• A Physicist Is Building a Time Machine to Reconnect With His Dead Father
    112 replies, posted
Time is a constant though, and not even in the sense we humans interpret it. Concepts like "past", "present" and "future" are something we assign meaning to, but ultimately, what we perceive as time is just the inexorable march of existence as it creeps onwards. Humanity has long theorized of the effects of time manipulation, and from mathematical observations of space-time relativity produced plausible models off of which to base further works, however if it did become possible to somehow pluck a person from the present and safely deposit them in a past (not even THE past necessarily), there would be an infinite layering of parallel instances of time that would have had something changed in order to not bring itself to the exact same point the time-traveler set off from. What those changes are, if even by the hands of the time-traveller, are impossible to know and so on and so forth. In short, time travel in the traditional, fantastical and strangely practical sense is almost entirely certain to be impossible, at least with the rules of physics being as they are on our plane of existence. The closest you could probably get is dilating your subjective timeline in relation to the Observer (Humanity on Earth?), but I am extremely skeptical of there being a method that involves safe, paradox-free travel from the present into a very specific point of the past.
[QUOTE=Nukefuzz;47409554]Time travel has always confused me, mostly because if you don't go back to the exact date that Earth was in the same place, (which would be very hard to find, considering daylight savings, leap years, etc) you would just be transported into space...[/QUOTE] Daylight savings doesn't mean a whole lot considering the speeds our solar system and galaxy are zipping through space.
Heart attack the night of his anniversary - so he went too hard on the poon?
[QUOTE=lintz;47405808]that won't be proven until it actually happens and it won't happen because it can't be proven[/QUOTE] that in itself is a paradox my friend
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47408415]Doesn't it violate the law of conservation of energy/mass though? I mean, if you go back in time you've duplicated yourself and added more energy to the universe.[/QUOTE] you can add more energy to the universe. There's nothing stopping that from happening. It's like how it's possible to go faster then light.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;47414272]you can add more energy to the universe. There's nothing stopping that from happening. [B]It's like how it's possible to go faster then light.[/B][/QUOTE] Not this again, aren't you the same guy who was blathering on in another thread a while back about how the speed of light is an artificial limit scientists place on us?
[QUOTE=Deng;47406555]How do you even travel into the past? It's already happened, so where is it exactly?[/QUOTE] Covered up by the secret time-travel Illuminati.
I have a stupid theory about time travel, that it has already been invented several times, but in every instance someone goes back in time and sets off a chain of events that prevent the invention of time travel.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;47414272]you can add more energy to the universe. There's nothing stopping that from happening. It's like how it's possible to go faster then light.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure you cannot add more energy to the universe because of the whole conservation of energy thing which can be derived in almost every field of study. If you're making energy here, somewhere else energy is vanishing
I still look forward to astronauts finding a DeLorean floating in space.
[QUOTE=Damian0358;47405903]I never really liked the kind of time travel everyone talks about. There are just so many things that could go wrong. I'd prefer a type of time travel that allows one to see the past, but not interact with it. I want to go back and see important historical events unfold right before my eyes, but I don't want to accidentally do something that changes history. Heck, maybe that's why we don't see any time travelers.[/QUOTE] Hell, with the recent advancements in virtual reality, that'd definitely have to be the method that has near-zero or in fact would have zero paradox possibilities, while still providing good enough realism. Strap your Oculus/Vive/Cardboard on, set a date and time, walk around and experience history like you're actually there.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47414296]Not this again, aren't you the same guy who was blathering on in another thread a while back about how the speed of light is an artificial limit scientists place on us?[/QUOTE] Alright, alright just listen here, what if going by that experiment last year were they successfully teleported light from one place to another using quantum entanglement meant they traveled faster then light?
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;47417578]Alright, alright just listen here, what if going by that experiment last year were they successfully teleported light from one place to another using quantum entanglement meant they traveled faster then light?[/QUOTE] I don't know what experiment you're talking about, but any "teleportation" of information doesn't occur faster than the speed of light.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;47417578]Alright, alright just listen here, what if going by that experiment last year were they successfully teleported light from one place to another using quantum entanglement meant they traveled faster then light?[/QUOTE] "Teleportation" in quantum mechanics does not mean what you probably think it does, and it is already well-known that quantum entanglement does not transmit and information faster than light. From the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article: [quote][B]Quantum teleportation[/B] is a process by which quantum information (e.g. the exact state of an atom or photon) can be transmitted (exactly, in principle) from one location to another, with the help of classical communication and previously shared quantum entanglement between the sending and receiving location. Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for superluminal transport or communication of classical bits.[/quote]
What if he invents the time machine, travels back in time to warn his dad about his heart attack, which promts to him never being motivated to invent a time machine in the first place since his dad never dies. Paradoxes man
Time travel question: Let's say we have a man A, going about his day doing work. Then an identical man B pops into existence out of nowhere. Together, they do twice as much work in a given time as A would alone. Then A walks into a time machine and disappears forever, while B continues about his life as normal. Would this scenario work with the Novikov's self-consistency principle?
[QUOTE=Sableye;47416338]Pretty sure you cannot add more energy to the universe because of the whole conservation of energy thing which can be derived in almost every field of study. If you're making energy here, somewhere else energy is vanishing[/QUOTE] What if you're taking energy from another universe?
Maybe I am missing the point, and I don't mean that in a smart ass way, but why is he trying to accomplish something which is almost ceartinly impossible, and even if it is, something that would take unthinkable amounts of research and funding. It seems pointless
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;47424993]Maybe I am missing the point, and I don't mean that in a smart ass way, but why is he trying to accomplish something which is almost ceartinly impossible, and even if it is, something that would take unthinkable amounts of research and funding. It seems pointless[/QUOTE] Well he does get attention
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47406120]When I start thinking like this, it makes me wonder how convincing somebody would have to be to make me believe that he, a random stranger who just knocked on my door, was actually my son from an alternate universe who had traveled through time and the invisible walls of reality just to deliver a message to me. Pretty dang convincing, I'd think.[/QUOTE] But what about the massive impact it would have on the space time continuum?
If you created a machine that would cascade an object through time passed by, wouldn't it have to replace something? Would there not be an equalizing force, or would the object/person just "disappear"? Maybe you could replace a particle in another time with another particle, but a whole human being? Alive and conscious? I doubt it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47405716][url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-27/a-physicist-is-building-a-time-machine-to-reconnect-with-his-dead-father[/url] Oh.[/QUOTE] Plot twist, he becomes his own father, and understands he has to die in order for the cycle to continue.
I really hope it works
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.