TimeTravel?

To the future yes you are literally doing that right now.To the past is the real problem.

I hate this shit, but I kek'd.

I don't think so. I can say with certainty that I will die on earth during the next 80 years. If I travel right now at relativistic speeds so I come back 100 years relative to the earth, I won't find my dead body.

From a basic abstract algebra background, how many textbooks / how long would it take to understand such papers?

you got me, i'm a brainlet with a Time Travel fetish, that paper might as well be written in ancient greek

articals

The past exists as does the future, that's relativity 101.

You're time traveling right now... And no, I don't mean simply 1 second per second - you're in motion relative to other objects elsewhere in the distant universe, and your time is faster, or slower, past, or present, relative to them.

But as far as things in your local frame are concerned, you're stuck traveling at that same one second per second as the rest of them, give or take some insignificant trillionths of a second for however much time you spend traveling in planes and living atop skyscrapers. Lest you find some way to travel at relativistic speeds, even then, you're only going to be able to go more slowly relative to the point of departure.

Depends how hard you work.
You'll want to basically learn string theory, up to AdS/CFT, and then ER=EPR. I don't know if any textbooks cover ER=EPR yet, but Becker Becker Schwarz will take you from QFT to AdS/CFT. There are loads of good QFT books assuming you know QM, and there are even more good QM books. In addition to basic abstract algebra, you'll want to learn Lie theory, topology, differential geometry, algebraic geometry and complex analysis, but you don't need a proper mathematician's understanding of these topics, just the general, vague physicist version.

>Time and space are the same thing, so you can´t travel to the past because it no longer exists.
It's exactly the opposite. Space-time dictates both the past and future exist in a fixed state. True to such a degree that two observers can disagree as to the order of events in a third frame.

PBS pop-sci explanation:
youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

Space time is a fabric that can be manipulated time itself is relativistic and we also know that quantum physics allows for the possibility of time travel also we know from gamma ray burst that certain sub atomic particles have no problem exceeding the speed of light add the fact that we exist in holographic multi verse of many dimensions you begin to realize that anything is possible only mathematically improbable so all you need is a technology powerful enough to manipulate time and space and dimension now consider we are just beginning to understand the possibilities of time and space and advanced technologies now add a million yrs to our evolution and think of the possibilities if we as a species can even develop to that point without destroying our selves now you can see that these advanced beings are only doing with us what we do to other species on our own planet now conceptually it doesn't seem so outrageous does it these things could be from our own planet after all if it indeed is billions of years old plenty of time for other species to develop before we came along and perhaps their still hanging around monitoring our progress perhaps we are even the result of their creation they could even be our future selves nothing is impossible we are only limited by our own intellect and imagination

That's because you don't go back, so you die 80 years from that time you are at, unless you go further into the future.

it is possible but with innovation comes respons.

>The past exists as does the future, that's relativity 101.
The past existed, the future will exist.
That's English Grammar 101.

Steins;Gate fanboy spotted.

Yes, I'm afraid English grammar was set up well before we had a solid concept of time by even the clock, let alone space-time and relativity. Both exist, and from another frame of reference, your future maybe the in the past, or your past maybe the in the future. What is "now" for you is not "now" for everyone else in the cosmos. There is no universal clock, just lots of individual ones, pointing relative towards one another - pointing backwards, if need be, as often as forwards.

Or, as Douglas Adams put it, the major problems concerning time travel are not the paradoxes one of becoming your own grandfather, or any such, but ones of grammar.

Coupled with the wibbly-wobbly comment of a more contemporary sci-fi, it is funny how often comedians are absurdly accurate when discussing the absurdities of time travel.

Organization member spotted

From what I think I understand of the subject only two forms of time travel could theoretically exist one would require the past and future to exist simultaneously along with the present in some higher dimension and you could then if you could travel in that dimension you could physically move from one point in time to the other but this implies that history is predetermined and cannot be changed so if you traveled back in time you would not be able to change anything that history did not already dictate you were meant to change.
In the second model you could theoretically travel to an parallel universe where time is at an earlier point and possibly even change history but any change would only place you on a different world line not alter the history of your original world line.
As for if either is possible it is in the same position as something like warp drive where it would require the discovery of some kind of space altering exotic matter and the application of incomprehensibly large amounts of energy as a prerequisite just for testing to see if it was possible.

Crap my cover is ruined.
But I am actually only AIMING for SERN, building a peaceful world under the Comitee of 300's rule sure is hard.

Much appreciated user

Others already said it but heres the simple explanation on time traveling:

Since time isnt "real" you cant just go to a certain place in time since it doesnt exist anymore. Unless you completely recorded it.

Step 1: get a copy of all matter and all energy and its placement of the time you want to go to

Step 2: following that plan, rearrange everything(!) to as it was at the time you want to go to

Step 3: you just "time traveled"

Its obvious why this cannot work since you would need an infinite ammount of energy, also making an exact copy of the universe and storing that data is also probably impossible

>Since time isnt "real" you cant just go to a certain place in time since it doesnt exist anymore. Unless you completely recorded it.
Way to re-quote everything that's wrong and has been refuted multiple times.

When you make a left turn onto 2nd Ave from Magnolia Blvd - Magnolia doesn't cease to exist. Same with the past. It's still there, your perspective just isn't in it anymore.

>When you make a left turn onto 2nd Ave from Magnolia Blvd - Magnolia doesn't cease to exist. Same with the past. It's still there, your perspective just isn't in it anymore.
This. The difference being that making a u-turn is a bitch.

>goedel
wut

Wouldnt standing next to a ball of neutronium be the most effective way to experience time dillation?

If you somehow reverse motion of all particles of the planet, it would work like time travel.

>solid concept of time

It is

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/1/013063

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

Basically, to use the street parable ( ), under Godel's model of the universe, you can make that u-turn, though you have to travel every road in west of Magnolia first, and make a lot more left turns.

Mind, Godel himself says this isn't how the universe works - as his universe would contain no red shifted galaxies - it's just an interesting thought experiment when it comes to "rotating solutions" for cosmology.

>Magnolia doesn't cease to exist
Because it's matter.

We have a mathematically solid concept of time, that's why your phone knows where you are. As temporally bound, single reference-frame creatures, we don't have the ability to perceive space-time directly, but we can mathematically describe it.

Mind, back to the linguistics problem, we didn't have the concept of time travel, of any sort, until the 19th century. The closest you find in literature before then is folks falling asleep and waking years later. We rarely even see the equivalent phrase, "things woulda been different, if only X", carried to the next consequence - only the same for a similar event occurring again in the future (as I suppose you at least need that conceptualization to learn from mistakes at all). The whole idea of going back and time to fix things, even metaphorically, is a relatively recent invention - one now so interwoven with our culture that it's second nature to think on it.

Granted, that's not to say that there was no experience of time as we commonly understand it in the past. There was a large stretch of time when the world "blue" wasn't in the lexicon as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean folks weren't indeed seeing the color blue. Then again, if you take someone whose native language has no word for blue, and expose them to a series of green and blue squares, they will not be able to identify the difference between them.

Thus, the ability to perceive space-time may actually be conceptual and, in the end, a problem of grammar. "The Arrival" movie's take on that is a bit extreme, as I doubt simply being able to perceive space-time directly through linguistic conceptualization would allow you violate causality so brazenly, but it might lead to a true understanding as to why you cannot, or how you already have.

(And I had the perfect response image to that, but alas, images are down.)

Doesn't matter if Magnolia is matter or energy, just because things fall out of your perception does not mean they no longer exist.

A needle on a record only plays a tiny moment of sound, but the bumps in the groove it is traveling do not vanish from existence simply because it has passed them by. (Granted, I'm not sure how far I can take that metaphor, as you can't exactly play the record backwards to hear satanic prayers on heavy metal albums.)

Wrong. Time is real but we only know of the past because things are different now. In order for the past to exist, the entire universe needs to have every single atom in the exact same position as it was at some earlier time. There is no physical location in the universe where this happens so the past literally does not exist.

dude i'm traveling to the future as we speak

...

That arrangement still exists, just at a different time - in the same sense that the road behind you continues to exist as you run along it. The core concept behind space-time is that time, location, and momentum are related in much the same way. Were you able to violate the laws of physics, and view your own location from another, in some distant corner of the cosmos, moving even slightly differently relative to your position, you would view either that location's past or future, depending on that relation was (and indeed, wouldn't even need to be more than a galaxy or two over, before just walking pace could take you centuries backwards or forwards).

I think summer is over, but I guess they just aren't teaching relativity in high school anymore. I mean, unless you were born before 1950 or so, you should have this basic concept of time drilled into your head, otherwise your view of time, and indeed the universe, is nearing a century behind. The past doesn't cease to exist anymore than the future does. Now here, is not necessarily now there. Time is not universal - it is relative.

Think someone linked this video somewhere else already, but:
youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks
...and then go yell at your alamader to yell at them for not teaching you that - taking advantage of the GPS that depends on it being a fact, should you get lost.

That's in relation to , just taken out of context, clickbait style.

Where does the arrangement exist? You're arguing that time exists in time.

I guess summer is over and they don't really teach logic anymore but that shouldn't matter since logical fallacies have been around for over 2000 years. I guess some people just live under a rock.

The arrangement is omnipresent, but we only experience it from a single frame of reference (give or take a few fractions of a trillionth of a second, depending on your current altitude). From a non-temporal point of view, everything that has happened exists, as does everything that will happen. From a different frame of reference of sufficient distance or relative speed, things that haven't happened to you yet have already have happened, and from yet another, things that are happening to you now, haven't happened yet.

Again, just watch the video, I think it's probably the quickest way to explain what might be an unintuitive concept if it wasn't taught to you while you were young. Time just really doesn't work the way we commonly experience it.

time travel is not possible... but the mathematical models that "We" currently use to describe such things indicates that in certain conditions, time travel is possible.

This is a fluke of relativity, and not actually an accurate description of reality.

Time travel isn't real.

>mathematically solid
Math has no physical meaning, STR time dilation is just relativity of synchronism, it doesn't mean you see the past. Also math does describe non-existent objects like Mandelbrot set.
Time is an objective physical process, it doesn't just fall out of perception.
>temporally bound
What are you, christfag? We're not temporally bound nor physically bound, we run on it.

We don't run on it - we run in it. Time is a sea in which we swim, with multitudes of currents created by the matter and energy within it, each relative to the other.

We're temporarily bound in that we can only perceive the totality of the universe from a single point and a single reference. Were we freed from this constraint, capable of instantaneously experiencing the universe from multiple vantage points, we could experience the differences in the flow of time that results from relativistic effects, but as we are of creatures of single points of perception, swimming in said aforementioned sea, we cannot, and are instead left drawing hypothetical lines in the sand to demonstrate the effects that we observe and depend on, allowing us to ephemerally know what we can never directly know, but can nonetheless readily prove the existence of.

If I understand it correctly you can only travel forward in time.
t. brainlet

Declarative description of time doesn't prove anything, it's only an artifact of math that is narrow sighted in its declarative paradigm and can only describe imperative processes precise to mathematical transformations.
There's no such sea, what's in our perception is matter, and it doesn't cease to exist, it doesn't remain in the past, it keeps going, and it's only physical processes that make us exist and function, it's not a proper description to say that we're bound to them.

While you're correct by mentioning the relativity of simultaneity, you were using it quite in a very fallacious way. You were talking about perception and relativity of simultaneity at the same time.

There is a great deal of difference between what we theoreticallly recognize as now from our frame of reference and what we actually observe through information signal reaching us.

>Declarative description of time doesn't prove anything
That's why we do experiments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
...and again, why your phone knows where you are.

It's not like string theory, where we can describe it mathematically, but aren't at the point where we can't prove it one way or the other. The observations only make sense in a universe where the past and future exist independent of our particular "now".

Were it otherwise, we would not need to mathematically adjust for those signals we do receive, from devices of our own creation, no less.

What corrections are you talking about? Doppler shifting, aberration, deformation or time dilation? Yes, those are corrected, but none of those have anything to do with relativity of simultaneity in a way you were arguing for.

Perhaps I'm being misinterpreted, as I'm not sure what you're alluding to at this point, but time dilation very much enters into the relativity of simultaneity, or more accurately, the reverse.

youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko

Yes, but you were talking about the "observation of all possible pasts and futures" being possible from a certain frame of reference, if I'm not mistaken, and I am explaining the difference between "local measurement" and "appearance (at a distance)". I assure you I have no need for PBS documentaries on special relativity.

STR doesn't suggest existence of the past, it's an artifact of declarative math.

Observations of all possible pasts and futures isn't humanly possible, or even physically possible, save maybe in the broadest possible sense of the term "observation", but the fact that events can be observed in different orders from different reference frames, yet the space time interval can still exist, requires that causality to exist independent of every frame of reference, however much disagreement results about that order in negative instances (hence the video). If you already accept and understand that, then I'm not sure what we're on about at this point. (And if you don't accept it, please watch the video.)

I wasn't, in those instances, discussing what is and isn't possible in terms of our personal observation, but what does and does not exist independently, in order to make such observations possible. One cannot simply say "the past doesn't exist cuz we already did it", as it may still be observed from another reference frame, or have been observed before we reached it, and we've proven other such frames of reference do indeed exist, even if we're, more or less, forever barred from accessing most of them. (Save maybe by entering certain extremes in which we'd never be able communicate the resulting information back to the folks at home, and probably be dead anyways.)

There is no frame that would reverse flow of time, time dilation always has positive multiplier.

No, it's a physical fact, or again, you wouldn't need to worry about time dilation over long distance communication in different reference frames, even if that just hints you towards the inevitability demonstrated by the functionality of the theory.

There are, nonetheless, frames reversed to one another as they relate to other frames. Space time intervals can indeed be negative, and indeed are, at least half the time. We're all here on Earth, so we don't really have to worry about it, and will likely never have to worry about it, provided we never find a way to bypass the speed of causality, but it nonetheless remains a fact of the relationship between points in the universe at large.

>but what does and does not exist independently
>as it may still be observed from another reference frame

I don't really understand what you're on about at this point, but for anyone still confused about observations of possible pasts and futures, I would refer them to my (very shitty) spacetime diagrams.

In the first inertial frame you see events A,B,C that happen simultaneously.

The second one is travelling at 0.5c and we can see that it observes (at a distance, nonlocally) events in a different order.

The third one is travelling in the opposite direction and his order of the events is once again shifted in a different order.

Nonetheless, none of these events can actually be observed, since they're not inside the future of our (or anyone else's) light cone, therefore while we can technically claim relativity of simultaneity, we still cannot observe these events, neither can we observe their different ordering.

It's "geometrically" possible, but, probably, not physically possible, in that it seems, at this point, there isn't any combination of physical processes that would cause such geometry to form, and still allow information to flow between the future and past so connected.

But it hasn't been absolutely verified, thus theoretical physicists still tinker with the concept (and spook themselves every now and again when something starts heading that way). It seems to me there'd be some difficulty in even verifying that some effect canceled out its own cause, and even if that's not possible, mayhaps an effect can still precede a cause (which can appear to happen, non-locally), provided it never makes that violation, but how that interaction could occur without that potential, I cannot fathom.

In a sense, it does (or should) occur under extreme circumstances where it could never be observed (such as inside an event horizon, where time and space swap places), and it maybe that a variation of cosmic censorship prevents such violations from interacting with our observable universe, or with one another. In which case, such violations could be indeed be commonplace, but we'd never be able to interact with or observe them. Beyond that point, you get into even more /x/-tier shit like multiverse theory.

There's nothing in physical fact that is beyond the theory, and the theory doesn't suggest existence of the past, duh.
If no frame reverses time, it doesn't properly see the past.

The theory requires it and the observation of its function confirms it, as there's always the possibility of one reference frame's future being another's past, even if neither frame will ever re-experience its own past by itself.

>Time and Space are the same thing
Sure, mr brainlet

The problem with your example is that you use it to conclude that atoms are in different positions for each frame, and that's wrong. The "state" of the system being observed is the same in all frames of observation. The only difference is how long the information about the system rakes to reach a given frame.

Just because time moves slower in one frame over another doesn't mean the states are different. The evolution of the system is the same for all frames.

Although there are frames that theoretically exist allowing for disagreement of causality, transformation between those frames is forbidden in a way that precisely dictates the same evolution over all systems.

Just because it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach us doesn't mean we're 8 minutes in the past. The atoms are still changing equally in both frames.