Spacetime is an abstract mathematical thing, RJ. And it is static. There is no motion in spacetime. Imagine I throw a red ball across the room, and you film it with a cine camera. Then you develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, then stack them into a block. There's a red streak in the block which represents the world line of the ball. But there's no motion in the block, none at all.
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Agreed, but that doesn't preclude the idea that the ball can show up twice in the same frame using a time machine. What we mean by motion can still be used in this context, and discussing a time machine cannot be rejected on the grounds of the absence of motion through spacetime.
You said you must travel through spacetime. I'm sorry RJ, but you can't. And nor can the ball travel through the block of film. See the OP. There's is no travelling through time, or spacetime. None at all. We travel through space. And there is no way in which a ball can travel through space to become two balls.
OK, I see our point of disagreement. I don't mean that we would "travel through spacetime" with a time machine; what I mean is that a time machine would need to be given space and time coordinates for a destination. It's actually a space-and-time machine because the concept of "here" has no absolute meaning at other points in time.
MattMars
Registered Member
Hi farsight,
Thanks for the link from "what is time?"
Great post, and I very much agree with your principles, though I would go slightly further,
We always seem to want to hold on to a last residue of 'time',
"It doesn’t say time does not exist, it’s more like time exists like heat exists. "
(E.g. Emergent)
I would suggest, in fact, matter/energy seems to just exist, move change and interact. Period.
And if that's all there is, then to be completely clear and logical, we should not then mix things up again, and describe this as "time".
We should perhaps just leave it at that.
Otherwise we get right to the point of clarifying things.... Then pollute our understanding again, by pulling in a word that has numerous implications that habitually spring back into the laypersons or scientists mind, inducing more opened speculation etc.
IMO "time" seems to be nothing more that the undoubtedly very useful system of comparing examples of motion. Typically one example of simple regular motion (eg a hand specifically designed to rotate smoothly on a numbered dial) to more complex motion we are trying to understand, (e.g a ball accelerating down a ramp, or comet moving in the solar system).
Speak to u on "what is time." Forum
MM
V interested to read your book, found it on amazon
(Auth: A brief history of timelessness)
Thanks for the link from "what is time?"
Great post, and I very much agree with your principles, though I would go slightly further,
We always seem to want to hold on to a last residue of 'time',
"It doesn’t say time does not exist, it’s more like time exists like heat exists. "
(E.g. Emergent)
I would suggest, in fact, matter/energy seems to just exist, move change and interact. Period.
And if that's all there is, then to be completely clear and logical, we should not then mix things up again, and describe this as "time".
We should perhaps just leave it at that.
Otherwise we get right to the point of clarifying things.... Then pollute our understanding again, by pulling in a word that has numerous implications that habitually spring back into the laypersons or scientists mind, inducing more opened speculation etc.
IMO "time" seems to be nothing more that the undoubtedly very useful system of comparing examples of motion. Typically one example of simple regular motion (eg a hand specifically designed to rotate smoothly on a numbered dial) to more complex motion we are trying to understand, (e.g a ball accelerating down a ramp, or comet moving in the solar system).
Speak to u on "what is time." Forum
MM
V interested to read your book, found it on amazon
(Auth: A brief history of timelessness)
Like I said on the other thread, I'm always looking for ways to make this stuff palatable. Sometimes I pull my punches.
Period? LOL! Actually you can maybe take it further. In Compton scattering some of the E=hf photon energy is converted into the kinetic energy or motion of an electron. The thing is that you could, in theory, do another Compton scatter on the residual photon, then repeat ad infinitum. In the limit all of the photon wave-energy is converted into the motion of electrons, and the wave no longer exists. But alternatively you could have converted the photon into an electron (and a positron) in pair production. So in a sense, matter is made of motion.
Fair enough. Though like I said, shifting conviction is like shifting a tooth. And there's nowt so queer as folk.
IMHO physics is full of polluted understanding. And it all starts with time.
Music to my ears.
PM me with an address, and I'll send you a little something.
Certainly correct on both counts. And both counts certainly apply to you.
Incorrect though is the provocative thread title purposely designed to create argument.
There are factual things with regards to time travel are....
[1] The laws of physics and GR do not forbid it.
[2] At this time in the history of the Universe, it remains science fiction, and we are as yet unable to use our current technology to "time travel" in the macro sense.
[3] Time and space are both non absolute as Einstein and others showed, and relativistic effects have been evidenced in particle accelerators.
[4]Any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve time travel. [see [1]
[5] Theoretical time machines such as the "The Alcubierre drive" based on solutions to Einstein's field equations are one means by which time travel may be achieved by a sufficiently advanced civilisation.
Last edited:
Your taste in music is irrelevant. All you're trying to do is model the natural phenomena, we call time, in a way that you think precludes it being natural phenomena. Nonsense in bullshit out. As far as doing physics it's a bonehead endeavor. Looks like something has escaped your sock drawer.
Last edited:
The things is that I explain my position in the OP. Time is in essence a measure of local motion. You can't literally travel through this, just as you can't literally climb to a higher temperature.
Anybody who claims this just doesn't understand the physics.
Read the OP to understand that no technology will ever permit time travel. And do note that there aren't any time travellers around.
There's no issues with relativity or time dilation wherein local motion is of necessity reduced by macroscopic motion because total motion adds up to c.
In your popscience dreams, kid.
It's just more woo I'm afraid. See this bit from the Wikipedia article:
"Enormous tidal forces, however, would be present near the edges of the flat-space volume because of the large space curvature there"
That's wrong. Tidal forces are associated with spacetime curvature. In a gravitational field, space is inhomogeneous, not curved.
Anyone that denies that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, do not know physics kid.
The OP is bullshit. The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel.....live with it kid.
I'll stand by the judgement of our peers on this forum as to who is preaching bullshit, just as you will kiddo.
You're clinging to a fantasy. I've explained why you can't travel backwards in time. Because we don't even travel forward in time. It's like I said on the other thread, clocks clock up some kind of regular cyclical motion and show you a cumulative display called "the time". You can't move through a measure of motion.
Then refer to it and explain where I go wrong. You won't, because you can't, because I don't.
Simple...The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel...live with it.
And again of course, our peers on this forum will be the judge of who is living in a fanatsy or otherwise.
Your OP is just opinionated rhetoric.
The fact remains that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-m-wilde/time-travel-quantum-physics_b_4426900.html
Just one of many many references alluding to the above stated fact.
If this isn't just another one of your incessant rants, then get it peer reviewed.
I prefer the Greene, Kaku, Tegmark, Kraus, take on the situation though.
Afterall, they do have credentials....You?,
My first reply to your OP, in reference to the arrogance portrayed in the final paragraph, as well as the more obvious arrogance in the title of the thread.
Yes, Farsight, we all here, you and me, will be judged by our peers.
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
There is not a shred of arrogance in the title or the original post. Excuse me for being frank, but what I see, paddoboy, is that you cannot conceive of ever yourself being wrong about anything. You have very fixed views, not the scientific method of going about things at all, and yet you insist on resorting to science as your greatest defense of all the things you are convinced you cannot possibly be mistaken about. Maybe time travel may one day be possible. I'm not sure. Farsight is not absolutely sure, but you are completely certain in your view of this matter (and many others, I have observed). So who is more likely to be proven wrong in the end when their views are so set in stone?
MattMars
Registered Member
Hi Pad,
Where you say,
There are factual things with regards to time travel are....
[1] The laws of physics and GR do not forbid it.
This is why you I suggest you read section 1 of on the electrodynamics of moving bodies ,
Because you can't be sure your understanding of GR is totally sound if you have not read the fundamental, original, source paper of SR, that's my point.
In OEMB, See the possible false conclusion in the first 3 paragraphs,
Understand how minkowskis not spotting the possible error, may wrongly lead to 4d space'time'
And see how that affects GR , in a way that all of relativity still makes complete sense , accepting length contraction, mass encrease, warped space, and dilated "rates of change" -but- all of this, possibly just all happening in 3d space, and in all spatial directions only, "now".
mm
No that is false and misleading. Firstly, Farsight is known for his arrogance and provocative thread titles which just are not true...
Let me again inform you....
"The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel"
http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
http://www.livescience.com/39159-time-travel-with-wormhole.html
http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
But so are you! And for those of us who are not your estimable self, there is nothing at all provocative about this particular thread title. It is a statement of fact, or 'mainstream opinion' which you speak of so highly in another recent post of yours.
There you go again with the bold type. Like that's going to change anything! Back in the discussion we were having with Motor Daddy and Krash 661 (is that earlier this thread?) I read your links and found them all to be the most puerile pop sci. I don't need to look at them again because they probably still are.
You seem so obsessed with trivialities, pedant and nonsense, yet continually overlook the facts, accepted theories, and science.
Do better.
Oh, and next time I have an inkling to use "bold" I wont ask you...OK?