time travel is a belief with gross stupidity. you tell me how is this possible? stephen hawking is stupid in his belief in time travel.
Oh, I don't know `bout dat... ... eat one o' Granny's 'special' brownies ... an' purt soon ya feel like ya floatin' through time.
1. Sync up two atomic clocks. 2. Leave one clock on the ground and put the other on a plane. 3. Fly the plane around the Earth at high speed and altitude for several hours/a day. 4. Land the plane and compare the clocks. The clock that was on the plane will now be 10's to 100's of nanoseconds (depends on the speed and duration of the flight) behind the clock that was at rest. This is called the HafeleKeating experiment, and is an empirically reproducible test of special and general relativity. This may or may not have been what you had in mind, though nevertheless, it is literal time travel.
You should submit this post to a peer-review publication. When it's published, such ground-breaking research is bound to shake the field of theoretical physics to it's very foundations. There could even be a Nobel Prize in it for you. You do need to add you references though.
I'll admit that I haven't read much of Hawking's work, but the argument from personal incredulity is a pointless exercise which carries no weight in actual scientific discourse. Besides, instead of asking about it on a forum you could read Hawking's books and skip the middleman altogether.
What it's stupid logically or it's stupid in the realm of physics? Because in the realm of very complex physics it is apparently possible though not as how people imagine it though I'm not up to date with any of the discoveries or even have much knowledge on the subject to actually comment on it. It's sort of similar to how time changes according to the speed you are going which is proven physics.
The strange thing about this is that one clock is considered "at rest". Of course nothing in the universe is "at rest", so it's completely subjective. Why can't the clock on the plane be "at rest" and the clock on the ground be moving relative to it? Or maybe the speed isn't what is doing it; maybe it's the altitude. Maybe it's just the effect of getting out of a gravity well.
I cannot tell if you are being facetiously pedantic or are genuine. I mean no offense by that, sometimes it's hard to tell these things through written/typed word. Anyway, it is not strange. You are correct that it's all subjective, including the term "at rest" in this context. When dealing with relativity, everything is based on frames of reference. The first clock is "at rest" within our standard frame of reference - on the surface of the Earth. In comparison, the clock on the plane is not "at rest". Although, I merely used the term "at rest" to distinguish between the two in my explanation. You're reading too much into it. Ultimately, it's irrelevant. The experiment is meant to determine relative effects on two clocks in comparison to each other when in different frames of reference. Actually, it's both (read the link in my previous post).
I take it someone was flying the plane. Would not the clock on the plane, be "at rest" to the pilot? But it's not irrelevant. The fact that there is a difference is only half of it. One is moving faster than the other. Why not the other way around?
The idea is like this... Time and space are like a weave. They are two parts of the same thing... and the concept is that timespace has, for lack of a better word, shape. Things with a lot of density/gravity dimple this fabric of time and space, stretching it... for a practical application. This is why they say time slows as you approach the center of a black hole... it is so dense... its gravity bends light, space and time. Now... accepting the indelible binding of the fabric of time/space, and this notion that it has "shape" of sorts... you must understand that other phenomenon such as wormholes, which basically, for easy explanation, pin two points in space allowing you to travel from one end to the other, hypothetically, you understand that this, as always is travelling through time as well as space. Think of time/space as branching in all directions from its center... sort of like a strange dandelion. The center of this web of potentiality time lines is the event horizon... where what we perceive of as time is occurring... following different time lines, in different directions based on the conditions of the event horizon... actually this analogy is going to derail where I was trying to go... but I like it so I am not erasing it. It isn't "stupid"... it is very very clever... and observable... but I believe there are too many problems for it to ever work in the sense of step into the box, and step out at an earlier specified date... it is... a lot bigger and more complicated than that. But think of it this way... if you are in some sort of cryostasis for any amount of time, when woken, "you" would have "traveled through time"... so I am assuming your problem is going backwards...
Why is that? It seems the only things to consider are speed and gravity wells. And of course the safety of the box during the entire trip. Seems manageable, if we could get some real numbers to work with, formulas and such.
Well in the scope of your relative understanding of what those two words mean in terms of the cosmos... you may very well be correct. However time and space DO stretch. A neutron star is really dense as things go. 2.6×1014 to 4.1×1014 times the density of the Sun. A black hole is much more dense than a neutron star.
ou are talking here of the result of two atomic clocks working way apart to each other. how can this presentation bring Man to the past nor to the future? Man can physically be only with the event he himself creates. Not with the past, nor with the future. ONLY WITH THE PRESENT. Man cannot access the time which he himself created, because time is not tangible. Every passing second of an event that Man has created is gone forever. The possibility to access it the second, the third time, so on, is no longer available. The only available event for Man to access is found in time which Man called "the present." To access a future event is neither available because any future is never available at hand. Man can only access an event that he is practically creating. The existence of "FUTURE" is only found or possible in Grammar. and never in reality. Time travel is a belief with gross stupidity.
Why do you believe the distance of the atomic clocks matters with regard to the results "not counting"? As I explained... if you hang out, just under half way towards a black hole from its measured influence on time/space, for a couple of weeks, according to your watch, and came back out... MORE time would have passed here on earth... so while you spent 2 weeks half way to the black hole, 4 weeks would have passed on earth. That IS time travel.
You seem to have missed the part where I said... ...which really makes this whole discussion moot. Anyway... Yes. No. Maybe. It depends - it's all relative. If you are comparing solely the pilot and the clock excluding everything else, then yes. However, the pilot most likely wouldn't consider himself at rest, but rather a part of the moving plane, which is decidedly not at rest in comparison to its surroundings, so no. Yes, it is absolutely irrelevant. You are focusing on inconsequential minutia. Well yes. The main point to the experiment is why is there a difference. It doesn't matter which, if either, clock you arbitrarily label as "at rest". In the end, you are comparing them which each other. One clock doesn't have to be "at rest" at all. They could both be on different planes flying at different speeds and/or altitudes. Precisely. This is part of the "why". Not entirely sure what you mean.
It's one-way time travel, into the future. We should probably clarify terms, separating forward time travel from reverse time travel. Forward is clearly possible. Reverse, all we have is some speculation concerning things like wormholes or Tipler Cylinders.
Yes. I did say this earlier... was just trying to make clearer what is clear to someone who perceives ANY time travel is "grossly stupid".
This is something Hawking agrees with. So if you agree with this and call Hawking stupid then you don't understand Hawking's view (I'm not talking specifically you but the general you)
Yes..and time slows in gravity and it also slows for a person moving. But in order to go back in time you would have to travel faster than light...and according to ol Al that ain't gonna happen. No matter how fast or slow time moves for you a minute is still a minute ans a second is still a second.
It is theoretically possible. It would involve strong force fields, either from the past or future, acting on an object in the present. It would take an extreme ammount of energy to overcome the objects rest mass (which is analogous to the energy of travelling forward in time at the normal rate that everything does). Going back in time would cause strange coincidences, a sort of "luck" the universe would inflict to prevent any paradoxes from forming. These bizarre phenomena already happen at a quantum level, but time travel could cause the phenomena to manifest itself macroscopically. That is one of the theories, of course.
Physics does not forbid anything. Time is just another solid quantity like matter. Most exciting must be a trip to the past. In math the whole idea makes perfect sense. Here's some graphs with a geometric explanation of how backwards time travel works. This is meant for the people who are not scientists, to make them too understand the mechanics behind moving back in time. It explains why and how an object moving faster than light goes back in time: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html What's interesting is that while at FTL speed, it has to move in a specific pattern to achieve this effect and it will only be between 2 particular observers, while to others including random ones it can move ahead or even much further back in time. The reality of what the traveler does changes as you switch from one observer's perspective to another's. Moving through space back and forth in straight lines at FTL speed between point A and point B will not be enough to visit the past of neither A or B, even if you move with infinite speed, you still get back to A precisely at the time you left and just discover nothing has changed. To go into the past of any point/place you choose you have to calculate the relative position and speed of several different reference frames and move through all of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv5KgHW3JIg Here's a documentary that finally made me understand relativity. It appears to be quite an old production but nevertheless not much has changes in what we know about time since.
