[swoarg]

hi there
we can record time with a video camera and at any time in the future we can look back at time by observing what we recorded but in the future we might invent a camera that will be able to view the past simply by recording wave lengths or frequency of light from the past. i read i while ago that certian objects ie stone(could ? ) absorb light and some how leak it back out which was an explanation for ghost sightings.

in the future we will be able to view the past not to sure about a visit though but there is evidence of time travel attemps usualy unexplained and put down to a ufo sightings most close sightings of glowing lights seem to indicate that the light contianed a huge amount of energy and vibrated which could be put down to the first ettempts of time travel .
traveling to the future ,possible but not sure if it will depend on traveling at the speed of light or faster i just dont think thats possible simply because we are not light (or gravity) , i think we will bend spacetime which will enable us to travel faster or further than the speed of time but in essence we will only take a step
but the worrying part for me is that to travel somewere you have to have a destination point in this case its a certian time in the future even if you had no control over were or what time you would arive you still arive in the future (your destination) a certian point in time, if our future wer not mapped out then the future,destination and any point in time would not exsist making time travel impossible, if our future is mapped out then there is a defanet destanation and a positive point in time making time travel possible. time travel on paper seems possible which might allso mean we have no controll over our future

[Profpat]

Hi Swoarg;

I think we'll always be attempting to go into the future but always be stuck living in the past. The present Here and Now, we can't experience physically, because by the time it's formed it's a past event.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Best to you,

Pat

[neutralino]

Firstly, thanks for starting a thread on this topic, swoarg. Time travel is, in my opinion, quite fascinating, and is one of those subjects that bridges the once very small, but now rather large gap between physics and philosophy. I'm sure those that recognise my style of posting will be able to guess which side of the discussion I'd like to address, though!

I don't think that time travel to the future is a problem: we travel towards the future every day and, by special relativity, we know that travelling faster will enable us to travel "further" into the future. However, this is limited by the speed of light, since I don't think that faster than light travel is possible.

Travel into the past is another issue though. A few years ago I studied a couple of solutions to general relativity that exhibited what are called closed timelike curves (CTCs). A CTC is a worldline of a particle that is closed: i.e. on travelling "around" the worldline, one would return to the same place spacetime. They were originally thought up by van Stockem, but later studied by Kurt Goedel. The solution that he found to Einstein's equations exhibited these CTCs. They were not geodesics, meaning that one could not travel on one without accelerating, but were timelike curves meaning that, theoretically, a particle could travel on one, given the right amount of acceleration. Now, this solution is not a model of our universe; there are many problems with it; however it does show that there exist solutions to general relativity that do exhibit these CTCs. In my opinion, however, we will not find a solution that fits our universe that exhibits such curves, but they are still interesting to study.

There are, of course, many problems that one has to tie up when thinking about time travel: the most famous being the grandfather paradox, however I feel that there does exist a solution to this problem. Another thing to think about is the problem that Hawking brought up: if time travel exists, then why have we not seen anyone (or anything) travelling back in time.

To summarise my thoughts, I think that time travel is theoretically possible, but that we will not (and have not) be able to do it.

[swoarg]

well put Pat not sure how that makes me feel though

[Profpat]

While Neutralino is taking the physical side let me expand on the philosophical side.

I think it's possible to go back in time, ( i.e. go faster than light ). We could than view Hitler and WWII and Alexander the Great etc. The only catch would be that it's just a projection of what really happened. We would walk right through Napolean and Ghankis Chan. Great for historians, and no chance of the paradox of killing our grandfather. Of course since it's a projection of what really happened, there would be no way for us to change history or interact with the characters.

The present Here and Now I believe can only be obtained through consiousness and/or awareness. We can't physically be there because when it's manisfested on the physical plane it's a past event that we are experiencing.

It's at the Here and Now level that we become aware that all is illusion and indeed we are creating our own personal reality and together ( All of us ) creating the corporate or universal reality.

The future doesn't exist, and thats what ticked off Einstein. You can't predict and never will be able to predict the future with a 100% certainity. Thank God for the uncertainty principle and the required degree of freedom that it demands. This principle also gives us humans are limited freedom and free will.

God can't predict the future because it hasn't happened. Only Here and Now and recorded past events are real.

This is just my rambling thoughts about time. It's very philosophic and speculative I know. Something to think about'

BTW Swoarg I agree with Neutralino a very interesting thread.

Best to all,

Pat

[swoarg]

very interesting Neutralino must be nice to study and understand such theorys i find it hard to visualise as i dont have much knowledge but i am learning but i wonder were all the ctc,s created at the begining of time
traveling back intime well if its possible and someone does
i should think they would keep it low key but i can imagine that seing a time traveler arrive into your time would start with a bright enegetic vibrating light which puts a nice twist on some of the ufo sightings

[Profpat]

Hi Swoarg and everyone;

While doing some research I found an interesting article on time travel by Michio Kaku Professor of Theoritical Physics at City University of New York.

It can be accessed at:
( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/myst..._kaku_1-4.html )

Best to all,

Pat

[PoPpAScience]

Profpat when you say Neutralino has explained from the physical side, you are right. But when you say you will expand from the philosophical side, you are wrong. Your expanded thought is fact also, on the physical side. As we know that everything we ever have observed is in motion, thus it is a ever changing macro world that is being observed. As you stated so nicely, that by the time our consciousness observes something it has already become part of the past. Things change at the micro level at such a high rate of speed that we can not keep up with our observations. That is why I feel your statement, "I think we'll always be attempting to go into the future but always be stuck living in the past", is fact.

The macro world changes at the speed of light into the future.

To me there is no 'Now' to be experienced.

There would have to be a permanent 'Now', created every zillionth of a nanosecond, in order for there to be a past to visit.

[Profpat]

Hi Allen;

I thought my post #5 was on the metaphysical side. You are right however my post #7 ( the link to Kaku's theory) was on the physical side. I didn't mean to mislead or disappoint anyone though.

Best to you,

Pat

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Allen; I thought my post #5 was on the metaphysical side. You are right however my post #7 ( the link to Kaku's theory) was on the physical side. I didn't mean to mislead or disappoint anyone though. Best to you, Pat

I also do not want to disappoint anyone. I try not to use the word fact, for this reason. But sometimes I slip up.

Except for a few words, I think # 5 is a pretty solid statement.