Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Saggy

How would we go back in time?

Recommended Posts

Saggy

So I was thinking the other day about how time is just a man made measurement, and it's not really anything tangible or "real". It made me think, "All that talk about going back in time is just talking about going back into an imaginary thing," but then I remembered this magazine article I read about "string theory", and I guess the gist of it is that Scientists think the universe is made up of tiny, interconnected strings. I then though, "So, couldn't the strings just be pulled backward to change things back to a previous state?"

 

It got me thinking about the physical implications time travel would have. No, not that, "Oh, if I kill this bug, then these crops will overgrow and we'll be a superpower and one tiny change will alter the future," idea.... I'm saying that in the moment of "going back in time" what would the actual physical changes of the universe around you be?

 

Let's just imagine going back in time through something really mundane, like blowing up a fire cracker on a table or something. If you went "back in time" to the point where the firecracker had not even been lit, physically wouldn't that just be the opposite of the explosion? Instead of matter expanding outward, or changing into carbon from the fire, it would just suddenly reconstitute itself, change from carbon and gas into the explosive, etc.

 

I mean, to most people, that would be going "back in time", but would it even be possible in our realm of physics? I mean, saying that the pieces of cardboard could fly back together into the same shape might be, but how would the physical change that took place with the explosive, the, fuse, the cardboard the burnt, etc. be "reverse"? I mean, if for some reason the universe were "running in reverse" could fire be a catalyst to change these chemicals back into an explosive?

 

Maybe the example of the firecracker is even too complex, but what about just a piece of steel rusting away? How could oxidization be "reverse"? In what kind of crazy condition would that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

This is off the beaten track of sorts, but I remember listening to a Stephen Hawking lecture on the structure of the universe. He explained that a number of things could happen to the universe upon it's "end" (so to speak, it's hard to pin an end on something potentially infinite) and one of the possibilities is that it will eventually contract, resulting in The Big Crunch. He went on to say that time goes forwards as well as disarray - if a glass of water was to fall off the table, the glass would shatter and make a mess. That's disarray. If time was to travel backwards, the glass would leap back onto the table and mend itself. He said that time was relative, yes, but it's effects where still relevant. If the universe was to contact, it wouldn't be so far fetched to assume it's effects are reversed also. Bit of a mind-f*ck, but I just wanted to share it.

 

Now, back on top of things, to travel back in time has just too many branches. As you say with your firecracker theory, chemical compounds and raw materials would suddenly have to re-arrange and repair themselves, much like my glass of water over there. I think time travel only works from an observational point of view; the event has already happened and it cannot be changed, but much like a DVD, it can be reversed and witnessed again. This also protects the future (or present, depends how you're taking this) from any tampering and eventual universe unraveling. It's a raw example, but yes, I only think that time travel could work as an observational model. That sounds about as impossible as anything else, but the physics would be too much for me to even get my head around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
This is off the beaten track of sorts, but I remember listening to a Stephen Hawking lecture on the structure of the universe. He explained that a number of things could happen to the universe upon it's "end" (so to speak, it's hard to pin an end on something potentially infinite) and one of the possibilities is that it will eventually contract, resulting in The Big Crunch. He went on to say that time goes forwards as well as disarray - if a glass of water was to fall off the table, the glass would shatter and make a mess. That's disarray. If time was to travel backwards, the glass would leap back onto the table and mend itself. He said that time was relative, yes, but it's effects where still relevant. If the universe was to contact, it wouldn't be so far fetched to assume it's effects are reversed also. Bit of a mind-f*ck, but I just wanted to share it.

 

Now, back on top of things, to travel back in time has just too many branches. As you say with your firecracker theory, chemical compounds and raw materials would suddenly have to re-arrange and repair themselves, much like my glass of water over there. I think time travel only works from an observational point of view; the event has already happened and it cannot be changed, but much like a DVD, it can be reversed and witnessed again. This also protects the future (or present, depends how you're taking this) from any tampering and eventual universe unraveling. It's a raw example, but yes, I only think that time travel could work as an observational model. That sounds about as impossible as anything else, but the physics would be too much for me to even get my head around.

Heh, it's funny beacuse I actually thought about Stephen Hawking and his theory that the universe will some day contract. I did not know he actually proposed that time might go backward like that, but I thought of it whilst typing and dismissed it thinking that it proposes something too linear. Then again, if Stephen Hawking thought of it I might not want to dismiss it so readily... Good find.

 

Since you brought it up though, what I was thinking was that, if the universe could possible ran in this "reverse" mode, then what is to say that an abundance of the right carbon and gases isn't a catalyst for a flame which results in a chemical change that produces the "original" chemical compound; however to cal lit original would be misleading because in that thinking, the carbon and gases would be the "original" compounds and the explosive compound the result.

 

It was interesting to think about this beacuse in my mind, I started realizing, "An abundance of gases, a flash of fire, and a chemical compound." Sounds kind of like I'm trying to assert that it has relevance to the "Big Bang", but maybe it could be somewhat comparable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

I think that what we must consider is that what is "original" in our frame of time and way of thinking may not apply when/if the universe runs in reverse. Physics changes automatically if this was to occur; who are we to debate if something is correct in it's chemical make-up? Sure, science can prove and disprove mixtures and compounds until the cows come home, but we're talking about the very essence of time running in reverse. This means everything we ever know, have ever known and will ever know as a species is going to compress into a singularity. It's hard to say what will be original. Just to bring my glass up again, the shattered remains will leap up onto the table and mend themselves should time run in reverse. Does this mean a state of originality emerges from this?

 

And if you can get hold of it, The Theory Of Everything by Stephen Hawking is the audiobook I was listening to. I listened to it for weeks and found it amazingly enlightening. You should dig it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

Yeah I beileve that if someone had actually traveled back in time either the fabric of Space-Time would be rippled to an extent much like the layers of old nacho cheese when you dip a new chip into it. you see the chip is the Time Machine and the top layer cheese is Space-Time. Then as we go deeper the nasty f*cking cheese is the past as we see it, very changeble but in reality we didn't change anyting becauue the cheese will still muck down and develop another nasty f*cking space-Time layer on top.

 

 

heheheh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

I believe I stated once before my personal hypothesis on time travel. For brief background, I based in on energy balance which is some times used in science and engineering.

 

Without getting into too much detail, in our universe, pretty much every thing has to have the energy balance out. Without getting too nerdy, every operation that occurs has to adhere to the laws of thermodynamics. So I state that to travel back in time at 100% efficiency would require the exact amount of energy required to put the molecules back to where the were from the time you traveled back from to the time you traveled to.

 

By 100% efficiency, I mean that your "time machine" was 100% efficient. For fun, modern car engines are not more than 20% efficient from a thermodynamic prospective. That entails losses of energy from heat, friction, ect.

 

So to balance the time travel equation, you would need the energy required to re-locate all the atoms of the universe back to where they were at the point in time you wanted to travel to. Given that there could be some relativistic effect, let's go to the length to say that you would need the energy required to make the changes to the past you would make if you did go back, but then..... that would mean the amount of energy required to travel back in time was determinate on what you did while you back in "time". this complicates things horribly.

 

Either way, the energy balance basically explains why we don't see time travelers from the future, yet also allows particle physics to explain why subatomic particles appear to travel back in time for minute fractions of seconds. So, this means that the effect a subatomic particle has on the future is sooooo small that when it "appears" to travel back in time (assuming that's what it's doing) the energy requirement given it's short stay and incredibly small impact, is short enough that a subatomic particle may have enough energy to achieve this task.

 

Been a long night, I will be glad to elaborate if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I'd love to learn more about this subatomic partical stuff. If true - does this mean that it's theoretically possible to send information back in time? That just blows my mind wide open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

So to balance the time travel equation, you would need the energy required to re-locate all the atoms of the universe back to where they were at the point in time you wanted to travel to.

Energy is conserved. Amount of energy now and whenever you want to go to is exactly the same. gg.

 

Your notes on efficiency point to entropy, and that's a more interesting discussion. However, globally, entropy is also conserved. It only increases in the observable world. Or even more strictly, the neighboring states with higher entropy are your possible futures. But this is getting a bit too detailed.

 

 

Let's just imagine going back in time through something really mundane, like blowing up a fire cracker on a table or something. If you went "back in time" to the point where the firecracker had not even been lit, physically wouldn't that just be the opposite of the explosion? Instead of matter expanding outward, or changing into carbon from the fire, it would just suddenly reconstitute itself, change from carbon and gas into the explosive, etc.

 

I mean, to most people, that would be going "back in time", but would it even be possible in our realm of physics? I mean, saying that the pieces of cardboard could fly back together into the same shape might be, but how would the physical change that took place with the explosive, the, fuse, the cardboard the burnt, etc. be "reverse"? I mean, if for some reason the universe were "running in reverse" could fire be a catalyst to change these chemicals back into an explosive?

That's exactly what needs to be happening for time reversal. But that's not really a problem. First of all, chemical changes are also just mechanical assembly/disassembly on atomic level. So if you can picture pieces of cardboard merging back together to form a shell, you should have no trouble picturing atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen coming back together to form nitrocellulose in the firecracker.

 

Even if you look at it in terms of chemistry, such things always exist in equilibrium. If you have a CO2, N2, and H2O gases in a closed container, you'll eventually end up with a few molecules of some explosive or other in there. The question is, once again, that of entropy. Exploded firecracker has much higher entropy than its initial form, so it really doesn't matter if it's flying apart or coming back together. You will always perceive the exploded state as the future state.

 

Time itself doesn't go in any particular direction. There isn't any kind of a flow at all. It's just a direction. The reason it appears to flow to you is because your memory works like a fire cracker. Memorizing something requires you to take a large number of glucose molecules and turn them into CO2 and H2O. This significantly increases the entropy. And so naturally, state where you memorized something new is a future state with respect to state where you have not yet memorized that something.

 

Real time travel would have to work very differently for this very reason. Simply reversing flow of everything is useless, as you yourself are a part of the universe. You have to make the universe run in reverse, but keep yourself running forward. That is impossible. Alternatively, you need to find a way to build something that "remembers" the future. That's not possible classically, but might be feasible with quantum. As I said earlier, globally, entropy doesn't change. It is outcome of quantum physics that observable universe has ever increasing entropy. That's your foot in the door. It may be possible to create a sub-system in a superposition of forward and reversed states, and use reversed state to pass back information about the future.

 

This would be nothing like Sci-fi time travel, because you cannot go into an arbitrary time. You have to send information, object, or person from future, and receive it at specific time in the past. The machine sending information/thing through would have to exist in all times from arrival to departure. This prevents you from just suddenly deciding to go back into the past to violate causality, and also answers the biggest question of time traveling, "If it's possible to build a time machine, then where are time travelers?" You wouldn't be able to receive any until you actually build a time machine.

 

If true - does this mean that it's theoretically possible to send information back in time? That just blows my mind wide open.

There is absolutely nothing that forbids it, but a whole lot of things that make it very difficult.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

 

This prevents you from just suddenly deciding to go back into the past to violate causality, and also answers the biggest question of time traveling, "If it's possible to build a time machine, then where are time travelers?" You wouldn't be able to receive any until you actually build a time machine.

 

I do recall that there was something posted in a magazine where a scientist was putting all his time into researching time travel and possibly looking into even building one. His motivation was to be able to see his father, who died when he was very young. However, he was soon shot down as he found out you could only travel back to the point where the time machine was constructed because of the way information would be sent, therefore rendering him unable to see his dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Yeah.... That guy is trying to create frame drag with lasers. I wouldn't pay much attention to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

OK, because now we're talking about some rather science fiction elements, I'm interested in the notion of a time machine that can receive messages from the future. If one were to turn on such a machine... do you suppose it would be inundated with messages? Trillions of messages sent back in time from quadrillions of different possible futures?

 

Provided any of this is possible, are there credible people working on something like this today?

 

Now, imagine this - two way communication could be possible, in one of the most gloriously sci-fi methods possible. We receive their messages from the future, and respond. Our responses are recorded to a device that is only played back by them, in the future, to communicate with us. Such a fun concept.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Think of the "time machine" as ordinary memory, but one that you can read before you write to it. The message from future has to occupy some cells in the memory from time it was written (in the future) to time it was read (in the present). So you couldn't send multiple messages through the same cell. This would prevent the thing from getting overloaded with messages.

 

Also, keep in mind, that currently, we are talking about sending messages just a few seconds back. I have no idea how you'd go about constructing something capable of sending messages years back into the past. It is theoretically possible, but as a feat of engineering it will remain out of our reach for a long time. Short, few second time travel, we might end up with just about any time. Just like teleportation was pure science fiction just a few decades ago, so will time travel be most likely achieved in short time, and most likely without much notice by mainstream media. ("Scientists predict photo-emission of optically excited atom several microseconds before it happens," just doesn't have sufficient punch in today's world.)

 

And yeah, there are credible people working on time travel. Guy Masterkraft mentioned just isn't one of them. But it does bring up an interesting note which I nearly forgot. According to General Relativity, time travel is possible by utilizing frame drag from extremely heavy objects. This has been proven relatively recently by actually finding a solution to Einstein Field Equation that allows this. According to the result, is possible to construct a time "loop", or maybe rather a "spiral" in space-time. So far, we are yet to find a prediction from General Relativity that would be confirmed false, so the question of whether it is possible starts to look answered. And the new question is whether it is possible without using a large number of black holes moving close to the speed of light in a very specific arrangement. That part we are working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Think of the "time machine" as ordinary memory, but one that you can read before you write to it. The message from future has to occupy some cells in the memory from time it was written (in the future) to time it was read (in the present). So you couldn't send multiple messages through the same cell. This would prevent the thing from getting overloaded with messages.

Hmm. I'm thinking from a sci-fi standpoint, again, so forgive my flights of fancy. If I subscribe to the notion that the future is, really, a branching matrix of every single possibility, wouldn't the information from the future reflect this? Some sort of multi-verse feedback loop? Hey, now that sounds like something out of Flash Gordon.

 

Anyhow, the practical usage of such technology - even if limited to only seconds - is so very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Hmm. I'm thinking from a sci-fi standpoint, again, so forgive my flights of fancy. If I subscribe to the notion that the future is, really, a branching matrix of every single possibility, wouldn't the information from the future reflect this? Some sort of multi-verse feedback loop?

It should, yes. This isn't so complicated to understand, either. If future is a superposition of possible outcomes, then so should be information about the future. The actual data you receive will be a correct description of possible future states, but actually reading this information will result in collapse of the wave function, so you'll only get information about one possible future. The more likely the future, the more likely are you going to get information from it. This shouldn't have a huge impact on a few-second loops, but could be very strange if we make it work on scale of days or years. It's difficult for me to even imagine all the possibilities.

 

Now here is the real question, though. When you measure a state in superposition, you get a particular result with particular probability. If you have two states that are entangled, reading either one would give random results, but results of reading one guarantee results of reading the other. Receiving information about the future and waiting for it to see how it is are both essentially quantum measurements. So the question is, are these entangled? If so, then despite having number of possible futures, by getting information about a future, you guarantee that you'll see that particular future. If not, then the outcome could still be completely different. From point of pure physics, I would have guessed the former. It makes sense. But here is something that makes me think about the later.

 

Imagine a simple experiment with a circuit set to a couple of seconds. Two buttons, one red and one green, and two lights. Color of the light predicts color of the button pressed. If no button is pressed, the red light comes on by default. A human being sits down and presses green button if he sees red light and vice versa. We can even take out human element and make it work with circuits. So how can the "time machine" work, then? Well, if the results are purely probabilistic, then there is no problem. Machine simply predicts that next state can be red or green with 50/50 odds, which is true before this information is received, and the odds change only afterwards. Paradox avoided.

 

This, by the way, is an example of negative feedback loop. The other example is with positive feedback. Imagine that I have the same circuit, but different experiment. The person will press same color button instead. Here, you are likely to see 50/50 odds. Now, we make this a bit complex. After seeing the light, person presses either the same color button or green button at random. I claim that now the light will come up green 100% of the time. This is positive feedback.

 

So it would appear, purely from these two thought experiments, that a time machine would only be useful for predicting future under condition that there exist no feedback loops. That is, our actions based on outcome don't affect the outcome. There are plenty of situations where this is still useful, of course. If an Earthquake is about to strike, it will strike regardless of whether we are ready for it, but knowing about it even a minute in advance can save lives, and 1 minute is achievable goal, IMO. On another hand, time travel will be absolutely useless in stock trading, because of numerous feedback loops, so a time machine will not result in economy collapse.

 

Feedbacks can also be used to solve problems. Imagine that you are trying to guess a password. You will send to yourself from the future a password you tried and whether or not it worked. If it didn't work, you try a different password. If it did, the same one, then send back the result. This feedback will result in future self correctly guessing the password on the first try. Encryption will become problematic, and most security systems will probably rely on limited time-range of time machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Interesting read icon14.gif

 

 

My redneck mind has only a basic understanding, but I have a question about superposition...

 

 

the collection of all possible states that an object can have.

-from wiki

 

On a quantum level I understand that this would apply to something like an electron. It's not like they showed us, when I was a kid, where there is Mr. Electron circling around Mr. Proton and Mrs Neutron. It would be more like a defined area. The electron would be somewhere in that arc, but you wouldn't know exactly where. Observing the particle would disturb the reading itself. So, it goes something like this: "the electron has the probability of being between x and y at a certain time." It would be more of a range rather than a specific measurement.

 

This was explained to me with the notion of the missing wallet. We have all misplaced a wallet (or something else) only to find it sometime later. You may have searched high and low, never seeming to finding it, only for the wallet to return one day between the sofa cushions. Using the superposition theory the wallet is both between the sofa cushions and any where else in the universe! This would be because you never directly observed the wallet, so any possibility is a probability.

 

So, I guess the question is: If that is true for something traveling in space, would it not also apply to something traveling through time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Yup. There is a time-uncertainty just like there is space-uncertainty. But it tends to be very small for most reasonable objects. Just like space-uncertainty is related to momentum, time-uncertainty is related to energy. Any object with non-zero mass has extremely high energy, and so a very tiny time-uncertainty. But it is there. In Quantum, you can't say that event happened exactly at such and such time. You say that with certain probability it happened within a certain time interval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Yup. There is a time-uncertainty just like there is space-uncertainty. But it tends to be very small for most reasonable objects. Just like space-uncertainty is related to momentum, time-uncertainty is related to energy. Any object with non-zero mass has extremely high energy, and so a very tiny time-uncertainty. But it is there. In Quantum, you can't say that event happened exactly at such and such time. You say that with certain probability it happened within a certain time interval.

 

Wow! This got interesting and way out of my league really quick. I'm still thinking about a model that makes a physical time machine unpractical from an technical perspective. My engineering gut instink is that what ever is possible, the energy requirements for a person to use a machine to time travel (backwards) is a ridiculously large number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Well, other than pulling person apart, sending instructions to the past, and assembling him there, I don't have a clue how to make it even remotely practical. So we are probably going to have teleportation before human time travel. How much energy that is going to take, I don't know. You might be right. It might be too much to ever make it practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Well, other than pulling person apart, sending instructions to the past, and assembling him there, I don't have a clue how to make it even remotely practical. So we are probably going to have teleportation before human time travel. How much energy that is going to take, I don't know. You might be right. It might be too much to ever make it practical.

 

I won't say it's the say all, be all. However; my experience, and some applied science tells me that even if we could make a machine 100% efficient, it's going to require a whole lotta buck for a little bang.

 

I agree with you about the teleportation. Maybe not exactly like in every SciFi genre, but I can see being able to transport people/things across long distance (in very short amounts of time) with MUCH less energy than time travel.

 

As far as the human time travel tho, I still think it would require an equal amount of energy to that required to put the universe back to where it was from the time you traveled from.

 

Can't prove that, forgive more that one I'm far from a noble prize. Tho, without putting too much effort into it, my gut instink tells me that is the way it is.

 

If any one cares that much about it I will do a little more home work. Just bare in mind I only have an engineering base of physics and lack the higher level stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
As far as the human time travel tho, I still think it would require an equal amount of energy to that required to put the universe back to where it was from the time you traveled from.

That doesn't require any energy. Energy is conserved, so the amount of total energy at the beginning of the universe is the same as it is now. In fact, if you put in any energy, you can't return it to that original state. So by definition, it won't take any energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

That doesn't require any energy. Energy is conserved, so the amount of total energy at the beginning of the universe is the same as it is now. In fact, if you put in any energy, you can't return it to that original state. So by definition, it won't take any energy.

 

Ok, I can see where you are coming from. I know the energy will be conserved, I wasn't worried about that one.

 

I'm thinking of the energy requirements for a machine to make time travel possible. With limited knowledge of physics but a good back ground with machines and efficiency, I only know for sure it will require a metric butt load of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

Whoops, computer fowled up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

Just wanted to point out a theory relating to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It states that, for an object to travel at light speed, the grid of space-time must be expanded behind the craft, and pushed downward in front of the craft. If that were true though, then you would be melding space-time and essentially be time travelling right there. It also explains why when astronauts go into space and come back, they haven't aged proportionally the same as someone else aging on Earth.

 

Just a thought I had while watching T.V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnage1120

1.21 JIGGOWATTS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

I always liked the wormhole theory. That if we found a wormhole it shorten up time and space, allowing us to go forward in time much quicker then everyone else. However, could that work backwards if we found a wormhole that already did that and ride it back to it's starting time in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

I have this image of the universe as a collection of single frames strung together in a way that is seemingly logical to us. There are also frames of events that go unused. The frames could be re-strung to create alternate timelines or complete nonsense depending on the rules of the universe.

 

In terms of multiple universes one way to describe it could be that an initial universe sprang into existence, but there have periodically been echos of that event whereby new universes were created. But each universe would be degraded from the original just the way an echo doesn't capture the complete sound. The more echos the more degradation or variation. With each echo frames could be altered. These echos or altered frames would be parallel universes.

 

If there are parallel universes wouldn't time travel be possible in effect by jumping into a point in it's timeline similar to the one we want to reach in ours? And could quantum entanglements exist between these parallel universes?

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxopower

Not Long ago I read a short science fiction, "the worlds of if" by Stanley Grauman Weinbaum.

 

It suggested that instead of travailing forward or back (Witch would be impossible to do if you wanted to get more than 1 sec ahead or back, according to the writer ), you could travel to the sides, travel to "the worlds of if". By doing that exploring parallel universes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler
Not Long ago I read a short science fiction, "the worlds of if" by Stanley Grauman Weinbaum.

 

It suggested that instead of travailing forward or back (Witch would be impossible to do if you wanted to get more than 1 sec ahead or back, according to the writer ), you could travel to the sides, travel to "the worlds of if". By doing that exploring parallel universes.

Then technically it is not the time travel we know, as the 'time' would be different in a parallel universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.