Time travel

[Piorn]

So, assuming time travel is made possible in the future, why don't we receive time travellers from this future? Possibilities:
-We do, but they have advanced technology to hide.
-The authorities of the future have a time-police-thing that tracks and corrects time jumps.
-Time travel requires reception-points where the time travellers can arrive,and these are not
built, yet. I like this idea best.

 

[Vitvol279]

Who's to say time travel won't be invented?

"Maybe it was created, and someone went back and changed the past. So we're just living out an alternate timeline."

I remember saying that to my science teacher back at school, it really freaked out some of the people in my class.

 

[Piorn]

added note: spacemen come back to earth younger than they should be, because they are travelling near the spped of light. i think it goes like this:

in 40 years 1 person is going the speed of light and another is on the earth. by the time the 40 years are up, the person on the earth will be 40 years older while the person going the speed of light will be 20 years younger, and only experienced that amount of years.

It's called time dilation. The closer you move to the speed of light, the slower time flows for you, basically.

 

[Scylla6]

As soon as you do anything you create a paradox. If you buy milk, you don't need milk. So you didn't buy the milk aaand paradox.

 

[orangebandguy]

Maybe the travellers are far more subtle than you think. They could be all around you.

 

[DazZ.]

As soon as you do anything you create a paradox. If you buy milk, you don't need milk. So you didn't buy the milk aaand paradox.

When you go back you are not you in the past, you would have to give yourself the milk for it to be a paradox.

 

[Trivun]

theoretically, you can only travel back in time, because the future never existed yet. and there is a man who is working on this exact subject. i cant remember who, but he has a shitload of theories. id say time travel will be possible in 100 years.

added note: spacemen come back to earth younger than they should be, because they are travelling near the spped of light. i think it goes like this:

in 40 years 1 person is going the speed of light and another is on the earth. by the time the 40 years are up, the person on the earth will be 40 years older while the person going the speed of light will be 20 years younger, and only experienced that amount of years.

You've got the right idea, but your numbers are screwed up. It's down to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The astronaut won't be younger, he'll simply age slower. The idea is known as the Twin Paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

The basic idea (which I learned in A-Level Physics, though I don't know the specifics) is that two twins are seperated when one of them travels at speeds close to the speed of light as an astronaut and the other stays on Erath. The Earth twin will age normally, so 40 years older in 40 years. In those same 40 years, the fact that the astronaut twin travels close to the speed of light means that time slows down relative to his point of view, so he'll age slower. As a result, when after those 40 years he returns to Earth, though he'll technically be the same age as his twin, in actual fact he will be younger. Specific examples and explanations are given in the Wikipedia link above.

Personally I feel that time travel won't be possible for us to recreate, but there is eveidence supporting the fact that time manipulation may be a natural occurence. This, however, only applies to specific examples relating to particle physics, I don't mean anything like 'Blinx the Time Sweeper' style stuff happening. I am referring, of course, to the two CERN scientists who claim that the LHC project may be doomed before it begins by time travel, whereby the Higgs Boson that they're searching for will be created but is so abhorrent to nature that it naturally travels back in time to the present to cause the project to fail, thus erasing it's own existence. This would normally lead to extensive paradoxes applying, but the two scientists have some interesting theories regarding that. Here's an article link about them and their research, for anyone interested:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece

 

[crudus]

I want to know your take on the subject, your ideas on if would work or not and why.

I personally don't think it would work because if we ever develop that technology why hasn't someone come back in time to warn us about something? Or maybe we have the tech we just are smart enough not to use it. But then again we would have to test it, and if one thing, even the SMALLEST little thing changes in the past the scientist who designed the time machine wouldn't have been born, therefore no machine. And even if we send someone back in time, the whole wold would change in the future, so the man sent back wouldn't be born, therefore couldn't be sent back. I THINK. I'm going insane thinking about it so please discuss it. But remember this before you tell me I'm wrong, this is my THOUGHTS on this subject, I'm not saying I'm right. Please write your opinion.

I don't view time as one event. I think of it as multiple. If we were to go back in time they would not go to our past but a different one. If time was a single line then if went back in time the change wouldn't catch up to us. It would just change that area of the time line and it would move toward us as we moved away from it. Otherwise causality would break. (it is so hard to explain fourth dimensionally with only three dimensions)

 

[Veylon]

My thoughts are that going back in time would knock off a new alternate reality. Thus, you wouldn't be able to change your own history and muck with causality. Also, you wouldn't be able to go back to your own time, because you're in a new reality, you'd just go forward in time. I like this theory because it doesn't involved destiny or timequakes or fading people or whatever.

 

[dalek sec]

I'd give it a shot but only with a dude with a blue phone box and a temp from Chiswick.

 

[titanium turtle]

time travel has massive implications

think about it- everything you have seen or done, heard or said makes up who you are, changing anything at all- e.g. having toast rather than shreddies or killing an ant when going back in time re writes who you are, meaning the you that went back in time could not exist

also think of the massive implications of going back and killing someone- remember red alert

also what if you saw yourself- UNIVERSAL MIND FUCK!

the only way you could safely "time travel" would be to remote look but be unable to influence or contact anything- basically watching historical events like a film
- like when you die on multiplayer gears of war

 

[CAW4]

It will never happen. Why? Because it hasn't happened yet. No matter how far ahead in history you go, there will always be someone looking for a quick buck. And hat guy would buy a time travel machine, just to travel back in time to 'invent' it for themselves. This would just cause a cycle, and have time travel 'invented' at the beginning of time, and since it hasn't happened yet, it never will.

 

[TimeLord]

I'd give it a shot but only with a dude with a blue phone box and a temp from Chiswick.

Quite so

It will never happen. Why? Because it hasn't happened yet. No matter how far ahead in history you go, there will always be someone looking for a quick buck. And hat guy would buy a time travel machine, just to travel back in time to 'invent' it for themselves. This would just cause a cycle, and have time travel 'invented' at the beginning of time, and since it hasn't happened yet, it never will.

Your argument makes little sense.

In theory time travel could have created the world today through a series of history altering events

 

[revjay]

Take a look at the work Einstein and Rosen did and riff on that a while. It isn't about time travel per se but makes for some fun tangents on the hypothesis of time travel.