Time travel into the past is probably impossible, for a host of reasons (violations of causality, the 'grandfather paradox, etc.).  The only possible avenue might be passage through a 'wormhole,' although no evidence of wormholes has ever been demonstrated.  Time travel into the future may indeed be possible if the tenants of General Relativity hold up (staying in orbit around the event horizon of a black hole, acceleration to speeds approaching that of electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light).

Take the first example.  You leave earth and your twin sister behind as you steer your starship to a nearby black hole, and orbit the hole for a year or two then return to earth.  While only a couple of years have passed for you, your twin (and the rest of planet earth) might have aged 10 - 20 years.  This is due to General Relativity's prediction that time slows down in strong gravitational fields (as well as accelerations approaching that of light). 

The nature of time has been one of intense interest for me.  The field of physicists who declare that time is a continuous construct probably exceeds those who believe (as I do) that time is a discrete, quantized feature of our universe.  I believe a strong argument can be made in favor of what some physicists call 'chronons' or discrete units of time(I like to call them 'quantimes').

Last edited by quantafyre (4/26/2019 7:14 pm)

I believe that it is likely that if we can time travel into the past, we end up creating new alternate realities.

I do think that it is possible to travel into the past, because time is simply another dimension. We just need the proper way to perceive it as such and to navigate it.

Amadeus

It takes light ~ two million years to reach us from Andromeda. 
Yet in a fraction of a second, you, I or anyone else can think, and through thought, travel to Andromeda. We can see it out the mind's port hole window as clear as any telescopic image. We're there. 

When we do that, we're back in time because we see Andromeda as it was two million years ago. Not as it is now. 

quantafyre wrote:

Allegorically speaking of course.  In a few billion years the Milky Way will merge with Andromeda to form 'Milkomeda,' but I doubt if any of us will be around to witness this shotgun marriage.

And in imaginary vision, in an instant we traveled into the distant future; <snap>, just like that. 
 

There are things that, on their own, can't move in our normal 3 dimensions. However, given the right assistance, they can.

I think that moving through time would be similar.

But I believe that time is ever branching us into infinite alternate universes, and when a time traveler goes back into the past - assuming they were able to travel back along the branch of time they recognized as their own to a previous branch point, their very arrival would create an entirely new set of alternate futures (new to our way of thinking, but which would have already existed, along with all the other possible paths through time).

In this way, time travel is simply travel to an alternate dimension.

LOL - simply

Amadeus

Amadeus: There are things that, on their own, can't move in our normal 3 dimensions. However, given the right assistance, they can.

***Just what is it that cannot “on their own, move in our 3 dimensions?” This is a vague statement that lacks any 'meat' to illustrate whatever point you are trying to make.***


I think that moving through time would be similar.

***How so? How can moving through a physical 3 dimensional matrix be equivalent to a uni dimensional, one-way trip per customer where motion through that one-way trip offers nothing more than our day-to-day journey forward through that matrix?***


But I believe that time is ever branching us into infinite alternate universes, and when a time traveler goes back into the past - assuming they were able to travel back along the branch of time they recognized as their own to a previous branch point, their very arrival would create an entirely new set of alternate futures (new to our way of thinking, but which would have already existed, along with all the other possible paths through time).

***I've often consideration this possibility. It is to my way of thinking a potential outcome if some kind of travel 'into the past' could be realized. The spacetime continuum is open to interpretation at certain levels; how these levels manifest is open to a certain amount of interpretation; however we need to pay attention to what evidence is available when making our declarations of what reality has to offer.***

In this way, time travel is simply travel to an alternate dimension.

***This is simply too vague. As I've pointed out in other forums, there is no orthogonal dimension highlighting exactly what 'time' actuality is. You're blowing smoke here Amadeus, even though you're laughing out loud.***

LOL - simply
 

quantafyre wrote:

What do you mean by "continuous construct"?" 

 ***A 'construct' is an invention (or a 'construction') created to explain or model some particular phenomenon. Remember your college algebra? Continuous can be understood using a line where there is always a point between any 2 points located on that line. So a continuous construct is a hypothesis or invention (time?) where there is always a location of another instance of that construct between any other 2 locations. In the case of time this would mean there is no 'break in the action' along the linear expression (forward or backward) of the 'flow' of time.***

Ditto "discret, quantized feature" ??

 ***Compared to a continuous version of time, a discrete model of time is like a series of snapshots or playing cards stacked one after another, each instance separated from the rest. This is a 2 dimensional example of what is actually a 3 dimensional universe (actually a 4 dimensional universe when you include time itself). The 'thickness' of each card/snapshot would be akin to the duration of each discrete unit of time.***

Ditto " 'chronons' or discrete units of time(I like to call them 'quantimes')."

 ***Here is a quick reference of what a chronon represents:https://www.google.com/search?q=chronon&oq=chronon&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5665j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ***

Is one a continuing line of time passing and going on indefinitely toward the future ? 

***Yes, it could be understood in that manner, but be careful with confounding 'continuing' with a continuous hypothesis of time rather than discrete.***

Is one a simultaneous experience where EVERY moment in time is happening all at the same time ?

 ***No, that would describe a universe where time did not exist. In fact, that is how the famous physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, expressed his understanding of time as “how the universe keeps everything from happening at once. (paraphrased)***

I need to know your definitions before I can respond intelligently to most of your post.

Another question first though, if someone traveled into the future successfully, would they be able to return to their own time or would they be stuck where they are ?

 ***Theoretically no, as that would be traveling backwards in time which was ruled out in the original post.  How ever, if one could travel back to a past time it would only return one to the point where the 'time machine' was actually made or activated, not before that point in the spacetime continuum.*** 

Good questions sia!
 

==================================================

Thank you !! 

I do have to add something though.  HOW do you, or anyone else, know that time, itself, even exists outside of the HUMAN EXPERIENCE ??  Is it possible that time is what the human brain needs so it doesn't explode from overload from everything happening all at once ?


 

I have to admit that SCIENCE and MATH are areas where I am not "strong".  I do not especially like either one, so I've not studied either one at length.  Therefore, I fully acknowledge that I may ask "dumb questions"  that those who ARE very strong in the sciences might roll their eyeballs at.  Just so you know that I do need some patience on the part of the one "schooling me"

----------------

I appreciate the feedback very much.  It should be posted on the Questions, Comments, Suggestions board though, so I'm going to copy this all over and put it in that forum to continue it.  Look for responses there.
 

Hey Qfyre!

Amadeus: There are things that, on their own, can't move in our normal 3 dimensions. However, given the right assistance, they can.

QF: Just what is it that cannot “on their own, move in our 3 dimensions?” This is a vague statement that lacks any 'meat' to illustrate whatever point you are trying to make.

Amadeus: Well, a rock. It just sits there. For it, space is pretty useless. It can't perceive space nor move within it. However, a person can pick it up and throw it, and then amazingly, this thing that was not able to move in our dimensions before can suddenly do so.

Amadeus: I think that moving through time would be similar.

QF: How so? How can moving through a physical 3 dimensional matrix be equivalent to a uni dimensional, one-way trip per customer where motion through that one-way trip offers nothing more than our day-to-day journey forward through that matrix?

Amadeus: I don't share your assumptions about the nature of time. As I said, I see time as a lattice of branch points leading to a multiverse of alternate dimensions.You can do more than just go backwards and forwards in time along a branch - you can then take new paths (would very likely HAVE to take new paths).

Amadeus: But I believe that time is ever branching us into infinite alternate universes, and when a time traveler goes back into the past - assuming they were able to travel back along the branch of time they recognized as their own to a previous branch point, their very arrival would create an entirely new set of alternate futures (new to our way of thinking, but which would have already existed, along with all the other possible paths through time).

QF: I've often considered this possibility. It is to my way of thinking a potential outcome if some kind of travel 'into the past' could be realized. The spacetime continuum is open to interpretation at certain levels; how these levels manifest is open to a certain amount of interpretation; however we need to pay attention to what evidence is available when making our declarations of what reality has to offer.

Amadeus: I'm not sure there would be much evidence for us, the "rocks" in this scenario, to see.

Amadeus: In this way, time travel is simply travel to an alternate dimension.

QF: This is simply too vague. As I've pointed out in other forums, there is no orthogonal dimension highlighting exactly what 'time' actuality is. You're blowing smoke here Amadeus, even though you're laughing out loud.

Amadeus: LOL - simply

Amadeus: I laugh because, of course, it isn't simple. If it were, we wouldn't struggle with the very language involved. But I don't think it's vauge. It's just difficult to test. It's difficult to pursue. Unless someone walks up with proof that they come from a possible future/alternate dimension, we are speculating as to how it might work.

Last edited by Amadeus (4/29/2019 11:09 am)

Amadeus wrote:

Hey Qfyre!

Amadeus: There are things that, on their own, can't move in our normal 3 dimensions. However, given the right assistance, they can.

QF: Just what is it that cannot “on their own, move in our 3 dimensions?” This is a vague statement that lacks any 'meat' to illustrate whatever point you are trying to make.

Amadeus: Well, a rock. It just sits there. For it, space is pretty useless. It can't perceive space nor move within it. However, a person can pick it up and throw it, and then amazingly, this thing that was not able to move in our dimensions before can suddenly do so.

Amadeus: I think that moving through time would be similar.

QF: How so? How can moving through a physical 3 dimensional matrix be equivalent to a uni dimensional, one-way trip per customer where motion through that one-way trip offers nothing more than our day-to-day journey forward through that matrix?

Amadeus: I don't share your assumptions about the nature of time. As I said, I see time as a lattice of branch points leading to a multiverse of alternate dimensions.You can do more than just go backwards and forwards in time along a branch - you can then take new paths (would very likely HAVE to take new paths).

Amadeus: But I believe that time is ever branching us into infinite alternate universes, and when a time traveler goes back into the past - assuming they were able to travel back along the branch of time they recognized as their own to a previous branch point, their very arrival would create an entirely new set of alternate futures (new to our way of thinking, but which would have already existed, along with all the other possible paths through time).

QF: I've often considered this possibility. It is to my way of thinking a potential outcome if some kind of travel 'into the past' could be realized. The spacetime continuum is open to interpretation at certain levels; how these levels manifest is open to a certain amount of interpretation; however we need to pay attention to what evidence is available when making our declarations of what reality has to offer.

Amadeus: I'm not sure there would be much evidence for us, the "rocks" in this scenario, to see.

Amadeus: In this way, time travel is simply travel to an alternate dimension.

QF: This is simply too vague. As I've pointed out in other forums, there is no orthogonal dimension highlighting exactly what 'time' actuality is. You're blowing smoke here Amadeus, even though you're laughing out loud.

Amadeus: LOL - simply

Amadeus: I laugh because, of course, it isn't simple. If it were, we wouldn't struggle with the very language involved. But I don't think it's vauge. It's just difficult to test. It's difficult to pursue. Unless someone walks up with proof that they come from a possible future/alternate dimension, we are speculating as to how it might work.

============================================

LEARNING A TON JUST FROM READING YOUR EXCHANGES.  KEEP GOING, PLEASE ?

Late reply to Pikes:

"What if Kant was right, and we can't imagine anything that is not real somewhere in the universe?"

***The only way that Kant could have been correct is if the universe was absolutely infinite.  Since we know that the universe started out as a super dense amalgamation of extraordinary energy and radiation and the fact that all of the galaxies (at least those that we can detect) are rushing away from each other argues against that proposition.  Bertrand Russel could imagine a teacup orbiting the sun but obviously this isn't the case since no such teacup has ever been detected.***