time travel.. something to think about..


Recommended Posts

hey somebody here talking about that airplane thing..

like u travel faster in time then others are or something..

i read it somewhere..

but i never understood the whole idea.

can somebody here make it into simpler words?

hey somebody here talking about that airplane thing..

like u travel faster in time then others are or something..

i read it somewhere..

but i never understood the whole idea.

can somebody here make it into simpler words?

Time is relative to speed.

So the faster you go, the slower time goes for you (although, you experience time the same.. time is going slower for you compared to people going.

We see this in everyday things, like GPS satelites which are rotating around the earth, need there clocks adjusting every 24hours as they become 0.5seconds out of sync with earth time.

I believe time travel forwards or backwards isn't possible, It think what could be possible is being able to go from one place to another through a wormhole or something. so someone from the UK could jump through something and end up in New York.

It would be cool IMO.

If time travel was possible, someone from future might have already traveled back and be living with us right now.

Yes but they wouldn't come back here, travelling in time is only theoretically possible if you jump between time lines, so we would know nothing about it, ever, even if people were time travelling all day every day.

Time is relative to speed.

So the faster you go, the slower time goes for you (although, you experience time the same.. time is going slower for you compared to people going.

We see this in everyday things, like GPS satelites which are rotating around the earth, need there clocks adjusting every 24hours as they become 0.5seconds out of sync with earth time.

this is weird..

what i read was that its slower for the person in another frame .. as in position..

if he is static that is.

or if u got 2 person.. its slower for the one further.. ur something..

:s

and its also relative to the gravity..

:s correct me please..

Yes but they wouldn't come back here, travelling in time is only theoretically possible if you jump between time lines, so we would know nothing about it, ever, even if people were time travelling all day every day.

Huh? I'm really lost. Somebody time-travels back to some time but does not arrives there??? Then whats the use?

I never understood this Schr?dinger's cat thing. I have read about it many times, but I just don't get it...

This make my brain feel really small:no:: .

I tend to favor String Theory myself...

String theorists believe in the existence of multiple or parallel universes. Assuming this theory holds true, time travel would take you to an alternate reality or universe. Whatever you do there will only affect that particular timeline, not yours. In essence, the Grandfather Paradox won't be an issue.

Huh? I'm really lost. Somebody time-travels back to some time but does not arrives there??? Then whats the use?

This make my brain feel really small :no: .

OK, put simply. Very, very small things cannot make decisions by themselves. If given a choice, very small things will act out all choices simultaneously. It's not until somebody looks for one of these choices that the very small thing will make one in the eye of the observer! The act of observing is the decider.

Hence, Schr?dinger's cat is both alive and dead in the box until you open it, and then it will be either one. You can't trick very small things to make their own decisions, that was proved in practice here with what is known as the "Double Slit experiment".

Put a pea in the narrow end of a funnel, and put lots of slits of cardboard at the other end and blow the pea through, you'd image it to travel between two slits of cardboard right? In quantum mechanics, it travels through them all at the same time. The difference between the pea and the "very small thing" is that due to it's size, the pea is manipulated by other forces such as gravity, how hard you blow and even the friction of the funnel, these things "observe" the pea and interact with it which is what makes the decision. The "very small thing" is so small that nothing really interacts with it, hence no force can help it choose what slots to travel between, so it travels through them all.

You might say it bears no relevance to real life as we only really interact with big things, but big things are made of bazillions of small things.

Relevance to Time Travel? Well, what happens to all of these other possibilities that the act of observing plucks one outcome from? Do they simply collapse when the choice is made? Do they carry on regardless totally separately to this time line?

Isn't the amount of power theoretically required for "time travel" to work like... All of the solar energy our Sun generates through it's entire lifetime and then some?...

Yes, apparently the amount of power needed to go back in time at the present, cannot be recreated on Earth.

One thing that bug me about time travel, is that if you move in time, but stay at the exact same place, aren't you going to end up in the middle of nowhere in space? I mean, planets, solar system and even galaxies are always in movement...

So time travel would be completely useless unless they find a way to control where you'll end up in space...

I was watching a pbs show a while back that theorised that if a time machine was invented in the future, people would only be able to go back in time as far as the first instant it was turned on. The machine would create a wormhole through two points in time. It's like making a tunnel through a mountain, nobody can go through it until both ends are connected. This would explain why there are no time travellers arriving currently.

OK, put simply. Very, very small things cannot make decisions by themselves. If given a choice, very small things will act out all choices simultaneously. It's not until somebody looks for one of these choices that the very small thing will make one in the eye of the observer! The act of observing is the decider.

Hence, Schr?dinger's cat is both alive and dead in the box until you open it, and then it will be either one. You can't trick very small things to make their own decisions, that was proved in practice here with what is known as the "Double Slit experiment".

Put a pea in the narrow end of a funnel, and put lots of slits of cardboard at the other end and blow the pea through, you'd image it to travel between two slits of cardboard right? In quantum mechanics, it travels through them all at the same time. The difference between the pea and the "very small thing" is that due to it's size, the pea is manipulated by other forces such as gravity, how hard you blow and even the friction of the funnel, these things "observe" the pea and interact with it which is what makes the decision. The "very small thing" is so small that nothing really interacts with it, hence no force can help it choose what slots to travel between, so it travels through them all.

You might say it bears no relevance to real life as we only really interact with big things, but big things are made of bazillions of small things.

Relevance to Time Travel? Well, what happens to all of these other possibilities that the act of observing plucks one outcome from? Do they simply collapse when the choice is made? Do they carry on regardless totally separately to this time line?

Thanks man! for the explanation.

I was watching a pbs show a while back that theorised that if a time machine was invented in the future, people would only be able to go back in time as far as the first instant it was turned on. The machine would create a wormhole through two points in time. It's like making a tunnel through a mountain, nobody can go through it until both ends are connected. This would explain why there are no time travellers arriving currently.

This sounds logical.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!