# Time travel impossible?



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 26, 2011)

http://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-scientists-show-time-travel-impossible-150026913.html


Evolutionists would have to disagree.   Given enough time, anything is possible


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 26, 2011)

What does evolution have to do with time travel?


----------



## hummdaddy (Jul 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What does evolution have to do with time travel?



yes this and we do not know all the mysteries of the universe


----------



## pnome (Jul 26, 2011)

*clears throat*

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1373



> We construct a simple class of compactified five-dimensional metrics which admits closed timelike curves (CTCs), and derive the resulting CTCs as analytic solutions to the geodesic equations of motion. The associated Einstein tensor satisfies the null, weak, strong and dominant energy conditions; in particular, no negative-energy "tachyonic" matter is required. In extra-dimensional models where gauge charges are bound to our brane, it is the KK modes of gauge-singlets that may travel through the CTCs. From our brane point of view, many of these KK modes would appear to travel backward in time. We give a simple model in which such time-traveling Higgs singlets can be produced by the LHC, either from decay of the Standard Model Higgses or through mixing with the SM Higgses. The signature of these time-traveling singlets is a secondary decay vertex pre-appearing before the primary vertex which produced them. The two vertices are correlated by momentum conservation.



Say that ten times fast!


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 26, 2011)

I like the comment on the OP article that says "These scientists have obviously never heard of a flux capacitor."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2011)

As of right now, time travel is impossible.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 29, 2011)

I'll let you guys know when the DeLorean is finished!


----------



## Tim L (Aug 10, 2011)

Fasinating subject; the only real answer is no one knows; we do not have the technology to prove or disprove for sure either way...Another fasinating subject (I've watched too many sc fi movies over the years) is the danger of altering history and the possible consquences if it were possible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 10, 2011)

I just finished reading "Timeline" by Michael Crichton.  (I know.  I'm really late.  It came out awhile ago.)

Anyway, it's about time travel ... sort of.  The book posits that "time travel" as we commonly refer to it is impossible.  However, there are an infinite number of alternative universes, and it _is_ possible to travel to them.  The technology used is very similar to the "transporter" used in _Star Trek_.  People are literally disintegrated and reintegrated in the other universe.

Yeah, I know it's fiction, but it's very interesting and believable (as are all Crichton's books.)


----------



## Tim L (Aug 10, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I just finished reading "Timeline" by Michael Crichton.  (I know.  I'm really late.  It came out awhile ago.)
> 
> Anyway, it's about time travel ... sort of.  The book posits that "time travel" as we commonly refer to it is impossible.  However, there are an infinite number of alternative universes, and it _is_ possible to travel to them.  The technology used is very similar to the "transporter" used in _Star Trek_.  People are literally disintegrated and reintegrated in the other universe.
> 
> Yeah, I know it's fiction, but it's very interesting and believable (as are all Crichton's books.)




And in these alternative universes or dimensions supposely there is one for anything that is possible...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 10, 2011)

Sorry, I have to 

We all know you'll believe anything you read in a book

Just messing with you!



centerpin fan said:


> I just finished reading "Timeline" by Michael Crichton.  (I know.  I'm really late.  It came out awhile ago.)
> 
> Anyway, it's about time travel ... sort of.  The book posits that "time travel" as we commonly refer to it is impossible.  However, there are an infinite number of alternative universes, and it _is_ possible to travel to them.  The technology used is very similar to the "transporter" used in _Star Trek_.  People are literally disintegrated and reintegrated in the other universe.
> 
> Yeah, I know it's fiction, but it's very interesting and believable (as are all Crichton's books.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 11, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sorry, I have to
> 
> We all know you'll believe anything you read in a book
> 
> Just messing with you!




No problem.  I have a soft spot for Michael Crichton.  He's my favorite contemporary author.  I miss him.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 11, 2011)

I was just bustin you. I've never read anything from him.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 12, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I was just bustin you.



I know.  No offense taken. 




TripleXBullies said:


> I've never read anything from him.



You're missing out.  He wrote _Jurassic Park_, _Congo_, and _The Andromeda Strain_, just to name a few.  The term "page turner" was practically created for his books.

Also, he was a Harvard-trained MD who created the TV show, _ER_.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 12, 2011)

I've seen plenty of movies, but I'm not a big reader.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 13, 2011)

Actually you can travel in time. Go up in a spaceship and and orbit the earth. You will age differently than a human on the surface. That's right...astronauts are time travelers!
Satellites in orbit have to be programed to correct for this. 

All about gravity...


----------



## GeorgiaBelle (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Actually you can travel in time. Go up in a spaceship and and orbit the earth. You will age differently than a human on the surface. That's right...astronauts are time travelers!
> Satellites in orbit have to be programed to correct for this.
> 
> All about gravity...



Actually I was going to post something similar to this. I will try to find the article again, but I read that time seems to move differently in space. So you can go up there and it can be like 2 weeks for you, and when you come back to earth, like 2 years has passed. The entire concept is new to me and is kind of blowing my mind right now, so I'm still looking into it to see how it's possible. It apparently is possible, I just don't understand it.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

GeorgiaBelle said:


> Actually I was going to post something similar to this. I will try to find the article again, but I read that time seems to move differently in space. So you can go up there and it can be like 2 weeks for you, and when you come back to earth, like 2 years has passed. The entire concept is new to me and is kind of blowing my mind right now, so I'm still looking into it to see how it's possible. It apparently is possible, I just don't understand it.



Well...2 weeks does not equate 2 years. It would be more like 2 weeks in orbit would be the same as 2 weeks and some change on earth. It's all about gravity.


----------



## GeorgiaBelle (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Well...2 weeks does not equate 2 years. It would be more like 2 weeks in orbit would be the same as 2 weeks and some change on earth. It's all about gravity.



Oh I knew it was a complete exaggeration. That much time couldn't possibly pass, but it got my point across. The simple fact that 2 weeks does not equal exactly 2 weeks is astounding. That "and some change" part is pretty incredible.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 18, 2011)

GeorgiaBelle said:


> Oh I knew it was a complete exaggeration. That much time couldn't possibly pass, but it got my point across. The simple fact that 2 weeks does not equal exactly 2 weeks is astounding. That "and some change" part is pretty incredible.



Indeed! I find it hugely fascinating!


----------



## Tim L (Sep 19, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Indeed! I find it hugely fascinating!



It is fasinating; I think what your describing (time travel exists as part of space travel) is more like seconds and minutes; not years...TRUE time travel (based on what little I have read over the years) would not be possible until the spacecraft (or whatever it will be called by that time) is moving faster than 186,000,000 miles per second....Of course then would you move forward or backwards in time?? Back in the 60's there was a TV show on ABC about time travel, the "Time Tunnel"; somehow they always landed just before a major event in history (Troy before the Greeks brought in the wooden horse; on the Titanic before it hit an iceberg; Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941 (where one of the time travelors got to meet his dad, who was killed on the Arizona before he was born)....


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 19, 2011)

Tim L said:


> It is fasinating; I think what your describing (time travel exists as part of space travel) is more like seconds and minutes; not years...TRUE time travel (based on what little I have read over the years) would not be possible until the spacecraft (or whatever it will be called by that time) is moving faster than 186,000,000 miles per second....Of course then would you move forward or backwards in time?? Back in the 60's there was a TV show on ABC about time travel, the "Time Tunnel"; somehow they always landed just before a major event in history (Troy before the Greeks brought in the wooden horse; on the Titanic before it hit an iceberg; Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941 (where one of the time travelors got to meet his dad, who was killed on the Arizona before he was born)....



If we are to believe today's physics theorems there is no material that could survive flight at the speed of light. That's why today's scientist are focused on worm holes.


----------



## leightonr (Sep 21, 2011)

I really do not think it would be impossible.  As there are a lot of simple manifestations of life about it.  I mean, the best plain example would be the elevator.  While you are seeing a lot of commoners using the stairs working their way up, you are speeding right through them. And that is a very simple and mechanical way of teleportation.   When you see it, it may be rubbish but when you come to think of it, there is an element in it that makes you go fast.


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> As of right now, time travel is impossible.



Not if this turns out to be true. According to the article, we have already sent sub atomic particles back in time by about 60 nanoseconds. They would only have to travel about 8 billion miles (and some change) to go back one whole second...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7KN33E20110923

Even so, it all depends on your definition of time. Is time relative only to light? Why not sound?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 27, 2011)

I don't think we really have any idea what time is. We have an elaborate system of measuring it, but it is based on the revolutions of our earth, or its orbit around the sun. Is time different on other planets? Other universes? I don't think we really know what the passage of a moment really entails.

Is it like a fuse burning? If so, there would be no past to go back to, you could only go foward. Unless the burning part of the fuse was the only time that truly existed, then we would be perpetually stuck in the moment.

Is it the fourth dimension of the space time continuum? (whatever that is)

Is it Linear? Circular? Spehrical? Tubular?

I don't think we know anything about it.

Inuits had no concept of it. Six months of daylight followed by six months of darkness made clocks of little use. They ate when they were hungry, they slept when they were tired. They were never late, or early for that matter.


----------



## Gone Fishin (Sep 27, 2011)

Time travel - Not sure

E=MC2 (This equation works for what we understand today.... It may not be "The be all, end all."  Meaning it may not hold true for that which we do not yet understand.)

Time Travel - What would happen if we left in a space ship with a giant telescope and we flew away at the speed of light.  The earth would appear not to move.  If we could go faster than the speed of light, then as we watched earth everything would go in reverse.  We could see the past..........


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 27, 2011)

It can be argued time is not real, it is a figment of our imagination. The concept of time travel is based on the idea that you could witness an event twice. Basically you travel so fast, that you beat light from point A to point B...


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 29, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> It can be argued time is not real, it is a figment of our imagination. The concept of time travel is based on the idea that you could witness an event twice. Basically you travel so fast, that you beat light from point A to point B...



What does light have to do with time?


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> What does light have to do with time?



Look at it this way.

You have a "neutrino gun" at the end of a long tunnel (point A), at the other end is something to "catch" those neutrinos (point B). 

When fired faster than the speed of light, the neutrinos reach point B BEFORE the "neutrino gun" is fired.

That brings up my earlier question, is time relative only to light? We can observe an event by sound, also. The main difference is that light travels at a constant speed, whereas the speed of sound fluctuates based on it's environment...


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Look at it this way.
> 
> You have a "neutrino gun" at the end of a long tunnel (point A), at the other end is something to "catch" those neutrinos (point B).
> 
> ...



That is a "space" scenario, not a "time" scenario.

Sound doesn't have anything to do with time either.


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> That is a "space" scenario, not a "time" scenario.
> 
> Sound doesn't have anything to do with time either.



Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. 

We know that for the neutrinos to reach point B, they must be first fired from point A. So it can be said that the firing of neutrinos is event #1, and the "catching" of neutrinos is event #2. "Time" is the duration in which event #2 succeeds event #1. The neutrinos reached point B roughly 60 nanoseconds before light, so the value for time is -60 nano seconds. Because the value for time is negative, event #2 PRECEEDS event #1. So, the neutrinos reached point B before they left point A...

Time is not a real object. It's not like light, or sound, or gravity. It is "the duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another". Time is relative. In this case, it is relative to the neutrinos. From their perspective at point B, the neutrino gun is fired 60 nanoseconds after they reach their destination.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
> 
> We know that for the neutrinos to reach point B, they must be first fired from point A. So it can be said that the firing of neutrinos is event #1, and the "catching" of neutrinos is event #2. "Time" is the duration in which event #2 succeeds event #1. The neutrinos reached point B roughly 60 nanoseconds before light, so the value for time is -60 nano seconds. Because the value for time is negative, event #2 PRECEEDS event #1. So, the neutrinos reached point B before they left point A...
> 
> Time is not a real object. It's not like light, or sound, or gravity. It is "the duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another". Time is relative. In this case, it is relative to the neutrinos. From their perspective at point B, the neutrino gun is fired 60 nanoseconds after they reach their destination.



You have absolutely proven my point for me. We have no understanding of what time is. Above, in red, screams that we do not know what it is.

?DURATION?

du·ra·tion
â€‚ â€‚[doo-rey-shuhn, dyoo-]

noun 
1. the length of time something continues or exists (often used with the ). 

2. continuance in time. 

Dictionary.com


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Look at it this way.
> 
> You have a "neutrino gun" at the end of a long tunnel (point A), at the other end is something to "catch" those neutrinos (point B).
> 
> ...



Do they reach point B before the gun is fired or do they only reach point B before the firing of the gun becomes visible at point B?


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 2, 2011)

I already told you, time does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination. 



atlashunter said:


> Do they reach point B before the gun is fired or do they only reach point B before the firing of the gun becomes visible at point B?



"Time" is relative. Since the subject matter is the neutrinos, (the object attempting to travel back in time) time is relative to the neutrinos. If the neutrinos are at point B, then the sequence of events are relative to point B...


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 4, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I already told you, time does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> "Time" is relative. Since the subject matter is the neutrinos, (the object attempting to travel back in time) time is relative to the neutrinos. If the neutrinos are at point B, then the sequence of events are relative to point B...



fishinbub, you have not told me anything.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> fishinbub, you have not told me anything.



What is time?


----------



## Four (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm traveling through time right now. Slowly forward.


----------



## pnome (Oct 17, 2011)

Four said:


> I'm traveling through time right now. *Slowly* forward.



Relative to what?


----------



## Four (Oct 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> Relative to what?



Myself relative to my frame of reference


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 19, 2011)

Four said:


> I'm traveling through time right now. Slowly forward.



I don't believe it is anything but "normal speed" bro.

I like your comment though, it shows that you can weed through the horse droppings and recognize the reality of a situation!


----------

