Time travel refers to the idea of moving between different moments at a time that is similar to moving between different places in space , where it is possible to send objects (and in some cases only information ) to the past and future time.
Although from the nineteenth century , the journey has always been the subject of many sci-fi stories , as well as one-way trips in space, based on the phenomenon of time -based paradoxes based on the speed in the theory of special relativity (described in twin paradoxes), and The paradox of the absorbing time in general relativity is almost possible, but it is still unclear whether the laws of physics have the potential to return to the past. So far, the feasibility of returning to time because of the principle of reality is now rejected.
Between space and time there are three important differences:
1. space is three-dimensional, time is one-dimensional
2. space movements are reversible, time movements are irreversible
3. space is measured by metre, time is measured by second.
The one-dimensional time means time is the same in all directions while the space position isn't the same in all directions.
Reversible space means if a traveller is in the point A at time TA, and he is in the point B at time TB, this same traveller is able to return again to the point A bu not in the time TA.
These claims are outcomes of our daily experience: the experience tells us that we are able to return back in space dimension but not in time dimension.
Theories, as Special Relativity and General Relativity, based on a misinterpretation of space and time that converge in a concept of entangled spacetime are able to generate confusion and therefore I subscribe to your final conclusion:
"the feasibility of returning to time because of the principle of reality is now rejected".
There are symmetries of time inversion which are used everyday in quantum mechanics systems. They induce degenerate states under the Kramers theorem.
In macroscopic physics these symmetries of time are more difficult due to thermodynamics where the entropy has an only direction for time and also classical electrodynamics which only choose the time advanced solutions for their wave equations.
In general time traveller is only a fiction.
Contemporary physics has discovered the concept of entropy is valid also in particle physics and in a updated view of quantum mechanics.
Our soul is a time traveler. Our soul is the gift of our creator for as long as we live and after death it returns to God for its eternal processing. As far as the 3-D world and the 4th dimension are concerned, I prefer to think that each has its own time.
Dear Theodore,
I have not soul. Perhaps has stolen it, but I have not a soul and less which can pay the bill for travelling. My creator was a poor man who has worked quite a lot for feeding three sons who has got high studies levels not due to their souls but to their work.
I think we are talking here about physical questions and not about metaphysical questions regarding soul.
Dear Daniele,
You are right that in Quantum Mechanics is possible to define the von Neumann entropy, but that is not related directly with the time inversion or even with time evolution or the temperature which is not defined in QM. Thus entropy in QM only give us one idea of the order associated to states.
Dear Daniel,
I didn't refer to von Neumann's entropy, but to this concept
Article Thermodynamics of Elementary Particles
Regards
every born creature is a time traveler. we are all time travelers to the future. stephen hawking claimed that time travel is possible only to the future. ergo the real question is: if one could overleap/ jump across his own death.
Time travel to the past does indeed lead to causality paradoxes, and is most likely impossible. Time travel to the future, for example going to the year 3000 while aging only, say, 10 years, is in principle possible. In fact, this is what is supposed to happen if you leave Earth at high speed, keep travelling at high speed and eventually come back to earth. Experimentally, this has actually happened, though the ``time travellers'' only got a few hundreds of nanoseconds into the future.
It seems that all us agree that to travel back to the time isn't possible. The question is now: it is possible to travel to the future? The answer is simply: only in the future it is possible to travel. But the question in actuality hides another question: isn't possible to travel physically to the past but it is possible to travel to the past in the relativistic sense.
Let us consider thus two time travellers, the first traveller is on the Earth and the second traveller begins a journey with the speed v. The theory of Special Relativity proves if the journey extends over 10 years for the travelling observer, for the observer at rest on the Earth the duration of the journey is certainly greater and this duration is as greater as the speed v is greater.
Hence it is possible, in concordance with SR, that the resting observer for instance is in the year 3018 and the moving observer is in the year 2028.
If now we suppose the travelling observer returns back in space on the Earth with the same speed v, when he will rejoin to the resting observer, he will be older than 20 years (2038) but the resting observer is in the year 4018. The concept is the same whether when it is applied to thousands of years or to thousands of nanoseconds.
case time is (at least) 2-dimensional, there is no travel upon 1 line; time travelling would mean reaching a point in a plane (from another point in that plane).
I don`t think it is possible to travel in a 1-dimensional time (back or forwards) but in a more dimensional time...
Space is three-dimensional for geometrical reasons. Why would have to be time more dimensional?
Dear Daniel, Your body creator has the qualifications you mention, whereas your soul creator is our common creator.
If we give a non-scientific meaning to time, then I agree that there are infinite dimensions of time: for instance the time of art or the time of soul.
From the scientific viewpoint I think time is one-dimensional, i.e. it is the same in every point of the three-dimensional geometrical space.
The question is: is it possible that time changes in a few points of space for physical reasons? I disagree with conclusions of Special Relativity and General Relativity but I think this question has to be studied.
dear Daniele, my definition of time is: time is motion. motion must be defined as: vatiation of space and variation of variation of space, ergo: 2 variables. so time is: T(v;a)- 2-dimensional.
do you have another definition of time?
Dear Paul, I understand my scientific definition of time may be disappointing but I don't see other acceptable definitions. My working definition of time is:
"Time is the physical quantity that is measured by a clock".
I apologize for the simplicity.
dear Daniele, please excuse my next question: how do You then define time when it is the physical quantity measured by more (different) clocks?
(do we need ,erely one ideal clock? and, if so, how could we know that THAT clock were ideal?). sorry, there are 3 questions (but one :))
Dear Paul,
the measure theory formulates every measure is subject to an intrinsic error due to the fact that no measuring instrument is perfect or ideal. It is valid also for time. In general for any physical quantity a standard exists and it represents the reference quantity for measurements. Any measuring instrument, for every physical quantity, has to be calibrated with the sample quantity.
In the event of time every clock has to be calibrated with the sample quantity of time.
Naturally different clocks are never completely synchronous because of imperfections for which two real clocks are never exactly equal and coincident.
Consequently time in every place is the time measured by the calibrated clock that is in that place. If in that place there are more clocks they have to be calibrated with the sample clock of that place. On the Earth the reference time in every place is the meridian time of that place. This is the conventional time of reference.
Then it needs to examine physical phenomena and to observe if between more clocks that describe the phenomenon variations of time due to physical causes can exist.
actually we don't have any proof regarding time travel which can show yeah time travel is possible, and which we have those proves can also be explain by another theorys, like general relativity says light bending, so ultimately we can't guarantee that time travel is having at least 10% chances to happen...
dear Daniele, please make the difference between theoretical and practical concepts. one cannot measure something which is not first(!) theoretically defined.
case time is (1st) defined to be vatiation of space and variation of variation of space, then travelling in time should be a faster variation of space; much faster than ever seen (say faster than c).
It is true Paul. I gave a physical-practical definition of time: "Time is the physical quantity that is measured by a clock". It is a working definition of time, i.e. time is defined by the working procedure that allows its measurement.
Anyway the correct use of the Galilean scientific method involves after the experimental observation there is a theoretical stage (Galileo called "mathematical progress" this stage). Hence the subsequent step consists in a procedure of mathematicization of physical time defined by the preceding procedure of measurement. Naturally this exigency is valid also for space besides for time.
Space and time are two fundamental physical quantities that can be represented by two mathematical variables: s and t. The experimental observation says us space s is three.dimensional (x,y,z) in the meaning that every point of the observable space is defined perfectly by a suitable tern of values (xo,yo,zo) after that a common origin O has been defined. The three space variables-coordinates are reversible because the observation says us any object in the point Po can move to the point P1 and then to return to the point Po. There is no experimental observation about the fact that time is different with respect to three axes-coordinates for which time is isotropic and one-dimensional. Besides time is irreversible and it can take on only increasing positive values of the variable t after a time origin O has been defined. Hence the theoretical-mathematical definition of time is:
"Time is a real mathematical variable t that can take on only increasing positive values with respect to the present value O ".
Hence I don't subcribe to your claim : "time is defined to be variation of space and variation of variation of space".
The subsequent consideration regards motion. Motion can be a simple movement from one space point to another or a movement from one space point to another in a determined time. In the second case, that is more interesting, the concept of velocity has a meaning. As per this definition there is no physical limit for the velocity and about it I agree with you.
=
dear Daniele, as established physics led to aberrations I have built my own theory, thus I`m not speaking about classical (well known) physics. based on my theory I already have the results of unifying RT with QT.
Dear Paul, I see you have the same objects of mine. I have too a critical view of the present physics. From this criticism I have formulated the Theory of Reference Frames for questions regarding the behaviour of physical systems and the relativity and the Deterministic Quantum Physics for questions regarding particle physics.
I don't know if your theories and my formulations there are common aspects.
Regards.
dear Daniele, you can find my objections (to physics) in: published here on RG. (demonstrations are on
Dear Paul, in your paper you write: "to express physical laws in a non-equivalent system another transformation is needed": I think TR gives an answer to this question. In fact physical laws, as we know them, are expresses by observers who are inside Earth's reference frame. It needs to study if these physical laws are valid for reference frames different from Earth's reference frame. Space missions have also this object.
In the meantime making use of the Principle of Relativity (not the Theory of Relativity) we are able to say physical laws are the same for all reference frames that are inertial with Earth's reference frame.
You write still: "a planet orbit is not an ellipse". It is true with respect to a reference frame that is external to the Sun system, but with respect to Sun's reference frame the orbit is practically elliptic neglecting smallest changes.
I think many problems in physics can be solved through an appropriate choice of reference frames while in postmodern physics reference frames have lost importance because of a wrong concept of equivalence of all reference frames.
At last I see you give much importance to Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle. In DQP I have demonstrated this principle is based on an inappropriate mathematical model.
Hence we have a common critical view towards the present physics but we propose frequently different solutions.
Regards.
dear Daniele, physical laws are built on symmetry/ periodicity/ proportionality aso. case one assumes symmetry but then speaks about broken symmetries (or inflation) just to tacitly avoid discrepancies I would reconsider the theory (beginning with axioms).
that`s exactly(!) what I claim: "neglecting changes".
dear Paul, we have both a critical view of the present physics. Perhaps my view is more radical because my criticism is addressed towards main theories of present physics: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Standard Model.
It can appear immodest but I have to follow my mind that refuses to accept unreasonable concepts that are imposed by the present physics under the banner of past scientists, who were great but they were not repository of the scientific truth. Copernico and Galileo criticized the ancient philosophy and they proved the Ptolemaic system was wrong. Newton confirmed this new Copernican interpretation of the Sun system and he added concepts of absolute space, absolute time and absolute reference frame besides other numerous and very important results like the fundamenbtal law of dynamics and the gravitational law. Einstein criticized Galileo and Newton and changed completely the concept of relativity. Afterwards Heisenberg introduced in physics the anti-physical Indeterminacy Principle that postulates what it not possible to do and to know instead saying what it is possible to do and to know. The Standard Model then is based on all concepts of preceding theories. It is ununderstandable the present physicists don't want to accept the possibility that theories that they believe can be wrong and that physics is a science in progress like historical facts prove.
dear Daniele, that is exactly my way of thinking too. for instance copernicus and torquemada are both wrong/right: a unlimited infinite set/space has its centre in each point. if reciprocal is true??
I think that a new theory is to create by changing axioms.
Yes, I fully agree. Einstein's theory of relativity refers to the laws of physics that can function within cosmology, while in the realities of time in which human beings live on Earth, the action of these laws is not fully defined. If there was a time machine and it would be possible to go back in time, our strategic decisions that had a big impact on the development of later events would be slightly different than those that were actually taken in the past. It would result from having additional information about the development of later situations and events. However, the paradox is that so many people would do it, so the current reality would be almost certainly different than it is, so also our original knowledge about the development of later situations and events would be different and thus the paradox of temporary looping arises.
Time travel is actually necessary (see Paul's last post): every object evolves in time, and none stays at a constant time. So time travel is actually unavoidable. Two systems that start at the same time and the same place, and then go their separate ways before meeting again, will in general have experienced different times: in that sense, time travel is unproblematic. there is, in principle, no difficulty in leaving Earth at high speed, and come back, being oneself only a year older, say, and the earth a hundred years. That would in a way be time travel. It is not correct to say that this is time ravel to the future: the earth would then be travelling to the traveller's past. However, all systems involved are always going forward in time, merely at different rates. Such time travel has already been performed: Hafele and Keating flying around the world on commercial jets came back time shifted by a fraction of a microsecond. Of course, this is not terribly impressive, but it shows the possibility is real.
As to ``real'' time travel, backward in time, there are no systems currently known or that could be produced in the foreseeable future, that allow for it. It is not strictly impossible in the framework of physics. There exist possible universes (see Gödel universe), in which a system could actually return to its own past. But our universe is not, as far as we know, of this kind.
case time is (at least) 2 dimensional traveling back is hard to define, because between 2 complex numbers it is complicated to establish that z1
The response to information from the future would be to prevent a lot of the events from happening. That prevents the information from coming in the first place. Unknown noise is not a solution to this paradox, becuse burst of noise can be used to send information. Very many multiple futures could be a solution (very different from the observed world). In any case look at the attached files for more detailed discussion of time.
The first is a proof that the axial shift like the transverse shift changes observed time. The next two are implications including e blue shift paradox. The last has a proposed experiment for proof. By the way if the axial shift changes observed time, distance and mass, the observation angle associated with it becomes a dimension of time., distance and mass and time has more than 1 dimension. All Doppler shifts change time therefore the velocity between the observed and observer is a dimension of time. In case of the axial shift so is the relative position of the observer from the observed. String theories which have never been proved have more than 4 dimensions. Therefore at lest at relativistic velocities or the very small there may very well be multiple futures.
Links to files:
Left click each on PC or touch on phone to open each file.
The linked files are details the proof that the axial Doppler shift changes observed time like the transverse and various implication. Also there sections showing the difference between in how mass varies with frequency in relativity and quantum mechanics.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o9mW38Vyx3C7IuN6xazdS7SSYF_JRdJY
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LiG8oeVm9eHiSYcbDJxwDvaewM4WFZWz
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vU9ADVkG70s_UjV5MmDsrzcb7ME1XEkj
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GT5zMIrg9yYxOB22c4dpJjvDYpd6sfth
OR IN VERY SHORT FORM:
MASS: deBroglie's and Shodinger's equations show mass proportional to frequency. Not so in relativity.
PROOF OF AXIAL SHIFT OF TIME: to be proven: It is in the fundamental properties of Fourier time series that if the frequency of each harmonic is multiplied by the same factor K, all values come out 1/K times the time they did in the original series.
F= Sum {An cos (wn t) + Bn ( wn t)} where the sum is from n=0 to n=infinity, F is any function, wn = the frequency of nth harmonic. It obvious if all wn are multiplied by K the value of each {An cos (wn t) + Bn (wn t)} is {An cos (wn K t’) + Bn sin (wn K t’)} and they are equal if t’/t=1/K. That that means the sum is if t’/t=1/K. The reader can use a PC and prove it also by numerical experimentation. If you remember advanced calculus any piece wise continuous function can be made into Fourier series and haw to find the An’s and Bn’s for that function.
This is limited to the period the constants where originally determined for. Since the series can be of an information carrying signal, time is either compressed or dilated by that multiplication of frequency which what all Doppler shifts do, axial, transverse, red or blue.
IMPLICATIONS: The above proved the axial Doppler shift changes observed time just like the transverse. It was not given the property by writers on relativity because the Lorentz transformation had axial aether winds cancel each other. When no found any aether every thing was changed to Doppler shifts. But since the Michelson experiment is attached to the earth there no velocity between parts therefore the light the Sun has only one Doppler shift. Besides of which, the multiple reflections in the experiment is not usual case to apply relativity equations. As long as Einstein’s second postulate (light having the same velocity in all reference frames) is true there is a transverse shift, but with or without that postulate the axial shift exists.
See the attached links above for details and more implications of this like having the observation angle of the axial Doppler shift being a dimension of time, distance, momentum and mass. They also point out the difference in mass between quantum mechanics and relativity.
Thank you for your time,
Samuel Lewis Reich
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Theoretical Physics
- Time