Results 31 to 41 of 41
November 7th, 2011, 08:07 AM #31
Psik was wondering how someone can travel in time and not arrive at his destination embedded in some object that was already there... or, for that matter, why don't you stay in the location you traveled from, while the Earth continues 'round the Sun, leaving you in open space when you arrive?
Since most time travel stories are about "blind transit," IOW, you pick the moment and just "arrive" there, the unanswered question is: How do you aim yourself to arrive where you want to be as well as when? Even if you figured in the motion the body was in when it transited, it would not match the speed and orbit of Earth, and you'd end up off-planet for sure.
Time machines with physical portals at each end make more sense, as they form anchors for transit.
November 8th, 2011, 04:16 PM #32
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
It sounds like you are also folding in some sort of play on the uncertainty principle with divergent possibilities existing simultaneously prior to somehow collapsing into a single reality, with your aliens somehow able to observe these possibilities pre-collapse. If that is what your doing, I cant specifically recall a similar story, but there are a LOT of stories that riff off the uncertainty principle in various ways, so it wouldnt surprise me if there is something similar.
I started pondering whether the Infinite Improbability Drive that powered The Heard of Gold in The Hitchhiker's Guide worked along similar lines, but no one should seriously ponder anything arising from the Guide . . . except perhaps the number 42
Last edited by ArtNJ; November 8th, 2011 at 04:19 PM.
November 8th, 2011, 06:33 PM #33
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- England mostly but currently in Egypt
I agree with your comments ArtNJ, in a four dimensional universe anyway. What I’m talking about is a five dimensional universe, the fifth dimension being the possibility dimension where every variation of an event happens. Everything that can possibly happen from the big bang to the big crunch exists simultaneously.
Our consciousness exists at a particular moment and moves forward through time and sideways through possibility as we make choices. Consciousness itself is the collapsing of the wave function. Time streams do not need to adjust or propagate upstream because they already exist. The concept doesn’t rip off the uncertainty principle – it removes the need for it altogether.
If I had the math for it, I’d write a paper on it, but I don’t so I used it in my book instead
Last edited by Jackdash; November 8th, 2011 at 06:35 PM.
November 9th, 2011, 12:57 AM #34
November 9th, 2011, 01:15 PM #35
If that were true: If you travel to the future to the same spot as you left... why aren't you frozen there in-place, visible to anyone, until you reach the future point where you "arrive"? If you stay with the Earth as you travel, you should appear as a statue (or maybe a ghost), frozen in place. Wells' Time Traveler could see the future and past rushing by him; if so, he should have been visible to anyone who was nearby. That is one of time travel's biggest paradoxes, and possibly the least discussed.
Most time-travel stories suggest you "disappear" from the present, which would suggest that your body actually leaves its location and takes a different route through spacetime, probably a straight line; and since the Earth's surface travels in a curved corkscrew, your body would leave the position on the Earth where it started, travel through open space until it bisected Earth's orbit later in time, and return to your original location at that point when you arrive.
Which suggests that gravity does not impact time travel.
November 9th, 2011, 09:13 PM #36
Interestingly, I just finished watching a PBS program: The Fabric of the Cosmos- The Illusion of Time. The program sought to explain how the laws of physics state that time can run in either direction, that past and future exist simultaneously. It states toward the end that entropy seems to dictate the direction of the flow of time, from the past (ordered) to the future (disordered).
The interesting thing about time travel is its insistence on using phrases like "traveling into the future" or "into the past," when in fact, nothing of the sort is happening; instead, one observer's time slows relative to another, giving the personal impression that one has traveled "into the future." At no time does one person exceed the "speed limit" of time, X. Essentially, one person travels through time at X, and another travels at X-y. When the two arrive at the same moment, this gives the impression that the X-y traveler has traveled into the X traveler's future, when in actuality he has crawled through time as if he was frozen in place.
Our difficulties in precisely defining time is what results in these word-games and mind-games we play with the concept, trying to fool ourselves into believing in things that are not possible, such as moving through time at different rates in either direction.
(There I go, being a wet blanket again...)
November 9th, 2011, 09:41 PM #37
I agree with your comments ArtNJ, in a four dimensional universe anyway. What Iím talking about is a five dimensional universe, the fifth dimension being the possibility dimension where every variation of an event happens. Everything that can possibly happen from the big bang to the big crunch exists simultaneously.
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
November 10th, 2011, 11:35 AM #38
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Northeast Ohio, USA
November 10th, 2011, 11:51 AM #39
An interesting concept, though it contradicts the entropy effect, and was apparently a totally unique phenomenon in the universe (I would've suspected Q of intentionally creating it just to mess with Picard's mind).
Trek loved to do time stories, probably because they were impossible to contradict... like the one in which the explosion of the Enterprise sent it backwards in a time-loop, to relive the accident and explosion over and over again.
Last edited by Steven L Jordan; November 10th, 2011 at 11:55 AM.
November 11th, 2011, 05:00 PM #40
- Join Date
- May 2006
Back to the Future could have been more interesting if it was a story like this:
Marty should have failed to get his parents together so then he would never have been born.
If he was never born, then he wouldn't have gone back in time. So his parents would have gotten together, and he would have been born.
So he would zap back to 1985 not knowing he had been back in time before, and would continue to do the same things over and over again.
Also maybe the direction of time is just an illusion because our brains can only process one thing after another thing. Maybe if we could wire our brains differently we could move through time in other directions.
November 12th, 2011, 08:26 AM #41
I vaguely recall a movie about time travel, back in the 50s or 60s. The movie was totally forgettable, except for its last few minutes, in which you discover the story (and the world) has fallen into a time loop, and the moments of the movie are replayed, over and over again, faster and faster, with a frenetic background "noise" (because it wasn't really music), until the whole thing fades to white... end of movie. The ending was captivating to watch, which made it even funnier that I couldn't remember a thing about anything that happened before that...
In The Fabric of the Cosmos- The Illusion of Time, Stephen Hawking suggested that travel back in time would result in "feedback," elements of the future that would rush into the past, adding to the past's mass, creating more mass in the future to rush from the future to the past, ad infinitum, like a sonic feedback between microphone and speaker... and which would ultimately result in the destruction of the universe. Very similar to the dumb old movie I saw.