issue and explain just how your so-called non-"classical" mind has the explanation for just HOW he is travelling faster thru time.

The last 8 yr old kid we had here started out real testy like you but eventually did have something to say, once the rest of us realized we were dealing with a child who hadn't learned all his manners yet. He did eventually have some fairly significant ideas to elaborate on however as we all found out.

You, on the other hand, talk a lot but you SAY nothing. If it suits your ego to do so, be my guest, but I would think the manner in which you continue to prove to everyone here that you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about would be an ego shattering experience, not an enhancing one.

I thought originally you might be just a shy person who covered up their introversion with arrogance at first. I hoped to draw you out. Unfortunately, the more I hear from you, the more I realize there is nothing there to draw.

The old saw says, give a person enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves with it. I'd say you've now done that very well.
 
Back
Top