Time Travel, do you believe in time travel?

[Ian W]

[ . . . ]

I would like to thank you for being gentle with me in your response. You didn't insult me or do or say anything that could be considered derogatory. I will now try to address your comments.

 

As far as I know, Time is a fairly well established concept that has evidence of it's existence, and therefore isn't just something made up in our minds to make understanding things easier, otherwise modern physics would not be trying to utilise it to further our knowledge.

The evidence provided for the existence of time is the result of movement itself. Couldn't (and shouldn't) one make the argument that since this is the case, that what exists is only movement?

 

Time exists whether you have a device to measure it or not, just as distance exists between two objects without you measuring the exact length of that distance.

To me, time itself is a measurement and what exists is only movement (e.g., it took me sixty seconds to write a forum post).

 

There will never be an answer to a religious question, science should not bother trying to do that in my opinion.

On the contrary, I believe that science already answers questions related to religion even if the ears of the religious aren't receptive to its truths.

 

The twin thing is down to the connection between the dimensions of Time and Space, the moving faster relative to another person creates the difference in aging, this has been documented with astronauts, again, you cannot simply ignore Time as a dimension and just leave Space in there, that's classical thinking! :o

I will just say that I am well aware of the effects of what is called time dilation, and that I believe the explanation I posted is well within reason (and also applies to the astronauts).

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying the future does not exist, it depends on your philosophical view of the universe I guess but if a light particle "sees" the entire universe go by in the blink of an eye, does that mean the universe is deterministic or does what the light particle see as it's emitted change based on current events in the universe?

But one's view of the universe does not change the universe (yes, I have kept this in mind while writing these posts). That's not to say that I am correct about my beliefs, but also like you, I have thought about these things, and have opted for the explanation that is logical to me.

 

I would also add that the clock analogy you used is a bad one, movement and time depend on one another, they both can not occur without each other, no time, there is no movement, no movement, there is no sense of time. :/

. . . This deserves a well thought out response. I will just say that the clock analogy was provided for those unfamiliar with the idea of the nonexistence of time.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

To me, time itself is a measurement and what exists is only movement (e.g., it took me sixty seconds to write a forum post).

...

I can see where you're coming from, but you've got the idea reversed. Time doesn't arise from objects moving, objects moving arises from time. Without time all events would happen simultaneously (To badly quote Einstein), time neatly divides events into slices and provides for causality (Which is a big issue with time travel, the cause of an event needs to go before it, not after it, etc.)

[Skin]

observing past events may be possible, however since the future is not written, it is impossible.. for example, I am sitting in a lazy boy recliner typing this, and since the future is not written, I could theoretically sit in this chair until the end of the universe.

 

Well, the future isn't written for you, but for other beings, who can say that when they are living isn't our future, and we have been long dead to them.

 

Think of time as a stream. You are floating in it, moving down towards the falls. A stranger walks along the bank and can see you. He speeds up and can move to the falls and catch you to falling over, or walk back the way he came and see you first fall into the stream on your journey.

 

Your fixed point in time reference is simple due to us being time based and restricted beings. Who's to say that the universe isn't already over to some beings, or not even begun as well.

[Ian W]

I can see where you're coming from, but you've got the idea reversed. Time doesn't arise from objects moving, objects moving arises from time. Without time all events would happen simultaneously (To badly quote Einstein), time neatly divides events into slices and provides for causality (Which is a big issue with time travel, the cause of an event needs to go before it, not after it, etc.)

This is tougher than what I thought it would be.

Perhaps one could argue that movement consists of a sequential order of events - for example, one puts food in his or her mouth, chews it, and then swallows - all of this is still caused by movement.

I understand, but do not accept the view that if time did not exist then all events would happen simultaneously.

I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that (apparently) no one else on Neowin feels this way.

 

Your fixed point in time reference is simple due to us being time based and restricted beings. Who's to say that the universe isn't already over to some beings, or not even begun as well.

If the universe is already over for some beings, how can they possibly exist? If the universe has not begun, how can these beings exist?

Universe

u?ni?verse

Noun

"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

[emphasis mine]

[Xerino]

Well, the future isn't written for you, but for other beings, who can say that when they are living isn't our future, and we have been long dead to them.

 

Think of time as a stream. You are floating in it, moving down towards the falls. A stranger walks along the bank and can see you. He speeds up and can move to the falls and catch you to falling over, or walk back the way he came and see you first fall into the stream on your journey.

 

Your fixed point in time reference is simple due to us being time based and restricted beings. Who's to say that the universe isn't already over to some beings, or not even begun as well.

 

Damn you and your paradox theories... now you made me think... my brain hurts...

[mudslag]

Well, the future isn't written for you, but for other beings, who can say that when they are living isn't our future, and we have been long dead to them.

 

Think of time as a stream. You are floating in it, moving down towards the falls. A stranger walks along the bank and can see you. He speeds up and can move to the falls and catch you to falling over, or walk back the way he came and see you first fall into the stream on your journey.

 

Your fixed point in time reference is simple due to us being time based and restricted beings. Who's to say that the universe isn't already over to some beings, or not even begun as well.

 

 

How does that even make sense? We are beings like any other and we progress through time like any other. Depending on which future point, we are either going to reach to it or not. That really is dependent on how long we are around to reach X point in time. 

 

If you're trying to use a stream as an analogy for time, then being outside the stream would be outside of time. 

[astropheed Veteran]

Your fixed point in time reference is simple due to us being time based and restricted beings. Who's to say that the universe isn't already over to some beings, or not even begun as well.

 

Exactly. Time is relative to the observer.

 

 

 

 

I must admit that I am a bit disappointed that (apparently) no one else on Neowin feels this way.

 

Sorry, I too don't think that time derives from movement.

[blerk]

Nope. You'd probably need enough energy to revert every single particle in the universe back to it's original (earlier) state - and that'd require at least the entire amount of energy in the universe. 

[Skin]

How does that even make sense? We are beings like any other and we progress through time like any other. Depending on which future point, we are either going to reach to it or not. That really is dependent on how long we are around to reach X point in time. 

 

If you're trying to use a stream as an analogy for time, then being outside the stream would be outside of time. 

 

It makes a lot of sense when you think that not all time may be the same for everyone, if 'time' really exists at all, or is the same to all beings is the issue. Who says all beings move through time the same? Your point on reaching it or not is not relevant in this context. It doesn't matter how long something is around to reach a point in time (unless you want to argue that death is stopping the transit, then I would argue that your 'journey through time' ended there, and other beings would still see your start, middle, and end none the less.)

 

Not necessarily outside of time, but could be. It could also be that the bank of the stream is itself a time stream that beings are free to move up and down more freely than the ones in the stream with currents.

 

Expand your mind.

[Skin]

If the universe is already over for some beings, how can they possibly exist? If the universe has not begun, how can these beings exist?

Universe

u?ni?verse

Noun

"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

[emphasis mine]

 

Could be a new universe takes it's place, or matter simply changes form and the known universe ceases to exist through heat or cold death, or everything implodes back to the huge bang and 'darkness' is all that is. Shrug.

 

If you stop and think about it, it is rather possible that 'life' was present before the universe came into being, and it is rather possible that there are beings that will be there when it is long gone.

[mudslag]

It makes a lot of sense when you think that not all time may be the same for everyone, if 'time' really exists at all, or is the same to all beings is the issue. Who says all beings move through time the same? Your point on reaching it or not is not relevant in this context. It doesn't matter how long something is around to reach a point in time (unless you want to argue that death is stopping the transit, then I would argue that your 'journey through time' ended there, and other beings would still see your start, middle, and end none the less.)

 

Not necessarily outside of time, but could be. It could also be that the bank of the stream is itself a time stream that beings are free to move up and down more freely than the ones in the stream with currents.

 

Expand your mind.

 

 

 

So in other words, science fiction. 

If you stop and think about it, it is rather possible that 'life' was present before the universe came into being, and it is rather possible that there are beings that will be there when it is long gone.

 

 

You base this on what evidence? 

[ichi]

As long as we don't even know if there are actually other points in time different than ours which currently exist and can be traveled to, talking about the feasibility of the travel itself is absurd.

 

What I think might be possible, if anything, is being able to control to some extent the movement through time of something, relative to everything else. Ie, maybe it could eventually be possible to either move faster or slower ahead in time, which from the perspective of an external observer would be like a time travel to the future.

 

But that'd be relative "speed", so to speak, not an arbitrary travel to any point in time. As pointed above, first find out if there's actually something like a "time back" were we could travel before even fantasizing about how you could travel there or what related paradoxes such travel might produce.

[Guest]

BTW time is something humans made up

[mudslag]

BTW time is something humans made up

 

 

The word is what we made up, not what it represents.

[Skin]

So in other words, science fiction. 

 

 

You base this on what evidence? 

 

Always so contrary, you are.

 

I suppose you can boil down whatever you don't believe in, or see with your own eyes 'science fiction'. Have fun in life with that.

 

It isn't a matter of evidence. It is quite possible that life in various forms has been around for a long 'time', and will continue to be so. There is no evidence to counter that claim, and scientists are continually seeking an answer to those very questions, 'are we alone?', 'is life out there?', therefore even they are still open to the possibility without 'proof', or else they would have packed up and stopped looking and exploring.

[Skin]

The word is what we made up, not what it represents.

 

Actually, time is a measurement made up by 'humans' to categorize and plot one event to another. It allows them to point at an artifact or event and apply a timeline to it. Nothing more. What it represents under the surface is a completely made up and human derived construct.

[+John Teacake MVC]

John Titor. Say no more. 

[mudslag]

Always so contrary, you are.

 

I suppose you can boil down whatever you don't believe in, or see with your own eyes 'science fiction'. Have fun in life with that.

 

It isn't a matter of evidence. It is quite possible that life in various forms has been around for a long 'time', and will continue to be so. There is no evidence to counter that claim, and scientists are continually seeking an answer to those very questions, 'are we alone?', 'is life out there?', therefore even they are still open to the possibility without 'proof', or else they would have packed up and stopped looking and exploring.

 

 

 

Deflections and red herrings. You made a statement, all Im doing is asking you what evidence can you base that on? Lack of evidence is not evidence itself. It's one thing to say odds are favorable for life elsewhere in the universe, it's another to say life is possible outside of of the universe before or after. Your jumping the gun before we can even find evidence of life existing anywhere else. Hence science fiction. 

[mudslag]

Actually, time is a measurement made up by 'humans' to categorize and plot one event to another. It allows them to point at an artifact or event and apply a timeline to it. Nothing more. What it represents under the surface is a completely made up and human derived construct.

 

 

 

We came up with the way to measure something that already existed. Unless you want to play the paradox game of "time didnt exist til we humans thought it up", then you need to provide a hypothesis for why that is. Time itself, albeit's human view of it, existed before humans came into existence. 

John Titor. Say no more. 

 

 

was fake. There I said more.

[ichi]

We came up with the way to measure something that already existed. Unless you want to play the paradox game of "time didnt exist til we humans thought it up", then you need to provide a hypothesis for why that is. Time itself, albeit's human view of it, existed before humans came into existence. 

 

Time existing is, I think, obvious. But is it an entity on itselft, or just a measurement of the distance between events?

 

By "entity" I mean, as the possibility of time travelling would imply, that every bit of it (including past and future) is always existent, not just the present time. Like frames on a movie.

[eddman]

as the possibility of time travelling would imply

You mean the opposite, right? Based on what is known in the field of theoretical physics, for now, time traveling, in this universe alone, is only possible in one direction, forward; else there will be paradoxes.

Traveling to the past would only be possible within parallel universes, and even then, it wouldn't really be traveling to the past if you are going to other universes.

[mudslag]

Time existing is, I think, obvious. But is it an entity on itselft, or just a measurement of the distance between events?

 

By "entity" I mean, as the possibility of time travelling would imply, that every bit of it (including past and future) is always existent, not just the present time. Like frames on a movie.

 

 

I think it would be both. The measurement is how we precieve it but it's also a dimension which is the entity on itself. 

[Astra.Xtreme]

Traveling back in time is obviously not possible.  Though technically we can observe something that's occurring in the past.  If you take a look at the sun, you're seeing what it looked like about 7 minutes ago.  If you look through a telescope, you may be able to see a what a star looked like millions of years ago but is now, at the moment, exploded.

 

Traveling forward (in relation to an object) is possible.  If you travel at the speed of light away from the Earth for one year, 7 years would have elapsed on Earth compared to your one year.

 

Nothing too valuable though since we're constrained by the speed of light.

[fusi0n]

Just trust me, it's possible.. I've seen it happen on Star Trek

[XerXis]

I believe in time travel but to do this you need to travel at the speed of Light which we don't have the technology. But if can reach the speed of light we will be able not just to travel in time but reach planets that are far far away.

 

er no, If you would somehow succeed in travelling at the speed of light through space you would not be moving through time. So everyone else would get older but you would not. Of course, something with a mass can't move at the speed of light, so let's just say that you get to a very high speed (like 80% of the speed of light) in that case you would age slower than someone who is standing still. But you both would still be going forward in time.

 

So in conclusion, everyone moves through space-time at the same speed (the speed of light) but most of us do so in the time direction and not in space ;)