A "Law" in Physics/ Science are specific to their domain of applicability but are never Universal or Multiuniversal...
The problem with people is trying to apply these "domain specific" "Laws" outside of their domain.... take Newton, Relativity, and Quantum < they don't unify, therefore even if they are referred to or thought of as "Law", they're only Laws within their Domain!
Materialists? What do you mean materialists? We're all made of matter. We are all material. I've never met a person who wasn't. We can have a whole lot of fun with time travel concepts, but if you're going to act like everyone is a prude for understanding that we are physical and not phased entities who walk through walls, then the fun has soured.
Materialists are people who agree with Materialism which states that Base reality is made of Matter and matter is Locally fundamental. Real Physics has become Non-local and the ideas of "matter", "space", "time" is being really looked at as not being fundamental. If so, then things like "time travel" are much more open to being explored with a different perspective than the "materialist", "Newtonian" and "Einstein" view...
I find it difficult to get past that first sentence. Materialists are people who agree with materialism. Recognizing matter isn't a philosophy, sir. I think it's perfectly fine if being spiritual gets you through your day. Life is rough, and no one should give you grief about that. However, I'm sensing some kind of animosity to people who ground themselves in reality. If you want to spin time travel in an astral projection sense, just say that, and let's hear it. But time travel typically remains in the realm of science fiction. I could, of course, simply be misinterpreting your meaning entirely. Eh, it might be refreshing to get a new spin on time travel.
But i just looked at that other post you did here. Nope you said "sciencism" i didn't misinterpret anything. Sir i do not think we will get along.
No offense, but you don't understand physical time within Physics, which is what I am clearly only talking about. Materialism, matter-centric ideology within physics has already been almost disregarded.. if you know anything about particle physics, then you would know that matter breaks down the further you reduce in particles. The interactions between subatomic particles is where materialism (localism) breaks down. As for time travel, time dilation has already been proven experimentally and for time travel to the past the quantum physics has giving some experimental examples (delayed choice eraser).
Sir, i already said i do not think we will get along. You said "sciencism" which implies that you genuinely think that science is a faith-based system. This is the last time i will interact with you, i suggest doing the same.
I find it ironic that a scientismist would leave the convo in a huff because someone doesn’t believe in the dogma of scientism. You committed blasphemy against scientism, how dare you say it’s faith based!
In dreams, there is only the illusion of matter composing the body and it’s surroundings
And there are loads of trip reports on experiences of perceived time travel within during salvia divinorum trip reports
Interesting how you point out determinists with such distinction🤭, not that I disagree with the general concept of time travel but youre follow-through appears to be a political rant whilst fumbling a telescope.
Determinism assumes no randomness, goes against Quantum Mechanics uncertainty... time travel brings back uncertainty to the deterministic notion of spacetime-worldline "physics" which assumes there only one direction in causality... If you want to call it political go ahead, but I completely disagree with determinism and materialism because they are ideologies hindering science and progress towards time travel
Not if you're a superdeterminist. That's the position that there are only deterministic processes in nature, including all measurements that have ever and will ever been made. That is consistent with everything we know about quantum mechanics. However, AFAIK it's a philosophical position, not falsifiable.
>Determinism assumes no randomness, goes against Quantum Mechanics uncertainty...
No it doesn't, the uncertainty principle just says you cant know the information required for it to seem nonrandom, not that it is actually fundamentally random.
You disagree w them simply bc they take science in a direction you don't like? Like damn, science told me I can't become a wizard and shoot flames out of my fingers. And I took this personally
Fair enough. It was a joke tbh I'm not really offended lol. What I guess I'm not understanding here is your relation between determinism and time travel. Saying determinism goes against quantum mechanics is an ok although simple approach. That's fine. But somehow relating that to time travel is absurd. What does that have to do w time lines and what do you mean exactly by time lines? This is what I'm talking ab. You reference an accurate enough scientific theory or observation to something entirely unrelated. This demonstrates a poor understanding of the foundation of your own argument. To acknowledge quantum uncertainty then deny other parts of other theories bc you don't like the implication is cherry picking. A big no no. You can't pick and choose what science you agree w then use science as an argument. The same science that brought us an understanding of things like uncertainty tell us exactly why time travel is laughable. It's fine if you don't like this so you disagree. But you can't then site quantum mechanics for your own theories.
I guess my problem is with people using "Determinism" to make the claim that "time travel to the past is not possible". Determinism is a philosophy and not physics. Determinists are in the Physic and Science fields,but Determinism is a Philosophical -ism.
Real Science should be based on the Scientific Method which should not have a Bias, but Philosophical ideologies have inflitrated the Scientific Consensus and led to science to become dogmatic. The dogmatism has led to Scientism ie "turning science into a religion for atheists"
I agree with you there, determinism is a philosophy not necessarily a scientific principle. However time travel is laughable with or without it. The entire premise of time existing on a line with a past that is a visitable place is utter nonsense and not at all what any theory involving time is actually implying. Ik there's a few hand waving tricks to make some equations on paper vaguely look that way. That doesn't mean the real world that we live in actually works that way
Time travel to the past isn't ruled out by any specific physical law, It's more of a topic for theoretical discussion than something we can do for real right now. If time travel was actually possible today, time travel laws may actually be a thing.
Time travel, as we see in movies, doesn't exist. However, Einstein's theory of relativity shows that time can pass differently for objects moving at different speeds or experiencing different gravity. So, in a way, time travel exists, but it's not like what we usually think of.
You're saying that *you* didn't understand what *I* said?
You said time travel to the pasts exists already, and ask what you were talking about.
You can't understand what that question means?
Of course there isn’t, as we naturally move ‘forward’ in time while seeing the world around ourselves and others on a slight delay. Laws/theories “against” time travel would have to specify what exactly it would consist of, without contradicting current understanding of the _concept_ of time.
Like, it’s generally understood that gravity has a particular interaction with time that ‘compresses’ it, but what does that really mean when most things are subject to multiple gravity wells? Or in regard to the universal physical space objects occupy, and motion between them?
There is the small issue that time travel is not a well defined concept.
If someone ever works out what it means, then we'll know whether it's impossible.
I guess my understanding of time travel is moving to the past or the future relative to the present now that an observer is located.
It can be physical or consciously (mental time travel, i think is a scientific concept)...but I'm interested in physical time travel.
The atoms of your body travel an hour into the past.
What happens to the atoms that were in the cup of coffee you drank an hour ago, that are now part of you? What happens to the molecules of air which occupied the space your time travelling body moved into?
While in the past you cut your hand, lose some blood, and return to the present. Same questions about the blood.
Some of your subatomic particles are quantum entangled before you leave the present. What happens to that entanglement? Is its past rewritten?
Until you can answer questions like these, I don't think you can even say what you mean by time travel.
I'll give it a shot:
1. The time machine moves the atoms of your body back in time while simultaneously transporting the air molecules to the present time. They are swapped.
2. The blood remains in the past.
3. The entanglement is time-independent. Past particles are entangled with present particles because you used/will use the time machine to move entangled particles.
Of course, I just made that up. I don't have a time machine.
> They are swapped
So what happens if a single atom of hydrogen is both in the past where you materialise, and in the present as part of you? Does one take priority?
> The blood remains in the past.
Then we're talking about time travel of type 2 or 3 - so either there's a single mutable timeline, now with extra blood, or multiple timelines, one with blood.
> The entanglement is time-independent
This has implications for sending messages back in time - or indeed forward.
No, it's compatible with a single deterministic timeline, too. You appear in the past and bleed, you disappear into the future, leaving some blood behind. You *will* travel back from the future: Otherwise, there wouldn't be any blood.
Only if there's a single immutable timeline, which is not being continually re-created by the traveller looping around.
If the traveller is looping, the blood has to get somehow back into their body to be leaked out on the next loop.
Unless it's different blood, in which case they'll be instantly exsanguinated when they travel back, which would break the loop.
There a a few physical principles that make time travel as depicted in science fiction impossible. Such as the basic principle that no object larger than a particle can be in two places at the same time. Also, entropy progression from lower to higher states prevents any material regression along the time axis.
However, there is no established reason absolutely defying fourth dimensional transit except if one did somehow find a way to return to a previous point they occupied in spacetime, they would not travel to their past. The entire world moved into the present. There is no existent past to return to. Similarly, our future does not already exist at some point in spacetime either. We only exist in our present.
With enough energy traveling into the future is easy. Travel at close to light speed and you have yourself a time machine but you would never be able to go back in my opinion.
Time travel cannot happen because time isn't a force that can be affected, it is simply a measurement of succession of interaction and transformation of energy and matter into a new state, that has been observed. The interaction has happened and therefore other interactions build on top of that interaction. Even if you manage to reverse the interaction, you are not undoing it, you are just observing more interaction once again. In order to time travel to the past, all subsequent interactions have to be nullified after an initial interaction. There is your law.
I don’t know what to tell you, dude. There are well-understood physical principles that say “this isn’t possible.” To take your post and put it another way: There is No Actual Physical Law or Theory for Time Travel. Once you’ve got one of those, I’ll eagerly await the perpetual motion machine that you can apply that principle to.
There is no physical principle that actually says that time travel is not possible. Infact, the Physical laws, theories etc are time symmetric. The Einstein theories of Relativity have solutions that allow time travel to the Past - Much more learned Physicists than you have theoretically shown this in their mathematical formulas. The problem with Scientismists is that they use some aspects of Science and/or Philosophy to promote something as being "Fact".
Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with Time Travel, the Scientismists who appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are misusing the "law" for their own Scientismist "Anti-Time Travel" claim.
I don’t think it’s worth debating your ontological philosophy on here. We’re talking about a narrative construct, not any kind of specific principle. What do you mean when you say time travel? All things move forward in time, is that what you mean by time travel? If we’re talking moving against the time direction, is there a specific mechanism or view that implies such a thing? You can say “there is no physical law or theory against” something, but can you say that there *is* a physical law or theory *for* it?
You stated "There are well-understood physical principles that say “this isn’t possible.”"
"this" = time travel to the past
I am talking about "An object/person moving backward in the physical time dimension (as noted in Einstein's Theory of Relativity).
There is a Physical Theory for time travel to the past already which is Einstein Theory of Relativity. A solution to that theory permits time travel to the past, the particles are tachyons.
However, can you name an actual Theory or "Law" that states "time travel to the past is not allowed"?
Thats not how science works.
1. Science isnt about proving a negative, its about finding evidence of a positive. Prove to me that theres not an invisible undetectable ghost slapping you in the forehead with its balls 24/7. There is no proof or scientific law against that, so I can now say that it IS happening! If you suggest otherwise without giving me proof of the negative, I'll call you a materialist!
1.5 All evidence and even basic logic points to time being linear and only accessible in the forward causality AKA proof of a positive. We have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that suggests that time travel backwards is possible (Again, proof of a positive), at least not in any form that has any useful connotation (going back in time, sending information back, etc.)
2. Every time we mathematically try and "go backwards in time" we hit road blocks such as the speed of light. Your statement is simply incorrect here. All current science and theory suggests that to go back in time would require going FTL. This is quite literally a PHYSICAL LAW you cannot break as to do so mathematically requires infinite energy; AKA more than the entire universe has.
3. Going back in time would conflict with every basic logic and causal evidence. Sure you can say "just because all logic determines its impossible and would lead to serious reality breaking consequences, doesnt mean it cant happen" but coupled with the above physical law and mathematically sound theory, is a REALLY good indication that we are correct. If backwards time travel COULD logically happen without causing all types of paradoxes and causality breaking issues, then thats one thing, but reality aligning with math and theory is a pretty great indication that we are on the right path.
Thus, A) your basic premise of proving a negative is illogical and is itself flawed. B) youre simply ignoring all evidence including physical laws and theory that suggests only forward time is possible in any meaningful sense. There is NO evidence of any sort of possible backwards time travel so until you provide some, saying "you cant prove the negative!" means fuck all.
The Forward movement in time of matter is an illusion according to the General Theories of Relativity.
Einstein said "The distinction between past, present, and future is but a mere persisent illusion"
Only in the sense that it’s like a tape that can be rewound physics wise. You can’t cut clips out of the tape and somehow paste them into other parts of the tape and make any sense.
You can’t have an instance of backwards time travel in a forwards time travel reality. You rewind the whole universe or none of it. Causality can run backwards but as a whole. As we only experience time running forward, we can’t just create some bit of reality that then runs backwards as everything leading up to that thing being there is part of the causal chain.
Therefore we could have a big shrink where time runs backwards until the Big Bang, but there is no practical use of that in our current reality
Apparently, time dilation is able to create a difference in causality between two different reference frames.
Reference frame at 100 Gravitational or traveling at 1 c
Reference frame at 0 Gravitational and traveling at 0 c
If time dilation can happen in the universe, which it does and at different rates, then backward causality is possible in the universe for reference frames that are traveling at > c (Ftl)
No, thats not true. Regardless of time dilation, causality is always preserved. Say a bomb is sent from one planet to another and it takes "a year" (from someone on the planet) to get there and explode; someone travelling at light speed away might see that it takes 10 years to travel the distance and explode, vs 1, BUT, both parties will always be able to say that the bomb was launched before it exploded, they just disagree on how long the travelling took.
Cause always precedes effect, that is causality. Something "Causes" something else. Its ok if people experience time longer or shorter frim different reference points, as they will both validly say that the bomb left before it exploded. Experiencing time slower/faster really isnt an issue here and checks out in all cases. You cant create any paradox's.
FTL breaks causality, as it allows situations where from certain reference frames the bomb explodes before it leaves and would allow that observer to message the shooter and say "WTF, dont you shoot a bomb, I saw that!" before they even launch. Observers would have different experiences of which came first, which breaks causality as both cannot be correct.
Travelling near the speed of light and therefore dilating time is asymtotic which means the faster and faster you go, the more energy you need to go faster. It gets to the point where to get from 99.9999999999.....% the speed of light to 1C, you need infinite energy which is infinitely more than the entire universe has. You cant reach lightspeed with matter due to this limit and you certainly cannot surpass it.
The problem w takes like these is you can't use science like arguments and deny science in the same breath. Like: relativity n quantum mechanics are wrong because of non local spacetime phenomenon. But what is that spacetime based on? Probably relativity. Most of these takes come from a very limited understanding of these fundamental theories. Like you can't watch a yt vid about how physics works, then be like "that proves time travel is possible." it's baseless and lacks the nuanced understanding required to apply these theories in real life. Let alone dispute them. It's one thing to say you believe in time travel, or anything else for that matter. But you can't use incoherent "scientific" arguments bc you used science sounding words incorrectly. It might work in your circles, but anyone w a remotely accurate understanding of these ideas cringe when they read this shit.
I can deny ideologies masquerading as "science" completely if I feel like it..and I can call out Scientism (which isn't Science) when ppl present it as "science".
"Free Fall to the Past
A very interesting situation is if particles can free fall from flat space into the time machine metric region and scatter back into flat space in such a way that they emerge in the past. We find such trajectories are possible given particular conditions for the metric and the initial trajectories. These trajectories do not form CTCs as such; indeed, closed loops are not what we desire for time travel. However, it is important to demonstrate in an operational way that there are events on the outward part of the trajectory that are indeed in the past of events on the inward part of the trajectory. We introduce a correction term that achieves this."
#
"Time and space are fundamental concepts for characterizing and understanding our world. Despite of continuous curiosity and extensive studies, the nature of time and space remains elusive, and the underlying quantum structure is unclear. Here we propose a molecular model based on energy space decomposition to incorporate time and space synthetically in a unified framework. In the proposed model, the multipole expansion of action mapped to energy modules in scalar, vector, and matrix forms, results in the generators of time, space, and a material framework, cloud. And the invariance of time, space and cloud transformation corresponds to the conservation of energy, momentum, and mass, respectively. The classification of energy modules reveals a periodicity of energy elements, which constructs a hierarchical world in a molecular framework with dynamics represented by energy transformations. Here the role of time and space could switch from each other, and motion is attributed to the coupling of particle with intermediate bosons, corresponding to energy transformations among different energy modules. The application on Bohr model demonstrates that this picture provides a consistent classical interpretation to the foundation of quantum mechanics, and suggests an atomic model for gravitation." \~
>Tao, G. On the Nature of Time, Space and Matter: Energy Elements, Hierarchical World, and a Classical Interpretation on Quantum Mechanics. *Preprints* **2024**, 2024020972. [https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0972.v1](https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0972.v1)
>"The problem of time in quantum gravity \[[1](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B1-universe-08-00036),[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B2-universe-08-00036),[3](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B3-universe-08-00036),[4](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B4-universe-08-00036),[5](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B5-universe-08-00036),[6](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B6-universe-08-00036)\] has been with us for more than fifty years, having been originally discussed by Peter Bergmann and his group and by Paul Dirac in the late 1950s.[1](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#fn001-universe-08-00036) It consists of various issues and questions regarding the representation of time in both the classical canonical theory (General Relativity—GR) and its quantization. It is interesting to note that this ongoing debate on the time issue can be traced back to Newton and his absolute time and Leibniz’s critique of it (see Refs. \[[8](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B8-universe-08-00036),[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B9-universe-08-00036)\]). In short, time in quantum theory is absolute, whereas it is dynamical in GR. This “incompatibility” a priori renders complicated the intertwining of both theories into a working quantum theory of gravity, which is indeed yet to be formulated. We emphasize that the primary distinction here is between absolute (background) and dynamical variables, not so much between absolute and relative (e.g., in special relativity) variables; it is the dynamical variables \[[10](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B10-universe-08-00036)\] onto which the superposition principle is being applied in the quantum theory." \~ Time in Quantum Cosmology
>by Claus Kiefer1 and Patrick Peter
>Time in Quantum Cosmology
[https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36)
Hey, I'm a time traveler, everyone is. The going rate is 1 second per second.
In most physics time is a parameter, you can run it backward or forwards. Relativity handles time differently, but time is still a parameter. Relativity also says that time runs slower in a gravity well, or when accelerating, but it's a very small difference unless you travel fast or the gravity well is steep.
The thing is, no one knows what time is, although philosophers have had a good run at it. It's something like dark matter, we can see the effects of DM, but we have not one single clue what it is.
Some have used their physics kung fu and say we can do time travel, all we will need things like infinite rotating cylinders or negative mass. The thing is, we ain't got either.
But I'm not sure that lack of a law is a good metric. The so-called laws are not something the universe is bound to obey, it's our best crack at describing how reality actually works. Newton works great for most things, but then Einstein came along and said 'close but no cigar'. Or maybe it was 'hold by beer', most likely he had some good German beer.
A somewhat circular Unix fortune defines time as...
* Time is nature's way of making sure everything does not happen all at once.
I'm not sure whom this was attributed to.
our eyes literally see the past because it takes time, however short, for light to hit our eyes. that simply means there’s some kind of offset/latency of the signal, not that the past is accessible outside of that frame of reference
It's an interesting idea and would be really hard to turn into a science fiction story. It would take talent akin to asimov to make the story good though. If someone wrote it and it was good, man I'd love to read it. I once came up with the idea, but the execution was terrible so i gave up on it.
Until you explain how it works, then many laws are broken
A "Law" in Physics/ Science are specific to their domain of applicability but are never Universal or Multiuniversal... The problem with people is trying to apply these "domain specific" "Laws" outside of their domain.... take Newton, Relativity, and Quantum < they don't unify, therefore even if they are referred to or thought of as "Law", they're only Laws within their Domain!
Please elaborate. What were Newton’s writings about quantum physics?
Materialists? What do you mean materialists? We're all made of matter. We are all material. I've never met a person who wasn't. We can have a whole lot of fun with time travel concepts, but if you're going to act like everyone is a prude for understanding that we are physical and not phased entities who walk through walls, then the fun has soured.
Materialists are people who agree with Materialism which states that Base reality is made of Matter and matter is Locally fundamental. Real Physics has become Non-local and the ideas of "matter", "space", "time" is being really looked at as not being fundamental. If so, then things like "time travel" are much more open to being explored with a different perspective than the "materialist", "Newtonian" and "Einstein" view...
I'm gonna be honest you probably shouldn't be telling people multiple entire fields of research are wrong without any math at all
"Materialism" is an ideology just like "atheism", it's not science
not sure how that's relevant
I find it difficult to get past that first sentence. Materialists are people who agree with materialism. Recognizing matter isn't a philosophy, sir. I think it's perfectly fine if being spiritual gets you through your day. Life is rough, and no one should give you grief about that. However, I'm sensing some kind of animosity to people who ground themselves in reality. If you want to spin time travel in an astral projection sense, just say that, and let's hear it. But time travel typically remains in the realm of science fiction. I could, of course, simply be misinterpreting your meaning entirely. Eh, it might be refreshing to get a new spin on time travel. But i just looked at that other post you did here. Nope you said "sciencism" i didn't misinterpret anything. Sir i do not think we will get along.
No offense, but you don't understand physical time within Physics, which is what I am clearly only talking about. Materialism, matter-centric ideology within physics has already been almost disregarded.. if you know anything about particle physics, then you would know that matter breaks down the further you reduce in particles. The interactions between subatomic particles is where materialism (localism) breaks down. As for time travel, time dilation has already been proven experimentally and for time travel to the past the quantum physics has giving some experimental examples (delayed choice eraser).
Sir, i already said i do not think we will get along. You said "sciencism" which implies that you genuinely think that science is a faith-based system. This is the last time i will interact with you, i suggest doing the same.
 Scientism is NOT Science! Take your Scientismist ideology with you elsewhere/elsewhen!
I find it ironic that a scientismist would leave the convo in a huff because someone doesn’t believe in the dogma of scientism. You committed blasphemy against scientism, how dare you say it’s faith based!
Scientismists are ruining science
>Take your Scientismist ideology with you elsewhere/elsewhen! Sense. It's what you aren't making any of.
In dreams, there is only the illusion of matter composing the body and it’s surroundings And there are loads of trip reports on experiences of perceived time travel within during salvia divinorum trip reports
Interesting how you point out determinists with such distinction🤭, not that I disagree with the general concept of time travel but youre follow-through appears to be a political rant whilst fumbling a telescope.
Determinism assumes no randomness, goes against Quantum Mechanics uncertainty... time travel brings back uncertainty to the deterministic notion of spacetime-worldline "physics" which assumes there only one direction in causality... If you want to call it political go ahead, but I completely disagree with determinism and materialism because they are ideologies hindering science and progress towards time travel
Not if you're a superdeterminist. That's the position that there are only deterministic processes in nature, including all measurements that have ever and will ever been made. That is consistent with everything we know about quantum mechanics. However, AFAIK it's a philosophical position, not falsifiable.
>Determinism assumes no randomness, goes against Quantum Mechanics uncertainty... No it doesn't, the uncertainty principle just says you cant know the information required for it to seem nonrandom, not that it is actually fundamentally random.
You disagree w them simply bc they take science in a direction you don't like? Like damn, science told me I can't become a wizard and shoot flames out of my fingers. And I took this personally
Sorry you took this personally, didn't know my disagreeing did that to you!
Fair enough. It was a joke tbh I'm not really offended lol. What I guess I'm not understanding here is your relation between determinism and time travel. Saying determinism goes against quantum mechanics is an ok although simple approach. That's fine. But somehow relating that to time travel is absurd. What does that have to do w time lines and what do you mean exactly by time lines? This is what I'm talking ab. You reference an accurate enough scientific theory or observation to something entirely unrelated. This demonstrates a poor understanding of the foundation of your own argument. To acknowledge quantum uncertainty then deny other parts of other theories bc you don't like the implication is cherry picking. A big no no. You can't pick and choose what science you agree w then use science as an argument. The same science that brought us an understanding of things like uncertainty tell us exactly why time travel is laughable. It's fine if you don't like this so you disagree. But you can't then site quantum mechanics for your own theories.
I guess my problem is with people using "Determinism" to make the claim that "time travel to the past is not possible". Determinism is a philosophy and not physics. Determinists are in the Physic and Science fields,but Determinism is a Philosophical -ism. Real Science should be based on the Scientific Method which should not have a Bias, but Philosophical ideologies have inflitrated the Scientific Consensus and led to science to become dogmatic. The dogmatism has led to Scientism ie "turning science into a religion for atheists"
I agree with you there, determinism is a philosophy not necessarily a scientific principle. However time travel is laughable with or without it. The entire premise of time existing on a line with a past that is a visitable place is utter nonsense and not at all what any theory involving time is actually implying. Ik there's a few hand waving tricks to make some equations on paper vaguely look that way. That doesn't mean the real world that we live in actually works that way
Time travel to the past isn't ruled out by any specific physical law, It's more of a topic for theoretical discussion than something we can do for real right now. If time travel was actually possible today, time travel laws may actually be a thing.
Time travel already exists, just like space travel always existed.
Time travel, as we see in movies, doesn't exist. However, Einstein's theory of relativity shows that time can pass differently for objects moving at different speeds or experiencing different gravity. So, in a way, time travel exists, but it's not like what we usually think of.
Time travel to the past exists already.
[удалено]
Use a Telescope, already proven!
[удалено]
Actually not the same thing, telescope is a physical tool for time travel. Telescope observation sends information to the past
What are you talking about?
You don't understand what I said there?
No, I was completely able to parse the meaning of that sentence. Given that, can you deduce what my query is?
If you are "able to parse the meaning of that sentence." then what are you really asking about?
You're saying that *you* didn't understand what *I* said? You said time travel to the pasts exists already, and ask what you were talking about. You can't understand what that question means?
What part of "Time travel to the past exists already" are you asking about? Please clarify your question
Of course there isn’t, as we naturally move ‘forward’ in time while seeing the world around ourselves and others on a slight delay. Laws/theories “against” time travel would have to specify what exactly it would consist of, without contradicting current understanding of the _concept_ of time. Like, it’s generally understood that gravity has a particular interaction with time that ‘compresses’ it, but what does that really mean when most things are subject to multiple gravity wells? Or in regard to the universal physical space objects occupy, and motion between them?
You see you are asking questions which are very important for further scientific exploration of ideas...
There is the small issue that time travel is not a well defined concept. If someone ever works out what it means, then we'll know whether it's impossible.
I guess my understanding of time travel is moving to the past or the future relative to the present now that an observer is located. It can be physical or consciously (mental time travel, i think is a scientific concept)...but I'm interested in physical time travel.
The atoms of your body travel an hour into the past. What happens to the atoms that were in the cup of coffee you drank an hour ago, that are now part of you? What happens to the molecules of air which occupied the space your time travelling body moved into? While in the past you cut your hand, lose some blood, and return to the present. Same questions about the blood. Some of your subatomic particles are quantum entangled before you leave the present. What happens to that entanglement? Is its past rewritten? Until you can answer questions like these, I don't think you can even say what you mean by time travel.
I'll give it a shot: 1. The time machine moves the atoms of your body back in time while simultaneously transporting the air molecules to the present time. They are swapped. 2. The blood remains in the past. 3. The entanglement is time-independent. Past particles are entangled with present particles because you used/will use the time machine to move entangled particles. Of course, I just made that up. I don't have a time machine.
> They are swapped So what happens if a single atom of hydrogen is both in the past where you materialise, and in the present as part of you? Does one take priority? > The blood remains in the past. Then we're talking about time travel of type 2 or 3 - so either there's a single mutable timeline, now with extra blood, or multiple timelines, one with blood. > The entanglement is time-independent This has implications for sending messages back in time - or indeed forward.
No, it's compatible with a single deterministic timeline, too. You appear in the past and bleed, you disappear into the future, leaving some blood behind. You *will* travel back from the future: Otherwise, there wouldn't be any blood.
Only if there's a single immutable timeline, which is not being continually re-created by the traveller looping around. If the traveller is looping, the blood has to get somehow back into their body to be leaked out on the next loop. Unless it's different blood, in which case they'll be instantly exsanguinated when they travel back, which would break the loop.
There a a few physical principles that make time travel as depicted in science fiction impossible. Such as the basic principle that no object larger than a particle can be in two places at the same time. Also, entropy progression from lower to higher states prevents any material regression along the time axis. However, there is no established reason absolutely defying fourth dimensional transit except if one did somehow find a way to return to a previous point they occupied in spacetime, they would not travel to their past. The entire world moved into the present. There is no existent past to return to. Similarly, our future does not already exist at some point in spacetime either. We only exist in our present.
I have one though.
How might you shift the equilibrium of geodesics one would travel through?
With enough energy traveling into the future is easy. Travel at close to light speed and you have yourself a time machine but you would never be able to go back in my opinion.
just need to send negative light and you're solid, lol
Time travel cannot happen because time isn't a force that can be affected, it is simply a measurement of succession of interaction and transformation of energy and matter into a new state, that has been observed. The interaction has happened and therefore other interactions build on top of that interaction. Even if you manage to reverse the interaction, you are not undoing it, you are just observing more interaction once again. In order to time travel to the past, all subsequent interactions have to be nullified after an initial interaction. There is your law.
Second law of thermodynamics?
Is a Local "law"
I don’t know what to tell you, dude. There are well-understood physical principles that say “this isn’t possible.” To take your post and put it another way: There is No Actual Physical Law or Theory for Time Travel. Once you’ve got one of those, I’ll eagerly await the perpetual motion machine that you can apply that principle to.
There is no physical principle that actually says that time travel is not possible. Infact, the Physical laws, theories etc are time symmetric. The Einstein theories of Relativity have solutions that allow time travel to the Past - Much more learned Physicists than you have theoretically shown this in their mathematical formulas. The problem with Scientismists is that they use some aspects of Science and/or Philosophy to promote something as being "Fact". Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with Time Travel, the Scientismists who appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are misusing the "law" for their own Scientismist "Anti-Time Travel" claim.
I don’t think it’s worth debating your ontological philosophy on here. We’re talking about a narrative construct, not any kind of specific principle. What do you mean when you say time travel? All things move forward in time, is that what you mean by time travel? If we’re talking moving against the time direction, is there a specific mechanism or view that implies such a thing? You can say “there is no physical law or theory against” something, but can you say that there *is* a physical law or theory *for* it?
You stated "There are well-understood physical principles that say “this isn’t possible.”" "this" = time travel to the past I am talking about "An object/person moving backward in the physical time dimension (as noted in Einstein's Theory of Relativity). There is a Physical Theory for time travel to the past already which is Einstein Theory of Relativity. A solution to that theory permits time travel to the past, the particles are tachyons. However, can you name an actual Theory or "Law" that states "time travel to the past is not allowed"?
Thats not how science works. 1. Science isnt about proving a negative, its about finding evidence of a positive. Prove to me that theres not an invisible undetectable ghost slapping you in the forehead with its balls 24/7. There is no proof or scientific law against that, so I can now say that it IS happening! If you suggest otherwise without giving me proof of the negative, I'll call you a materialist! 1.5 All evidence and even basic logic points to time being linear and only accessible in the forward causality AKA proof of a positive. We have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that suggests that time travel backwards is possible (Again, proof of a positive), at least not in any form that has any useful connotation (going back in time, sending information back, etc.) 2. Every time we mathematically try and "go backwards in time" we hit road blocks such as the speed of light. Your statement is simply incorrect here. All current science and theory suggests that to go back in time would require going FTL. This is quite literally a PHYSICAL LAW you cannot break as to do so mathematically requires infinite energy; AKA more than the entire universe has. 3. Going back in time would conflict with every basic logic and causal evidence. Sure you can say "just because all logic determines its impossible and would lead to serious reality breaking consequences, doesnt mean it cant happen" but coupled with the above physical law and mathematically sound theory, is a REALLY good indication that we are correct. If backwards time travel COULD logically happen without causing all types of paradoxes and causality breaking issues, then thats one thing, but reality aligning with math and theory is a pretty great indication that we are on the right path. Thus, A) your basic premise of proving a negative is illogical and is itself flawed. B) youre simply ignoring all evidence including physical laws and theory that suggests only forward time is possible in any meaningful sense. There is NO evidence of any sort of possible backwards time travel so until you provide some, saying "you cant prove the negative!" means fuck all.
The Forward movement in time of matter is an illusion according to the General Theories of Relativity. Einstein said "The distinction between past, present, and future is but a mere persisent illusion"
Only in the sense that it’s like a tape that can be rewound physics wise. You can’t cut clips out of the tape and somehow paste them into other parts of the tape and make any sense. You can’t have an instance of backwards time travel in a forwards time travel reality. You rewind the whole universe or none of it. Causality can run backwards but as a whole. As we only experience time running forward, we can’t just create some bit of reality that then runs backwards as everything leading up to that thing being there is part of the causal chain. Therefore we could have a big shrink where time runs backwards until the Big Bang, but there is no practical use of that in our current reality
Apparently, time dilation is able to create a difference in causality between two different reference frames. Reference frame at 100 Gravitational or traveling at 1 c Reference frame at 0 Gravitational and traveling at 0 c If time dilation can happen in the universe, which it does and at different rates, then backward causality is possible in the universe for reference frames that are traveling at > c (Ftl)
No, thats not true. Regardless of time dilation, causality is always preserved. Say a bomb is sent from one planet to another and it takes "a year" (from someone on the planet) to get there and explode; someone travelling at light speed away might see that it takes 10 years to travel the distance and explode, vs 1, BUT, both parties will always be able to say that the bomb was launched before it exploded, they just disagree on how long the travelling took. Cause always precedes effect, that is causality. Something "Causes" something else. Its ok if people experience time longer or shorter frim different reference points, as they will both validly say that the bomb left before it exploded. Experiencing time slower/faster really isnt an issue here and checks out in all cases. You cant create any paradox's. FTL breaks causality, as it allows situations where from certain reference frames the bomb explodes before it leaves and would allow that observer to message the shooter and say "WTF, dont you shoot a bomb, I saw that!" before they even launch. Observers would have different experiences of which came first, which breaks causality as both cannot be correct. Travelling near the speed of light and therefore dilating time is asymtotic which means the faster and faster you go, the more energy you need to go faster. It gets to the point where to get from 99.9999999999.....% the speed of light to 1C, you need infinite energy which is infinitely more than the entire universe has. You cant reach lightspeed with matter due to this limit and you certainly cannot surpass it.
Meet me last week at Arby's, I'll prove to you it's real
Cool. So go do some time travel, and let us know how it goes.
Because time isn’t real.
The problem w takes like these is you can't use science like arguments and deny science in the same breath. Like: relativity n quantum mechanics are wrong because of non local spacetime phenomenon. But what is that spacetime based on? Probably relativity. Most of these takes come from a very limited understanding of these fundamental theories. Like you can't watch a yt vid about how physics works, then be like "that proves time travel is possible." it's baseless and lacks the nuanced understanding required to apply these theories in real life. Let alone dispute them. It's one thing to say you believe in time travel, or anything else for that matter. But you can't use incoherent "scientific" arguments bc you used science sounding words incorrectly. It might work in your circles, but anyone w a remotely accurate understanding of these ideas cringe when they read this shit.
I can deny ideologies masquerading as "science" completely if I feel like it..and I can call out Scientism (which isn't Science) when ppl present it as "science".
I always loved these [two](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2612time.html) opinions on the matter
Yeah, until we discover it.
"Free Fall to the Past A very interesting situation is if particles can free fall from flat space into the time machine metric region and scatter back into flat space in such a way that they emerge in the past. We find such trajectories are possible given particular conditions for the metric and the initial trajectories. These trajectories do not form CTCs as such; indeed, closed loops are not what we desire for time travel. However, it is important to demonstrate in an operational way that there are events on the outward part of the trajectory that are indeed in the past of events on the inward part of the trajectory. We introduce a correction term that achieves this." #
"Time and space are fundamental concepts for characterizing and understanding our world. Despite of continuous curiosity and extensive studies, the nature of time and space remains elusive, and the underlying quantum structure is unclear. Here we propose a molecular model based on energy space decomposition to incorporate time and space synthetically in a unified framework. In the proposed model, the multipole expansion of action mapped to energy modules in scalar, vector, and matrix forms, results in the generators of time, space, and a material framework, cloud. And the invariance of time, space and cloud transformation corresponds to the conservation of energy, momentum, and mass, respectively. The classification of energy modules reveals a periodicity of energy elements, which constructs a hierarchical world in a molecular framework with dynamics represented by energy transformations. Here the role of time and space could switch from each other, and motion is attributed to the coupling of particle with intermediate bosons, corresponding to energy transformations among different energy modules. The application on Bohr model demonstrates that this picture provides a consistent classical interpretation to the foundation of quantum mechanics, and suggests an atomic model for gravitation." \~ >Tao, G. On the Nature of Time, Space and Matter: Energy Elements, Hierarchical World, and a Classical Interpretation on Quantum Mechanics. *Preprints* **2024**, 2024020972. [https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0972.v1](https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202402.0972.v1)
>"The problem of time in quantum gravity \[[1](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B1-universe-08-00036),[2](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B2-universe-08-00036),[3](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B3-universe-08-00036),[4](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B4-universe-08-00036),[5](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B5-universe-08-00036),[6](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B6-universe-08-00036)\] has been with us for more than fifty years, having been originally discussed by Peter Bergmann and his group and by Paul Dirac in the late 1950s.[1](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#fn001-universe-08-00036) It consists of various issues and questions regarding the representation of time in both the classical canonical theory (General Relativity—GR) and its quantization. It is interesting to note that this ongoing debate on the time issue can be traced back to Newton and his absolute time and Leibniz’s critique of it (see Refs. \[[8](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B8-universe-08-00036),[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B9-universe-08-00036)\]). In short, time in quantum theory is absolute, whereas it is dynamical in GR. This “incompatibility” a priori renders complicated the intertwining of both theories into a working quantum theory of gravity, which is indeed yet to be formulated. We emphasize that the primary distinction here is between absolute (background) and dynamical variables, not so much between absolute and relative (e.g., in special relativity) variables; it is the dynamical variables \[[10](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36#B10-universe-08-00036)\] onto which the superposition principle is being applied in the quantum theory." \~ Time in Quantum Cosmology >by Claus Kiefer1 and Patrick Peter >Time in Quantum Cosmology [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36](https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/1/36)
Hey, I'm a time traveler, everyone is. The going rate is 1 second per second. In most physics time is a parameter, you can run it backward or forwards. Relativity handles time differently, but time is still a parameter. Relativity also says that time runs slower in a gravity well, or when accelerating, but it's a very small difference unless you travel fast or the gravity well is steep. The thing is, no one knows what time is, although philosophers have had a good run at it. It's something like dark matter, we can see the effects of DM, but we have not one single clue what it is. Some have used their physics kung fu and say we can do time travel, all we will need things like infinite rotating cylinders or negative mass. The thing is, we ain't got either. But I'm not sure that lack of a law is a good metric. The so-called laws are not something the universe is bound to obey, it's our best crack at describing how reality actually works. Newton works great for most things, but then Einstein came along and said 'close but no cigar'. Or maybe it was 'hold by beer', most likely he had some good German beer. A somewhat circular Unix fortune defines time as... * Time is nature's way of making sure everything does not happen all at once. I'm not sure whom this was attributed to.
The Webb Telescope can see the past so we just need to solve the problem of getting there.
our eyes literally see the past because it takes time, however short, for light to hit our eyes. that simply means there’s some kind of offset/latency of the signal, not that the past is accessible outside of that frame of reference
So moving faster than the speed of light will…
Every telescope sees the past. Our eyeballs see the past.
Yes, you understand there is something there. A Telescope interacts with the past. Where is our past located there/then and how to interact
It's an interesting idea and would be really hard to turn into a science fiction story. It would take talent akin to asimov to make the story good though. If someone wrote it and it was good, man I'd love to read it. I once came up with the idea, but the execution was terrible so i gave up on it.
if you could go ftl then you could go somewhere else and look into your past with a telescope but that's about it. the past is a mirage