Do you believe time travel is possible?

It sounds like there's a bit of the question missing there mate.
Or it raises further questions. What is the nature of the universe, quantum foam, quantum mechanics? Are we simply observing a quantum field? Then by observing that quantum field do we cause wave function collapse and rather than an infinite number of potentialities we end up observing a single potentiality that we call reality. Or is the the process in which we interpret light.
I'm getting a bit tired so ready for bed soon, if I don't make sense. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that applies to time travel, as the new atoms are technically not the same particles. They have a different "timestamp" essentially, so they're a different particle.

Imagined quantised time, with every 3d (or multidimensional) position of every particle appearing in time-snapshots that when combined form a complete 4D (or multiD+t) image of the entire universe from the beginning to the end as a kind of 3D-printed solid object. A particle taken from later in the timeline and inserted earlier in the timeline would essentially be a different particle to the one representing the same particle further back in time. The fact that one of the particles of the "back in time" position later becomes a particle that travels back in time to the same point in time is irrelevant. The timeline of that individual particle is complete up to the point the particle goes back in time, after which it no longer exists in its "planned" (for want of a better phrase spur of the moment) existence, whereas back where it arrives, it is essentially a new particle that has a complete timeline for the rest of time after that moment. For a time, two versions of that particle exist but because of the t element, they're actually essentially different particles for the time they both exist in the same "frames".

Incidentally, in quantum physics it is quite a common thing for something to exist in more than one place at the same time. It's called Superposition.
It wouldn't be a different particle, that's the whole point of the Law Of Identity. It is unique and the fact if you apply time as a 4th dimension is (I think) irrelevant. If you take it back in time there are two identical particles which exist simultaneously from that point onwards. I've already explained that I don't understand quantum physics so you could be right or wrong and I can't argue with you so we reach a stalemate there. You may be aware of Deepak Choprah who waffles on about quantum physics a lot but the experts say he has no idea what he is talking about.

 

Malloy

Midfield
You'd think they would have aimed it for Trump's house if that was the case. Unless they were Russian, Indian or Chinese time travellers. That would make more sense.
So in saway this backs up my theory that theres no one travelled back as they would have come back and stopped Trump
 

woodlebert

Striker
If you could travel quicker than the speed of light, yes.

At the moment I have a documentary on about the FA Cup in the 70's. If, say, a planet 40 light years away had powerful enough technology to take 'live pictures, but then I travelled to that planet on the final whistle.

As far as that planet is concerned, they're watching it live, but I would be searching for a betting shop to put money on Arsenal beating Man Utd 3-2 and Alan Sunderland to score the winning goal.
But those things are happening at the same time, just the telescope spectators are watching a delayed programme?
 

MackemSmokey

Reserve Squad
Its proven that a clock at ground level and a clock 12000 meters up is different as the clock at 12000 metres is 2 billionth of a second slower, so at 155 million miles up a clock there travelling at the speed of light would be 2 days where the clock at ground level is 2 yrs in the same time, ive got that worked out somewhere when i used to smoke that blue cheese, sure it was right tho
 

The soap powder

Central Defender
Of course it is ive done it ..... I met this old fella who asked me to help him and we travelled back in time, We had a ball I had to play the guitar on stage to save my own mother and I learnt my dad how to punch this fella called Biff ..... so its a yeah from me, Ive even got the hover board and orange gillet in the cupboard under the stairs !!
 

fyl2u

Striker
Its proven that a clock at ground level and a clock 12000 meters up is different as the clock at 12000 metres is 2 billionth of a second slower, so at 155 million miles up a clock there travelling at the speed of light would be 2 days where the clock at ground level is 2 yrs in the same time, ive got that worked out somewhere when i used to smoke that blue cheese, sure it was right tho
Good luck getting your clock to the speed of light. ;)

You are correct that even proximity to the Earth's gravity affects how quickly time passes. It's something that actually has to be taken into account on GPS satellites (along with the speed the satellite is travelling). They can't just use "normal" clocks, they have to adjust the "rate of time" of the onboard clocks to stay in sync with the clocks on Earth.

From Physics Central [with a couple of clarification additions by me in square brackets] :

"
But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The [GPS] satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day [for this particular speed difference].

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day. [+45mus for the lack of gravity, -7mus for the speed of the satellite relative to the Earth.]

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.
"
PhysicsCentral
It wouldn't be a different particle, that's the whole point of the Law Of Identity. It is unique and the fact if you apply time as a 4th dimension is (I think) irrelevant. If you take it back in time there are two identical particles which exist simultaneously from that point onwards. I've already explained that I don't understand quantum physics so you could be right or wrong and I can't argue with you so we reach a stalemate there. You may be aware of Deepak Choprah who waffles on about quantum physics a lot but the experts say he has no idea what he is talking about.

Wow. Just wow. That video. :lol: That man on stage is not a scientist. What a load of flowery new-age hippy waffle he spouts. :lol:

As far as the Law Of Identity is concerned, I've read the Wikipedia page for it twice now since you mentioned it on this thread, and I can't see any reference to science in there at all, let alone time travel. I see plenty of philosophy, which is certainly interesting to read, but nothing scientific that I felt had implications on time travel.

Perhaps you have a link to an article that mentions the Law Of Identity in a time travel or quantum physics context?
 
Last edited:

Hep

Winger
Going forwards yes. We are all doing it currently and it has already been proven that clocks (and therefore time) run slower when they travel at high speeds.

if it was possible to travel backwards in time we would already have seen the consequences.
You wouldn't see the consequences at all.

If I made you travel back in time tonight to a week ago, you'd live that week forever in a loop but totally oblivious to it.
 
,,,,,As far as the Law Of Identity is concerned, I've read the Wikipedia page for it twice now since you mentioned it on this thread, and I can't see any reference to science in there at all, let alone time travel. I see plenty of philosophy, which is certainly interesting to read, but nothing scientific that I felt had implications on time travel.

Perhaps you have a link to an article that mentions the Law Of Identity in a time travel or quantum physics context?
Is what Pinza referring to with the Law of Identity, more to do with logic rather than philosophy?

A = A
So we have A or not A (The law of the excluded middle)
This is a tautology because it is true whether A is true or false
Meaningful theorems conform to this 2-valued logic
Axioms of 2-valued logic are tautological
Tautologies define the truth concept for all the sciences
Logical tautologies constitute absolute knowledge
Tautologies remain true in every context
Tautologies are self evident or self proving
Any theory of reality must possess absolute truth
That absolute truth must be the same as a logical tautology
Therefore definitional principles are required that relate logic to reality

I think what Pinza is saying that scientific theories must still conform to this logic.
As an example (I think)

Reality = Reality
Reality is self contained
Everything needed for reality is contained within reality
Reality could not be created by anything external to reality
Because that itself would be a part of reality
Therefore there can be no external creator god.
Reality = Universe
The Universe could not come from absolute nothing
Absolute nothing would have no potential
Therefore the universe came from Something
As the Universe/Reality neither came from an external creator nor Absolute Nothing
It can only have self-actualised
Reality = Universe
Reality is self contained
Therefore the Universe is self-contained
Yet space is expanding into nothing
This nothing is outside of space
So it is therefore outside of Reality/Universe
If Reality/Universe is self-contained
This is a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:

fyl2u

Striker
Is what Pinza referring to with the Law of Identity, more to do with logic rather than philosophy?

A = A
So we have A or not A (The law of the excluded middle)
This is a tautology because it is true whether A is true or false
Meaningful theorems conform to this 2-valued logic
Axioms of 2-valued logic are tautological
Tautologies define the truth concept for all the sciences
Logical tautologies constitute absolute knowledge
Tautologies remain true in every context
Tautologies are self evident or self proving
Any theory of reality must possess absolute truth
That absolute truth must be the same as a logical tautology
Therefore definitional principles are required that relate logic to reality

I think what Pinza is saying that scientific theories must still conform to this logic.
As an example (I think)

Reality = Reality
Reality is self contained
Everything needed for reality is contained within reality
Reality could not be created by anything external to reality
Because that itself would be a part of reality
Therefore there can be no external creator god.
Reality = Universe
The Universe could not come from absolute nothing
Absolute nothing would have no potential
Therefore the universe came from Something
As the Universe/Reality neither came from an external creator nor Absolute Nothing
It can only have self-actualised
Reality = Universe
Reality is self contained
Therefore the Universe is self-contained
Yet space is expanding into nothing
This nothing is outside of space
So it is therefore outside of Reality/Universe
If Reality/Universe is self-contained
This is a logical fallacy.
If that's what he's saying then I wouldn't make the assumption that it necessarily applies to time travel, and I would refer you back to my "timestamp" comment a few posts back.

Essentially, the particle from our time being sent to another time isn't the same particle that exists in the other time period that will eventually become the one that goes back in time.
 
If that's what he's saying then I wouldn't make the assumption that it necessarily applies to time travel, and I would refer you back to my "timestamp" comment a few posts back.

Essentially, the particle from our time being sent to another time isn't the same particle that exists in the other time period that will eventually become the one that goes back in time.
So in the timestamp analogy with the example you gave all past, present and future states would co-exist but with different timestamps for each frame.

So theoretically, it would be possible to consider all past and all future states from the perspective of the present timeframe if information could travel in both directions of time?

I'm not quite sure if that is the same concept as the effect of a cause passing information faster than the speed of light so that it influenced the cause during a unit of Planck time that I mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:

Chalks

Central Defender
There is no such thing as time, time is something we invented to label events and seasons. All we have is now and what has happened
 

fyl2u

Striker
So in the timestamp analogy with the example you gave all past, present and future states would co-exist but with different timestamps for each frame.

So theoretically, it would be possible to consider all past and all future states from the perspective of the present timeframe if information could travel in both directions of time?

I'm not quite sure if that is the same concept as the effect of a cause passing information faster than the speed of light so that it influenced the cause that I mentioned earlier.
Nah, retrocausality is a completely different thing, and the experiment failed anyway so it still might not actually be a thing at all.

I guess it depends on what kind of time travel you're talking about. If it's like a Quantum Leap kind of time travel where your consciousness is jumping into someone else's body, then you have a totally different set of problems to a Terminator kind of time travel where everything within a sphere replaces everything in the same size sphere in the target time, and has a completely different set of problems to the Time Machine / Back To The Future method where you're in a vehicle of some kind.

I can't see how either the Law Of Identity or retrocausality would affect any of these types, like.

Maybe you could explain?
 
Nah, retrocausality is a completely different thing, and the experiment failed anyway so it still might not actually be a thing at all.

I guess it depends on what kind of time travel you're talking about. If it's like a Quantum Leap kind of time travel where your consciousness is jumping into someone else's body, then you have a totally different set of problems to a Terminator kind of time travel where everything within a sphere replaces everything in the same size sphere in the target time, and has a completely different set of problems to the Time Machine / Back To The Future method where you're in a vehicle of some kind.

I can't see how either the Law Of Identity or retrocausality would affect any of these types, like.

Maybe you could explain?
I doubt if I could explain it. These issues raise more questions than answers for me. I'm not sure about the Terminator or Back to the Future type of physical time travel or the consciousness Quantum Leap but rather information transfer and processing.Then again if reality is simply drawing back the curtain and observing the quantum universe.....

Certainly information travelling faster than light during a Planck unit of time is not really the same as time travel.
I'm really just prodding around the edges to try and consider if there is any logical example of anything travelling backwards through time.
Is the continuity of the universe through spacetime dependent on such processing.
In each moment an infinite number of potentialities collapse into a single reality. How and why?
If the universe at a fundamental level is processing future information then perhaps time travel is possible.
If reality is simply drawing back the curtain and observing the quantum universe why do we not function is our own separate bubbles of reality from each other.
What creates the common ground of reality?
Perhaps one day we will be able to experience past and future states with our consciousness without physically leaving the moment.
I know one thing for sure, my fucking brain hurts, but at least it keeps the grey matter functioning as I enter old age.
I'm going to close my eyes and dream of the 1973 Cup Final. As a Sunderland supporter I'm stuck in a fucking time loop.
 
Last edited:

Top