Heavy Science. Time Travel.

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Shadowprophet, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    Make no mistake Thomas is the real deal, It's been years since anyone has had me on the ropes in a physics debate. I feel like a giddy little school girl right now
    [​IMG]
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  2. Ron67

    Ron67 Ignorance isn’t bliss!

    Messages:
    92
    He’s my physics Yoda!.But I’m more of a Look Skyward in confusion than a Luke Skywalker!
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  3. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    They say that everyone you encounter can teach you something you didn't know. My thing is. I want to reach a point. Where I truly understand all there is to know about Quantum physics. I may never get there.

    But. Part of me. The Giddy schoolgirl part. knows that pestering physicists to explain it to me is a good way to learn lol :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  4. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    1,794
    Well...

    Frame dragging and a number of other effects that Einstein predicted have been observed. Mostly in situations involving satellites or flybys.

    The frightening (and comforting) thing about relativity is none of the effects is observer independent.

    As far as speed and gravity caused displacement: our clocks are accurate enough to measure time displacement due to gravity and speed.

    Your GPS can locate you to within a few dozen feet can't it?

    So the various displacements aren't speculation and actually have to be accounted for in a number of engineering situations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. CasualBystander

    CasualBystander Celestial

    Messages:
    1,794
    The book was by Larry Niven: "The Flight of the Horse" - to quote from Amazon:
    Future environmentalist Hanville Svetz travels back in time to retrieve extinct life: his quests for a horse, a Gila monster, and a whale unearthed a unicorn, a dragon, and Moby-Dick.

    "Rainbow Mars" was the same protagonist trying to retrieve ancient Mars life - with a similar result.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  6. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    That's true. I can't debate the existence of relativity in experimentation and practice. We use it regularly. However. The thing that consumes me about the whole issue is. We don't fully understand relativity. And to my understanding, we don't really fully understand The atomic half-life. Yet we assume entropy is random, Yet because of the way half-life works. It can't truly be random, There must be an algorithm, We base so much knowledge on things we don't truly know for certain. You know?
     
  7. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    My ultimate point is, With Relativity, It's the Theory of relativity. It's really not, at any point the fact of relativity. Why the relativity thing bothers me to some degree is, We base so much of our understanding on a thing we haven't proven yet. and, while as you stated. those things. turned out to function just fine within relativity. How can it not for a curious person, How can it not burn a hole through your thoughts. Not knowing relativity as a fact? It's a literal burning curiosity I have.
     
  8. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    This thing here Thomas. All of it. This is the fascinating thing. I'd love to have an intricate talk about General relativity Vs Special relativity. <-- because they are different. as one poses a universal constant and the other is an expanding universe. And I'd love to touch upon quantum field theory with you. This is one of my misnomers from earlier. I like to believe. Quantum mechanics do fit within relativity Rather than me just assuming that. I assume they actually don't and that Quantum theory is kind of its own thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    Also, Here is a 5D Black hole, Such a black hole is hypothetical. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-five-dimensional-black-hole-relativity.html But, On paper, Mathematically, These break relativity. :/

    Had to search all night for this. But. This is entirely hypothetical. it would be just as plausible to say He-mans Magic sword could break relativity :/ So,, Yeah. Maybe not this example lol
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Honorable

    Messages:
    145
    Okay this is kind of a jumble - let me see if I can untangle some of this:

    - special relativity is the bedrock of general relativity: general relativity utilizes the spacetime geometry of special relativity, and simply extends it from the special case of a flat Minkowski spacetime, to a curved Riemannian manifold. So SR is embedded into general relativity - they work in concert in GR.

    - I don't deny any credible theoretical physics; I don't know where you got that idea.

    - Wikipedia can be useful, but you have to be careful with it: the editors there often express their dogmatic bias against anything even slightly outside the mainstream, including at times even valid avenues of on-going academic research.

    - You didn't specify which theory of relativity you thought was broken, so I had to defend both, because neither are broken, though GR is incomplete because it doesn't incorporate quantum phenomena.

    - There's almost certainly a grand unified theory that will tie all fundamental physics together - we just haven't found it yet. I think it's vital to do so, however, because I expect that once we unify GR and QFT, we should be able to figure out how to technologically manipulate gravitation.

    Same here, and thank you. I endeavor to be as accurate as possible when talking about physics, and I'll always be very clear when I'm speculating. Hopefully that will help to avert any confusion or contention.

    Yes. I recently spent some time studying photonic metamaterials with an eye to spacetime engineering applications, because of the AATIP story and the materials mentioned recently in that regard. It's not my area of specialty but the literature was very clear.

    After years of debate about the correct stress-energy tensor to apply for photonic metamaterials, a team of researchers recently found that the Helmholtz stress tensor yields very accurate results. And this stress tensor contains two terms, electrostriction and magnetostriction, which provide a mechanism for producing tension (negative pressure) within such materials when their microstructure is arranged in a triangular lattice. When the miscrostructure is arranged in a square grid, these terms have a positive value. So, to a minuscule degree at least, we now have a mechanism for producing negative and positive components in the stress-energy tensor within the material when it's activated with the right frequency of electromagnetic radiation, which means that we can produce positive and negative terms within the Einstein stress tensor as well (which produces negative and positive mass modulation), using photonic metamaterials. We don't know the upper limits on the magnitude of these effects yet. It's hard to imagine a way to produce any detectable mass change in this manner, but it does appear to be a promising proof-of-principle that it might be possible.

    Like I said before, I don't think that backwards time travel is possible, without some new and unexpected revolution in physics. Changing the rate that one moves into the future does appear to be possible though, and it's certainly possible to travel faster into the future within a gravitational field, or by accelerating to a higher relative velocity. If substantial negative energies become available, then one could also slow one's motion into the future.

    In any case, such effects would be immediate. Let's say that you turn on your gravitational time machine and accelerate into the future - if the machine breaks or whatever, you'll have traveled some distance into the future, so that's where you'll end up. I don't see any reason to expect that a traveler would get thrown back to the starting point; time dilation just doesn't work like that.

    All cogent and viable models in physics are called theories: they're never called facts. The term "fact" is reserved for undisputed empirical observations. So don't get hung up on the word "theory," so far both theories of relativity have made all the correct predictions in every applicable regime that we can rigorously test them. Clifford Will wrote a brilliant review paper about the experimental status of general relativity - I highly recommend having a look through it:

    “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  11. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    There is so much I would like to discuss. I've not Had sleep yet. I can't wait to pick this up later though :) My thinking of time, Was since it was a fabric that the distortion would be temporary and in effect only as long as the force bending space-time was applied. I Assumed it would like a rubber band snaps back to its original unbent state when the machine was turned off. Now that I think about this though. You are Right in the classic example of time dilation When the man boards the shuttle and travels near the speed of light for so many years. upon his return, He doesn't just become older, So, I can see how, time dilation is a permanent effect once applied.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    Before I go to sleep, I have one more question. About time dilation, Okay. This could be simply because I'm overthinking things. I love to do that though. But. Lets set up classic time dilation. The man returns home. To a world that has aged 20 years more than he. Now, Here is where The twisted thinking comes in. Let's say for curiosity. We now take this mans friend we send him on a similar journey The man returns. Okay. Do these two men now share a quantum space-time that no one else shares? or is it just time being flexible and relative.
     
  13. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Honorable

    Messages:
    145
    As far as we know, it's a purely geometrical spacetime effect. Sharing a special "quantum spacetime" would imply some kind of preferred reference frame, which is forbidden by relativity.

    Both of the voyagers have simply traveled a similar route through spacetime: it's not fundamentally any different than two people taking an airplane flight abroad and then coming back home.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  14. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    2,297
    pardon my stupidity but would'nt this make a perpetual motion machine?!
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  15. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet N=R^.fp.ne.f1.fi.fc.L

    Messages:
    499
    I'm not really advanced enough in my knowledge on superfluid to really make that call, I would assume though. that there is some reason that this zero viscosity effect in superfluids would not be considered perpetual motion. This one, Is slightly beyond my knowledge to answer brother.
    All I know for certain about Superfluids are a few facts I've read about it. Superfluids have zero viscosity. A tendency to climb out of their containers in a way that almost seems to defy gravity. and a tendency to somehow seep through otherwise solid containers. in a possibly quantum tunneling method. Outside of these things. This is all I know about superfluid :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  16. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Honorable

    Messages:
    145
    The same question is sometimes asked about superconductors. The perpetual motion and current in these situations are perpetual only in a purely idealized theoretical sense. In practice, there's a variety of subtle effects and defects which act as resistance in any real physical scenario.

    For example, consider a placing a bowling ball in deep space and spinning it. In an idealized situation with no other mass or energy in the universe, it would spin forever. But in the real universe there are always gravitational tidal forces acting upon the ball, and a tenuous plasma even in the deepest regions of intergalactic space, which would slowly reduce the rate of rotation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  17. AlienView

    AlienView Honorable

    Messages:
    309
    My favorite time travel theory, though technically some might say it is not really time travel but time line
    alternatives, which may appear like time travel is based upon an accepted 'theory' in physics:

    "
    The "many-worlds interpretation" is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In layman's terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation,multiverse theory or just many-worlds.

    The original relative state formulation is due to Hugh Everett in 1957.[3][4] Later, this formulation was popularized and renamed many-worlds by Bryce Seligman DeWitt in the 1960s and 1970s.[1][5][6][7] The decoherence approaches to interpreting quantum theory have been further explored and developed,[8][9][10] becoming quite popular. MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy........."

    See whole article here:
    Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia


    'IF' this is true - Many timelines would exist - What you missed in one world's timeline might appear
    in another - the right timeline might lead you back into the past - apparently, even though it might
    actually be another world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  18. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    361
    just in case no one else noticed,
    General relativity fails in rotating frames
    so it just does not apply to anything that spins (almost everything)

    as to how time travel works,
    most people assume that time flows from the past to the future,
    I am convinced that it flows from unlikely timelines to the most likely timeline.
    the world makes way more sense that way.
     
  19. Black Angus

    Black Angus In the land beyond beyond

    Messages:
    229
    So, the rate of time flows is a variable.................

    Time passes faster the higher you are

    Gravity fields slow time down.

    How Gravity Changes Time: The Effect Known as Gravitational Time Dilation

    An ET species that decided to set up a base deep inside a very strong gravity well would watch the rest of the universe in what would look like fast forward.

    Time would run "slower" in these larger galaxy's.

    The rate at which time flows where you are sitting now is related to the mass of the planet you sit on and the background gravitational force of the sun, the local planets and indeed the galaxy you reside in. They all play a factor in the "background" speed of time in your locale.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  20. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Honorable

    Messages:
    145
    The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is the greatest plot device ever devised for writing really cool science fiction stories (some of the best episodes of Red Dwarf and Stargate SG-1 were made possible thanks to Everett's idea).

    But there's no evidence of any kind that it's the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, and even if it were correct, I've never seen a proposal for jumping between the various branches of reality.

    That's a textbook example of an online "crank physics page." Here's an exact quote from the opening statement:

    “Proof of inaccuracy of the first postulate is very simple and it is based on the fact that term of velocity is undefined in the Classic Theory of Electromagnetism as well as in the Theories of Relativity as its successor. The velocity should not be measured in respect to observer, but rather to another participant of interaction.”

    So this guy wants us to try to measure velocity with respect to somebody else's reference point. But then we aren't measuring velocity with respect to our own reference point. How is that useful or meaningful? It's not, it's crazy.

    I don't understand why so many people are eager to claim that relativity is wrong when they haven't even studied it so they can actually understand it - I just had another frustrating debate on a different forum about this, with a guy who's never learned how Einstein's theories work.

    The general theory of relativity (GR) works perfectly for rotating reference frames - the Lense-Thirring effect (aka frame dragging, aka gravitomagnetism) predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in a variety of ways and they're correct to within observational accuracy. We've known this for over 20 years:

    "Evidence found that spinning black holes drag spacetime: Just as Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts," 11/06/1997

    Then why doesn't the past look any more improbable than the present? What's more unlikely about people riding around in horse-drawn chariots than men landing on the Moon and playing golf there? This model makes no sense to me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page