Time Travel is Science Fiction

[Dr_Toad]

Man. I hear "woo" and "popscience" and "quack" endlessly from people who can't tell the difference, and then this crap from someone who had to have his quack popscience woo book for children published by a vanity press.

No irony at all there, is there?

 

[Farsight]

Let's look at the actual passage about Wheeler's mistake.

'Wheeler, unfortunately, has conflated a temporal circle with a cycle, precisely missing the force of Godel's conclusion that the possibility of closed, future-directed,
timelike curves, i.e., time travel, proves that space-time is a space, not a time in the intuitive sense. Whereas a circle is a figure in space, a cycle is a journey undertaken
along a circular path, one that can be repeated, in Wheeler's words, "over and over again." Exactly how many times, one wants to ask Wheeler, is the journey supposed to be
repeated? The question clearly cannot be answered, since the time traveler's journey is not over time, along the closed timelike curve: it is the curve itself. Just as one cannot ask of a circle how many times the points that constitute that figure have gone around, one cannot sensibly ask how often the time traveler in the Godel universe has made his or her trip.'

I've bolded the important point. You don't travel along a closed timelike curve, just as you don't travel along a worldline. Wheeler thought you did. But then again, he thought matter tells space how to curve. And that a positron was an electron travelling back in time.

 

[PhysBang]

I've bolded the important point. You don't travel along a closed timelike curve, just as you don't travel along a worldline. Wheeler thought you did. But then again, he thought matter tells space how to curve. And that a positron was an electron travelling back in time.

Farsight, your ignorance is sad. Your repeated attempts at deception are angering and saddening to think about how you might treat you family in real life, especially when you have claimed that you got involved in physics because of your family.

You are deceiving us here by focusing on something that you think you can twist into your interpretation, but ignoring the important point that directly contradicts your position and puts the lie to every time you cite this book.

You really, really need to learn some physics.

 

[Billy T]

So the fact that Esintein and Rosen, for example, have said that it's a solution isn't good enough for you?

Sure it is. I said I believe it true but that I could not check it - a complete and honest reply.

You expect to be able to understand it and solve it for yourself?

I don't have either time nor in some cases the ability. I did once spend more than an hour checking the tensor equation on less than one page of Modern Physic (if that is the journal that has about 5 sections - I am sure it was "Section B" I checked.) I did this more to make sure I fully understood the very compact notation, what the different (super and sub differ in meanings) as does repeated index (that mean sum over) meant than because of doubt - any math there certainly was correct.

Sort of for the same reason I read Das Kapital in the original - to perfect my German.

The practicality of a solution is a separate issue from whether or not a solution is permissible. ... Do you understand the difference? This thread is about whether or not it's possible, not whether or not it's practical.

Yes. I know the difference AND I agree but I never mentioned "practicality" - those are not my words. I spoke of some solution "as being unstable" and made the bowling ball example of an unstable solution - one that no advance in technical skills can achieve - to shows that just because something is a solution does not mean it can exist. Rest of your post concerns "practicality" so needs no more reply - I never even mentioned that question.

 

[Trippy]

Sure it is. I said I believe it true but that I could not check it - a complete and honest reply. I don't have either time nor in some cases the ability. I did once spend more than an hour checking the tensor equation on less than one page of Modern Physic (if that is the journal that has about 5 sections - I am sure it was "Section B" I checked.) I did this more to make sure I fully understood the very compact notation, what the different (super and sub differ in meanings) as does repeated index (that mean sum over) meant than because of doubt - any math there certainly was correct.

Fair enough then.

Sort of for the same reason I read Das Kapital in the original - to perfect my German. Yes. I know the difference AND I agree but I never mentioned "practicality" - those are not my words. I spoke of some solution "as being unstable" and made the bowling ball example of an unstable solution - one that no advance in technical skills can achieve - to shows that just because something is a solution does not mean it can exist. Rest of your post concerns "practicality" so needs no more reply - I never even mentioned that question.

And yet that is precisely what you're talking about... Unstable solutions still exist in the real world, there are thousands of examples of them, so showing that something is unstable is not sufficient to show that it can not happen.

 

[LaurieAG]

What would you know? You can't even understand what's being discussed to start with. The wormhole could be used to build a time machine in a local laboratory frame where we could 'travel in time' in the lab frame or like Prof Thornes wormhole thought experiment where we travel into the past/future of a

Because Brucep, Paddoboy's quote stated that no mass could be sent through the wormhole.

Unfortunately, the renormalised Casimir energy-density is zero for null rays directed exactly parallel to the throat, and this shortfall prevents us from stabilising the ultrastatic spherically-symmetric wormhole considered here. Nonetheless, the negative Casimir energy does allow the wormhole to collapse extremely slowly, its lifetime growing without bound as the throat-length is increased. We find that the throat closes slowly enough that its central region can be safely traversed by a pulse of light.

 

[LaurieAG]

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins

And in contrast with the twin on Earth, there is no slight redefinition that will do away with these acceleration phases.

It doesn't even consider a circular path at constant velocity, which certainly does not give you time travel in SR.

If you disagree with SR, write up a paper refuting it, gather your evidence via the scientific method, and get it peer reviewed.

I don't disagree with SR equations as used in constant velocity rotating source calculations (per Gron's paper), and the rest of your examples are just incomplete speculations.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't disagree with SR equations as used in constant velocity rotating source calculations (per Gron's paper), and the rest of your examples are just incomplete speculations.

No, they are examples of how time travel maybe achieved, in line with the solutions of GR.
Those equations of GR and the laws of physics do not forbid time travel. It's as simple as that, and that is the general consensus of mainstream cosmology.

 

[paddoboy]

Because Brucep, Paddoboy's quote stated that no mass could be sent through the wormhole.

And like you said elsewhere, these scenarios are rather speculative, and nothing certain is applicable. Some form of exotic matter may help in stabilising the wormhole.
Also we have Kerr BH's and ring singularities that open up other possibilities to a sufficiently advanced civilisation.

 

[Farsight]

So, for time travel, which is science fiction, you need a wormhole. And for a wormhole, which is science fiction, you need exotic matter. Which is science fiction. It's like turtles all the way down, a whole cavalcade of science fiction concepts, one after another, none of which are explained in any meaningful sense, none of which are supported by scientific evidence. And oooh, ring singularities! Pah, the similarity with religion is just so palpable.

Woo Woo! Here comes the time-travel train. Form an orderly queue please! Mugs on the left, suckers on the right!

 

[PhysBang]

So, for time travel, which is science fiction, you need a wormhole. And for a wormhole, which is science fiction, you need exotic matter. Which is science fiction.

There are many forms of exotic matter that may be possible.

Plus, of course, you are intentionally leaving out that Godel showed that there is time travel in a rotating universe (as one of your favorite books points out).

 

[OnlyMe]

Do you agree with Farsight?

If as I here asume this question was meant for me, the fact that I don't believe time-travel is possible, as I have defined it on several occasions and Farsight apparently does not believe time-travel is possible, however he defines it, should be taken in no way, other than superficially, that I agree with Farsight, in any substantial manner.

 

[krash661]

So, for time travel, which is science fiction, you need a wormhole. And for a wormhole, which is science fiction, you need exotic matter. Which is science fiction. It's like turtles all the way down, a whole cavalcade of science fiction concepts, one after another, none of which are explained in any meaningful sense, none of which are supported by scientific evidence. And oooh, ring singularities! Pah, the similarity with religion is just so palpable.

Woo Woo! Here comes the time-travel train. Form an orderly queue please! Mugs on the left, suckers on the right!

and yet, there you are, on the right.

 

[phyti]

Billy T#1360

I almost always try to answer direct questions put to me by someone worth my time to answer, like you. I wish you would clearly tell if the cosmic ray muons reaching the earth are "time travlers" or not.

SR predicts if clock A leaves clock B which remains in inertial motion, and returns, it will show LESS accumulated time than clock B. Clock A would have travelled back in time, if this behavior was considered time travel. The time dilation effect can be explained using constant light speed and object motion, and is therefore not a new or exotic phenomenon. Both observers of each clock can record the same events. Both clocks are coincident (same place, same time) at departure and reunion. Since a universal "time" does not exist, either clock may be used for coincident events.

For everyone else:
The "time travel" issue depends on "time" being a dimension. An analysis of the Minkowski diagram shows "time" does not appear on it, only the mathematical manipulation of t to ct, i.e. distance. This was done for mathematical reasons, for representational purposes. The abstract nature of trajectories, orbits, timelines, etc. has been demonstrated continuously for years, to not correspond to anything in physical reality. There are still people who promote metaphorical interpretations for their own benefit.
GR will not be "the final answer".

 

[paddoboy]

So, for time travel, which is science fiction, you need a wormhole.

No, and now you are being once again, deliberately obtuse. Firstly, yes Time travel is Sci/Fi at this point in our technological know how.....But we both know that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, and the equations of GR reveal many possible theoretical solutions. Secondly, wormholes are only one theoretical method to achieve time travel.....Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel, and then we have Kerr metric BH's and ring singularities.

And for a wormhole, which is science fiction, you need exotic matter. Which is science fiction. It's like turtles all the way down, a whole cavalcade of science fiction concepts, one after another, none of which are explained in any meaningful sense, none of which are supported by scientific evidence. And oooh, ring singularities! Pah, the similarity with religion is just so palpable.

Your typical derision of accepted scientific theories is as usual way off the mark. You need to realise that before electiricity, the many devices we have now, TV, radio, phones, etc etc etc would have been perceived as magic at one time not really that long ago.
The other point you need seriously educated on is Kerr BH's and ring singularities. Since most stars do rotate, its logical then to see the BH's that some of these stars will form, will also be spinning. Therefor besides such phenomena as ergospheres created due to those spins, we also have the singularity affected, so that it forms a ring type structure. If a path can be precisely taken to pass through this ring equidistant from all parts of the ring, the gravitational effects will cancel out, and we maybe able to pass through unharmed. Ergopsheres them selves, are areas that escape is possible.
So accepting that, its reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced civilisation may achieve such fantastic time travel methodology.

Woo Woo! Here comes the time-travel train. Form an orderly queue please! Mugs on the left, suckers on the right!

Farsight, you are like the cocky on the biscuit tin....you just aint in it.
And while you continue to avoid the hard questions, queries and facts, you'll continue to always be on the outside looking in.

 

[Billy T]

...Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel, ...

I don't think so, as suspended animation (blood replaced with cryogenic fluid) and successful re-animation after two hour wait has already been demonstrated in pig and dog. Plus a 2.5 year old Utah child spent more than an hour (66 minutes) in ice water with out breathing (under some ice as I under stand it). Initial reports were that she fully recovered but more careful testing seemed to indicate some selective brain damage; However, it is also possible she had those selective defects prior near drowning.

From post 1344, here, in blue text, is a set of data with all relevant facts given to one minute precision:
TT is the Time Traveler & SH is the stay at home (on Earth) identical twin.
There mother's egg was fertilized during the first second of 1 January 1930 and they were born on the first day of 1 November 1930 at 10 AM.
When they were both 30 years old, TT and SH shook hands (on 1 November 1960 at 11 AM) and TT stated what for him was a 10 year trip (at noon of 1 November 1960); TT emerged again from the space ship to embrace SH at 3PM on 1 November 2000.
At that "embrace instant" SH was 70 years old, both biologically & his clock; But TT was only 40 years old both biologically and by the clock he always kept with him.

Although I think this scenario on shows only time dilation, others think it describes twin paradox "time travel." But my point here, is that the same 25% slower aging could be achieved by a 1 day alert, 3 days in suspended animation cycle. That may very well be achievable before 2050 as suspended animation is a active, funded research area making steady progress. Achieving the above scenario by rocket ship would cost several times the world's total annual GDP. - Not like to be the first way the above scenario will be achieved.

In addition to extreme cost, 10 years of food and some power system (& thick insulation) keeping TT from freezing in ~4K deep space is a lot of weight to lift off.

 

[paddoboy]

In addition to extreme cost, 10 years of food and some power system keeping TT from freezing in ~4K deep space is a lot of weight to lift off.

And that methodology has certainly been given air play within NASA and JPL, for future interstellar travels.
For the individual concerned that is "frozen in time", from his perspective time has certainly biologically stopped, or at least slowed down.
All this does in my opinion, is show how right Einstein was in the non absolute nature of both time and space...or as Kip Thorne prefers to call it, the aspect of "personal time".
And how time dilation effects can be and are referred to as "time travel"

The following describes it far better than I ever can......
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Medical Time Travel
©2004 by Brian Wowk, PhD

This article is a chapter from the book
The Scientific Conquest of Death. It is
reproduced here with permission of the
author and publisher.

Time travel is a solved problem. Einstein showed that if you travel in a spaceship for months at speeds close to the speed of light, you can return to earth centuries in the future. Unfortunately for would-be time travelers, such spacecraft will not be available until centuries in the future.

Rather than Einstein, nature relies on Arrhenius to achieve time travel. The Arrhenius equation of chemistry describes how chemical reactions slow down as temperature is reduced. Since life is chemistry, life itself slows down at cooler temperatures. Hibernating animals use this principle to time travel from summer to summer, skipping winters when food is scarce.

Medicine already uses this kind of biological time travel. When transplantable organs such as hearts or kidneys are removed from donors, the organs begin dying as soon as their blood supply stops. Removed organs have only minutes to live. However with special preservation solutions and cooling in ice, organs can be moved across hours of time and thousands of miles to waiting recipients. Cold slows chemical processes that would otherwise be quickly fatal.

Can whole people travel through time like preserved organs? Remarkably, the answer seems to be yes. Although it is seldom done, medicine sometimes does preserve people like organs awaiting transplant. Some surgeries on major blood vessels of the heart or brain can only be done if blood circulation through the entire body is stopped [1],[2]. Stopped blood circulation would ordinarily be fatal within 5 minutes, but cooling to +16°C (60°F) allows the human body to remain alive in a "turned off" state for up to 60 minutes [3]. With special blood substitutes and further cooling to a temperature of 0°C (32°F), life without heartbeat or circulation can be extended as much as three hours [4]. Although there is currently no surgical use for circulatory arrest of several hours [5], it may be used in the future to permit surgical repair of wounds before blood circulation is restored after severe trauma [6].

much more at.....

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/medicaltimetravel.htm

 

[Landau Roof]

Every now and then I click on Paddoboy to see this ignored members posts. I keep hoping perhaps he's learned something, but no. He still thinks time dilation is time travel. He still religiously believes in Kip the Mighty Mainstreamer and he still refuses to think for himself. Although he admitted TT is Sc-Fi and has been told by moderators even that there is no need to keep repeating his fallacious mantra about GR not being forbidden by Aussie Rules Football (or something) he goes on arguing for TT by GR and now by medical organ freezing (time dilation) He writes: "Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel."

Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel

No, Paddo, just because you read something on a website with spacey-sciencey looking graphics doesn't make it so.

Stopped blood circulation would ordinarily be fatal within 5 minutes, but cooling to +16°C (60°F) allows the human body to remain alive in a "turned off" state for up to 60 minutes

All right, how is being in suspended animation for a whole hour time travel? How is it so different from taking a nap ? Sure you'd feel chilly and you body would not have aged for a whole four quarters of a rugby match minus time-outs and beer commercials, but so what? If we follow this line of reasoning, a thing you seem incapable of doing on your own, the most likely form of time travel is being alive. Whoa! Look at me! I just arrived in December 2014 from 1960! And it only took 54 years!

Okay, let's return to 1960 now...oops cannot. The laws of pop sci-fi and common sense forbid it.

 

[paddoboy]

This is the post of someone ignoring me...
This is the post of someone hanging off Farsight's coat tails, and accuses me of not thinking for myself....
This is the post of another anti mainstream science nut, deriding Thorne, Sagan, Carroll, Smolin, Davis and every other professional link that has been given...
This is the post of another amateur, who follows his limited instincts, refusing reality and possible theoretical application.
This is the post of someone who has been continually sprouting rubbish, making invalid and stupid analogies, while completely ignoring the facts that...
Time travel is allowed by the laws of physics and GR, and the equations of GR give numerous theoretical solutions:
Any sufficiently advanced civilisation could obtain it:
The macro effects of time dilation would certainly be seen as time travel, as illustrated and pointed out by the many professionals.

But this same obviously troubled and biased individual has me on ignore, along with Farsight.

Oh the pain of it all!!!

 

[Billy T]

Every now and then I click on Paddoboy to see this ignored members posts. I keep hoping perhaps he's learned something, but no. He still thinks time dilation is time travel. He still religiously believes in Kip the Mighty Mainstreamer and he still refuses to think for himself. Although he admitted TT is Sc-Fi and has been told by moderators even that there is no need to keep repeating his fallacious mantra about GR not being forbidden by Aussie Rules Football (or something) he goes on arguing for TT by GR and now by medical organ freezing (time dilation) He writes: "Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel."...

Don't be too hard on him now. He seems to be on the verge of understanding that suspended animation is the Only realistically possible way to time travel (have more than ~ 4 years less aging than your twin brother).

Un fortunately he keeps repeating his claims about his POV being supported by "Thorne, Sagan, Carroll, Smolin, Davis and every other professional link that has been given..." despite my post QUOTING them say just the opposite in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/threads/time-travel-is-science-fiction.140847/page-51#post-3250161) He has "cherry picked" part of sentences, even of Newton, to self delude. Note paddoboy only TELLS YOU what they said (as he understood it) - does not quote with link given, or if it is, the quote is a misleading / distorting cherry pick. Check that out for your self via next link about his cherry picks & lies concerning the Thorne video.

Several time also posted a video by Thorne that I gave (via the "Closed Caption" and times references) as to when in the video Thorne said exactly the opposite.
See what & when in video Thorne ACTUALLY SAID, HERE: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/time-travel-is-science-fiction.140847/page-63#post-3251420

Now I want to make a post showing the laws of physic, used for actual calculation refute his BS for time travel by rocket ship even allowing that twin to return only 5 years younger than his "stay at home" brother. See next post.