Time travel.

[Mirry]

I think time travel is possible in the sense that "anything is possible", but how one would go about traveling through time is beyond me. I find the idea of going back in time to change future events extremely puzzling... silly example perhaps, but I think of the scenario in the first Back to the Future film where Marty travels back to the fifties and interferes in his parents' lives... it almost becomes that they don't ever fall in love and thus, he won't ever be born, except that he manages to change this before he "disappears from existence".

If time travel really were possible, though, I can't see this being a realistic scenario. If you were to go back in time and prevent your parents from meeting, wouldn't you "disappear" at that moment? And wouldn't this create a bit of a paradox, seeing as how your existence is required so that you can go back in time and affect the lives of your parents...? Could there be parallel universes that somehow become overlapped when time travel happens?

I don't know... I can't make it make sense to me. But I suppose it's possible.

 

[Tarvos]

you cannot travel in time, einstein proved that

love you though

 

[Werty]

You love me? Thanks. :)

Do elaborate on how he proved time travel false.

What Einstein spent the later half of his life doing was trying to disprove quantum theory in general, because it went against his Theory of Relativity. He designed the EPR paradox (which has to do with quantum entanglement, ironically), but he never managed to do it and now that we have the minimum technology, we know that both Einstein's theories and quantum theory are correct in their own instances.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Go on.

Oh, perhaps it should be worth mentioning that Einstein thought of the concept of time dilation in the first place; he once wrote, "Forgive me, Newton" (Newton believed that time was fundamental and could never be changed).

 

[BCM]

Can someone explain how Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity go against each other?

 

[Tarvos]

You love me? Thanks. :)

Do elaborate on how he proved time travel false.

What Einstein spent the later half of his life doing was trying to disprove quantum theory in general, because it went against his Theory of Relativity. He designed the EPR paradox (which has to do with quantum entanglement, ironically), but he never managed to do it and now that we have the minimum technology, we know that both Einstein's theories and quantum theory are correct in their own instances.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Go on.

Oh, perhaps it should be worth mentioning that Einstein thought of the concept of time dilation in the first place; he once wrote, "Forgive me, Newton" (Newton believed that time was fundamental and could never be changed).

ok, I should rephrase it: you cannot travel BACK in time. no clue about going forward. it's part of the relativity theory as I recall. you can't go faster than the speed of light, which means you cannot ever outrun time.

 

[Salazard]

I reckon it could be possible. One thing that leads me to believe it is is that:

There are 3 Dimensions in Space: z, x, y

But technically Time is also a dimension because it is directional and is part of Space. So I think that because you can move in the first 3 dimensions, it should be possible to move in the fourth (time).

 

[Dave Strider]

I think you can't actually change anything Major while back in time. Taking PMD2 for example, when you change the future as grovyle knows it while in your present, which is grovyle's past, you stop yourself and grovyle from having to go to the past in the first place, therefore you don't change anything,then, SCHWOOP! Universe destroyed by Paradox.
So you can't really change the past, unless what you do in the past is needed to actually shape the future as you know it, In which case, If you Didn't change the past then there would be a paradox.

 

[Felidire]

It probably boils down to the way we look at it. I see the future as something pre-determined, that if someone went back in time we wouldn't notice any changes, it wouldn't affect us at all because it was meant to happen (them going back in time is what shaped the past, which lead to the present now). And yeah "if they did x and y differently then the future would be different." But they didn't, and they never will.

To me it's not like:
-Bill goes back in time-
-bob ceases to exist- *vanishes into thin air*

I think that's a really lame view.

 

[Autumn]

It probably boils down to the way we look at it. I see the future as something pre-determined, that if someone went back in time we wouldn't notice any changes, it wouldn't affect us at all because it was meant to happen (them going back in time is what shaped the past, which lead to the present now). And yeah "if they did x and y differently then the future would be different." But they didn't, and they never will.

To me it's not like:
-Bill goes back in time-
-bob ceases to exist- *vanishes into thin air*

I think that's a really lame view.

Exactly. You explained it a bit better than I could have too.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

Well, technically, it is possible to move forward in time -- we are already doing it right now. But backwards, I'm not so sure. Theoretically, if you move faster than light, you can go back in time, but I'm not sure if that's true or not. I'm not exactly strong in the physics department...

I think you can't actually change anything Major while back in time. Taking PMD2 for example, when you change the future as grovyle knows it while in your present, which is grovyle's past, you stop yourself and grovyle from having to go to the past in the first place, therefore you don't change anything,then, SCHWOOP! Universe destroyed by Paradox.

Well, beside the fact you just spoiled everyone reading the thread some important plot of PMD, a story is not a fact. You can't exactly use it to support your theory, I'm afraid.

There's also the possibility that if you go back in time and change something major (say, kill Hitler before the he can start the Holocaust), you'll actually form a alternate, parallel dimension where Hitler died and the Holocaust never happened. So, there will be a world where the Holocaust happened, and there will be one where it didn't happen.

Or I suppose the future would suddenly change, and everything even remotely related to the Holocaust will disappear or turn into something else. Because the Holocaust stopped existing, even you won't remember that there was a Holocaust in the first place, say, all the Jews who died from the Holocaust would still be alive and such.

I'm just tossing out theories here. Let's hope I am making sense...

 

[Autumn]

Or I suppose the future would suddenly change, and everything even remotely related to the Holocaust will disappear or turn into something else. Because the Holocaust stopped existing, even you won't remember that there was a Holocaust in the first place, say, all the Jews who died from the Holocaust would still be alive and such.

I think that would happen, aside from the fact that the progression of time technically contradicts that (though it's not so obvious when you first look at time travel theories). See, let's assume you killed Hitler in oh, I dunno, 1930. History's timeline:

---1930 - Hitler killed by a mysterious stranger that disappeared without a trace - --- 2009 - I sit at this computer and type this -

Your suggested timeline:

--- 1940-1945 - WWII happens - 2009 - One goes back in time - 1930 - Hitler is killed - 1940-1945 - WWII doesn't happen ---

I know that doesn't really explain it fully, but basically Hitler never had the chance to get WWII started, and so the world never actually just 'whips' into an alternate non-WWII dimension. :/

 

[New Mudfish Doctorate]

according to douglas adams all the significant changes caused by time travel, by its very nature, have allready happened

 

[Skylands]

Physically no, technically no, theoretically no. It's a complete paradox. The only way we can see the past is to travel faster than the speed of light therefore we will be able to watch light of actions on earth still travelling through space, but the energy required to make a stationary object travel at the speed of light is infinite. So no, it's not possible. Even if it was, we wouldn't be able to interact, only view as an image.

 

[President Michael Wilson]

I think that would happen, aside from the fact that the progression of time technically contradicts that (though it's not so obvious when you first look at time travel theories). See, let's assume you killed Hitler in oh, I dunno, 1930. History's timeline:

---1930 - Hitler killed by a mysterious stranger that disappeared without a trace - --- 2009 - I sit at this computer and type this -

Your suggested timeline:

--- 1940-1945 - WWII happens - 2009 - One goes back in time - 1930 - Hitler is killed - 1940-1945 - WWII doesn't happen ---

I know that doesn't really explain it fully, but basically Hitler never had the chance to get WWII started, and so the world never actually just 'whips' into an alternate non-WWII dimension. :/

But that's really a bad example because Hitler himself didn't start WWII- He was just a catalyst that sparked the already dry wood that started the war. If Hitler was killed before then someone else would take his place and pull the same stunts.

 

[Autumn]

But that's really a bad example because Hitler himself didn't start WWII- He was just a catalyst that sparked the already dry wood that started the war. If Hitler was killed before then someone else would take his place and pull the same stunts.

I know that; I just couldn't think of any other direct examples. :/

 

[StyliBoy]

I think it's impossible to time travel both ways, because time is relative. The object or energy that moves fastest is the decider of what exactly time is. If someone could go faster than time and go to the future, we would see nothing because light allows us to see, and we would be traveling faster than light, therefore, light would not reach the future before us. Once it did reach us, however, it would be the present.


As for the past, I don't think we can go back either, because the past has already happened. Even if we were to go faster than the speed of light, how would we go "back" in time, when it's relative? It's not actually an object or entity, it's part of a dimension, as well as space. Wouldn't we have to travel in a dimension higher than the 4th to go to the past?

 

[Murkrow]

I think it's impossible to time travel both ways, because time is relative. The object or energy that moves fastest is the decider of what exactly time is. If someone could go faster than time and go to the future, we would see nothing because light allows us to see, and we would be traveling faster than light, therefore, light would not reach the future before us. Once it did reach us, however, it would be the present.

I don't understand what you mean by "faster than time", you said yourself that time isn't an object or anything. If you werre to somehow go to the future, wouldn't there already be light there? Like if I were to go to the year 2010, the sun would be there and would be letting out energy like it always does.

It's possible to travel forwards in time; we're doing it right now. There are a few things like your speed and how close you are to the centre of gravity (and how strong it is) that makes time slow down for you, making everything else seem really fast, once you slow down/move away from a strong gravitational pull, it would be as if you'd travelled forwards in time because you would have reached the future faster than you would have otherwise.

As for the past stuff, I think there's a theory that says if you go faster than light then you go back but I'm not too sure.

 

[StyliBoy]

I mean that light hasn't reached the future because future, and time, is relative to the fastest object or energy in the universe. If you wanted to go to the future, you wouldn't see anything because in order to get to the future, you'd have to travel faster than the speed of light. Light is needed in order to see things, so you wouldn't see anything. By the time light comes, it would be the present. I guess you would be able to travel into the future, but you wouldn't see anything, so it would be next to pointless.

We are "traveling in time" technically, but I think everyone here is talking more about traveling into the past or future faster than a certain time frame. Say, you want to go into the future one year, but not wait one year. It's like that.

 

[Murkrow]

I mean that light hasn't reached the future because future, and time, is relative to the fastest object or energy in the universe. If you wanted to go to the future, you wouldn't see anything because in order to get to the future, you'd have to travel faster than the speed of light. Light is needed in order to see things, so you wouldn't see anything. By the time light comes, it would be the present. I guess you would be able to travel into the future, but you wouldn't see anything, so it would be next to pointless.

Time is relative, just because it hasn't happened to us, doesn't mean it isn't there. It's possible that the future has already happened, but we haven't experienced it yet. To someone in 2011, 2010 would have already happened. Can't say you're wrong though, I doubt anyone can unless we actually do invent a time machine.

We are "traveling in time" technically, but I think everyone here is talking more about traveling into the past or future faster than a certain time frame. Say, you want to go into the future one year, but not wait one year. It's like that.

Well that's what I said about travelling really fast or being close to a large centre of gravity (like a black hole). Time would slow down for you, making you age/experience stuff slower. While a year has passed for everyone else, much less time would have passed for you, so you are in a sense travelling into the future without having to wait a year. Of course to you, it wouldn't have been a year. It's just that it's like you practically did, seeing as how everything else would be as they would a year in the future.

 

[StyliBoy]

That makes sense. What I actually don't get is the special theory of relativity Einstein made. How does one twin age less than the other in the same time frame. Even though one is traveling near the speed of light, they're experiencing the same amount of time.

I hope that wasn't off topic.