Physicist Definitively Rules Time Travel Impossible

[Skoosh]

Moving backwards in time has been theoretically impossible since Einstein. This is just a bit of experimentation confirming those hypotheses more. I get angry reading the comments on the one summary and here though from people that obviously have no scientific knowledge past high school level trying to say this is rubbish. As someone with a degree in physics, let me say his paper seems sound.

And to everyone that says "oh, scientific knowledge changes every day and we end up doing the impossible so I'm ignoring this" you're being just as bad as a creationist saying "evolution is just a theory, not really true."

 

[Daverson]

Before anyone feels they should be able to comment on whether doing something with space time, they should bear in mind that we don't really, as a species, know what time even is. We might be able to understand time, but might be able to account for it in our experiments, but what is time? Is it a dimension? Is it the result of "strings"? Is it the only way our brains can comprehend the existence of a 4th spatial dimension, by viewing one atomic slice at any moment?

I wouldn't rule out time travel, not yet, anyway. There's so much we don't understand that how time works. As with all models, there's going to mistakes made with this. You should always remeber, just over a century years ago, most scientists would have assumed Newtonian mechanics were the do-all-and-end-all of physics. (and, unfortunately, a lot of people still do =\ )

That was my first impression as well, but i'm hesitant to agree that it is impossible. On one hand i believe that anything is possible if you know how, but looking back at some of the things science has given us, it's completely ludicrous for a flat world to exist. From my understanding of time, which is that i do not understand it, i still see time travel as a possibility. From an ancient sailors view of the ocean it was flat and if you kept going you would eventually fall off of it, but we all know that is impossible now. Or IS it...? What if a frisbie shaped hunk of rock was hurtling around in low atmospheric orbit around say a gas giant? But then you would have friction from the atmosphere and structural integrity of the rock to worry about, it may simply eventually slow down and crash. But you never know.... or DO you...?

DO I? Is that an accusation? It seems like a bit of a strange word to emphasise otherwise... I can assure you the world isn't flat, if that helps.

Moving backwards in time has been theoretically impossible since Einstein. This is just a bit of experimentation confirming those hypotheses more. I get angry reading the comments on the one summary and here though from people that obviously have no scientific knowledge past high school level trying to say this is rubbish. As someone with a degree in physics, let me say his paper seems sound.

I'm going to have to call you out on that, if anything, Einstein's model of space-time is the entire basis of half the theories as to why time travel is possible. (Hell, the guy even co-wrote the theory of wormholes, which are, by their very definition, bidirectional time travel)

 

[timeadept]

Before anyone feels they should be able to comment on whether doing something with space time, they should bear in mind that we don't really, as a species, know what time even is. We might be able to understand time, but might be able to account for it in our experiments, but what is time? Is it a dimension? Is it the result of "strings"? Is it the only way our brains can comprehend the existence of a 4th spatial dimension, by viewing one atomic slice at any moment?

I wouldn't rule out time travel, not yet, anyway. There's so much we don't understand that how time works. As with all models, there's going to mistakes made with this. You should always remeber, just over a century years ago, most scientists would have assumed Newtonian mechanics were the do-all-and-end-all of physics. (and, unfortunately, a lot of people still do =\ )

That was my first impression as well, but i'm hesitant to agree that it is impossible. On one hand i believe that anything is possible if you know how, but looking back at some of the things science has given us, it's completely ludicrous for a flat world to exist. From my understanding of time, which is that i do not understand it, i still see time travel as a possibility. From an ancient sailors view of the ocean it was flat and if you kept going you would eventually fall off of it, but we all know that is impossible now. Or IS it...? What if a frisbie shaped hunk of rock was hurtling around in low atmospheric orbit around say a gas giant? But then you would have friction from the atmosphere and structural integrity of the rock to worry about, it may simply eventually slow down and crash. But you never know.... or DO you...?

DO I? Is that an accusation? It seems like a bit of a strange word to emphasise otherwise... I can assure you the world isn't flat, if that helps.

Moving backwards in time has been theoretically impossible since Einstein. This is just a bit of experimentation confirming those hypotheses more. I get angry reading the comments on the one summary and here though from people that obviously have no scientific knowledge past high school level trying to say this is rubbish. As someone with a degree in physics, let me say his paper seems sound.

I'm going to have to call you out on that, if anything, Einstein's model of space-time is the entire basis of half the theories as to why time travel is possible. (Hell, the guy even co-wrote the theory of wormholes, which are, by their very definition, bidirectional time travel)

No lol, i was trying to be silly. But i was half serious as to if you had any ideas of how a flat world could exist. Oh yeah, also having fun with the definition of the word "know". In any case, the quote comes to mind. "in the mind of a beginner there are many possibilities, in the mind of a master there are few"

 

[Dexiro]

I don't think we can say anything will always be impossible until we've discovered everything that physics has to offer, and we're nowhere close to that.

For all we know we could figure out how to reprogram particles to follow different laws of physics or something. Anything could happen.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I think this guy's been reading too much Stephen King Novels. (If you don't know what I mean, go read The Langoliers.)

 

[Daverson]

*snip*

No lol, i was trying to be silly. But i was half serious as to if you had any ideas of how a flat world could exist. Oh yeah, also having fun with the definition of the word "know". In any case, the quote comes to mind. "in the mind of a beginner there are many possibilities, in the mind of a master there are few"

Well, a flat world couldn't really exist, at least, not naturally. The reason planets form as sphere (or, ellipsoids, if you want to be technical) is gravity, without this, you've not got much more than an asteroid. That said, something similar to a flat world has been proposed as a possible way of building a sustainable ecosystem aboard a space station - a cylindrical world [http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/july07/Nasa1.jpg], where centrifugal force (yes, it does exist) takes the role of gravity.

Counterquote: "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." - John A. Wheeler

 

[timeadept]

*snip*

No lol, i was trying to be silly. But i was half serious as to if you had any ideas of how a flat world could exist. Oh yeah, also having fun with the definition of the word "know". In any case, the quote comes to mind. "in the mind of a beginner there are many possibilities, in the mind of a master there are few"

Well, a flat world couldn't really exist, at least, not naturally. The reason planets form as sphere (or, ellipsoids, if you want to be technical) is gravity, without this, you've not got much more than an asteroid. That said, something similar to a flat world has been proposed as a possible way of building a sustainable ecosystem aboard a space station - a cylindrical world [http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/blogimages/july07/Nasa1.jpg], where centrifugal force (yes, it does exist) takes the role of gravity.

Counterquote: "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." - John A. Wheeler

Nice XKCD reference in there. Yeah i remember hearing something vague about that at one point, i don't know if the idea ever got anywhere though.

I don't see the quotes as mutually exclusive though. They seem to refer to different things. Mine says that the more we know, the less we think is plausible, while yours says that the more we know, the more we know that we don't know.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

So...has the multiverse theory been proven then? That whole, killing alternate-Hitler seems like a fun idea but in the multiverse it could be that we're the only universe in which Hitler was 'evil'...

Anyway...it sucks that I can't go back in time but there's still the idea of freezing myself Futurama style so as to go into the future.

The multiverse theory allows for infinite variations, which means there would be infinite other universes where Hitler was evil, along with infinite others where he wasn't.

 

[yanipheonu]

What you don't see is the fact that right as he was about to start the experiment, his future self came and forced him to write this.

 

[mrdude2010]

It's impossible because it can't be done just now. Who says his proofs are irrefutable?

Is he trying to say that we know all there is too know about this branch of physics, right now?

"Phycicist thinks time travel is probably impossible based on all this sciencing" is a less grabbing headline. He either is certain he is right or certain no one will prove him wrong while he is alive... or this strand of divergent time.

Or just talking out of his arse to get his 15.

theoretically you can mess with numbers and make time go backwards and forwards, so you could travel backwards to the point the machine was turned on (my physics professor did this but i didn't write it down because it was sort of an aside), but this guys metamaterials research looks legit enough to contradict that

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

Well that makes sense what with all the paradoxes and all that. Time travel isn't really conceivable without alternate realities anyway.
Also, we can still go into the future right? I mean, at a faster rate than normal.

 

[Custard_Angel]

I've never believed that time travel can be possible. I'm sure we would have noticed it by now.

 

[Sylocat]

It's exactly the same thing as time travel, only instead of creating paradoxes you just branch off a new timeline when you change something. It's the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So no, this doesn't prove time travel is impossible, it just won't be your past anymore once you've been in it. So, getting back will be trickier than anticipated, but there will be workarounds.

This also explains why there are no tourists from the future (at least not that we're aware of): We are currently existing in one of the infinitely possible timelines where no noticeable travelers have jumped back to yet.

 

[Speakercone]

I still like Hawking's explanation of this. "if time travel is real, where are all the time travelers?"

more poignantly, if time travel is real, why did Hitler not get mysteriously assassinated at art school?

unless....time traveling nazis! *gasp*

 

[Chills41]

Every time someone uses their loose interpretation of an obscure scientific theory which has no relevance to the point they're trying make, a fairy dies...

Finally, a thread that has an actual scientist backing it up.

 

[Cyberjester]

Doesn't know very much does he.

Who hasn't heard of The Astronomers Brother problem?

Everything is relative. As speed increases the time rate slows. So at the speed of light things get pretty fun. Were we able to break the speed of light (Which isn't impossible given that light is slowing down according to several formerly prominent astronomers, physicians and mathematicians) then time travel could work.

 

[Cyberjester]

Moving backwards in time has been theoretically impossible since Einstein. This is just a bit of experimentation confirming those hypotheses more. I get angry reading the comments on the one summary and here though from people that obviously have no scientific knowledge past high school level trying to say this is rubbish. As someone with a degree in physics, let me say his paper seems sound.

And to everyone that says "oh, scientific knowledge changes every day and we end up doing the impossible so I'm ignoring this" you're being just as bad as a creationist saying "evolution is just a theory, not really true."

Excellent point. And may I say you're sounding like an evolutionist who says that he quite definitely evolved from a monkey but please don't hit him because it's "evil".

Now that we're done with silly arguments, might I suggest you spend a bit more time learning? As the speed of light has not yet been broken, we can't say for certain that time travel is impossible. Physics as we know it stops working then. And remember that evolution is a theory. A good one mind, but still a theory. No evolutionist I've met will accept the possibilities that humans could have evolved separately from primates. Which is kind of funny given that we need at least two humans to reproduce (at a prolific rate), and thus experience genetic loss from the very start. Saying that we evolve into something better is spitting in the face of entropy. Makes more sense for the big bang (which ever in the series we're up to now) to have spawned creatures at the start. Which is possible given that after the previous "big crunch" there was another "big bang". What's that pseudo science (which could be ignorant given I know nothing about it) that claims a poison diluted to tens of thousandths will hold the previous pattern and thus be good for you?

Long ramble to say, no such thing as impossible, merely differing degrees of probability. Thus anyone who states "This cannot be" is a fool.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

It is only going to be impossible until someone does it in which case it will be world noticed,die down,and in the end prove a pop reference as no one pursues it further then a couple trips.Oh wait,that was NASA.I still say get back to the future

 

[ScoopMeister]

This dude's a total killjoy.

 

[BabySinclair]

Nothing is impossible! Not if you believe in it. That's what being a scientist is all about!-Professor Farnsworth


I once saw a documentary about a time travelling Deloreon that debunks this theory entirely.

Or redefine things so that they work. Can't travel FTL? Pull space towards you half the speed of light and travel against it at the same speed, now you are traveling point A to B at C. Farnsworth did it (somewhat, why can't we?)