Is this Time Travel?

Special relativity states the combined speed of motion and motion through time are always equal to the speed of light, making faster than light travel impossible. What about the EPR paradox? EPR stands for Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, who published a paper on quantum entaglement exploring a so called "spooky action at a distance." This 'spooky action' is observed when measurments of seperate particles within a quantum system have instantaneous influence on one another. For example:

Two electrons occupy a quantum state called a spin singlet where their spin is measured along the same axis. Their quantum state is defined when measuring spin at electron A along the Z-axis as (+z), inversely rendering spin at electron B (-z) and vise versa.

Given the above entangled state, predicting spin of either electron after spin of one electron is measured can be carried out with 100% accuracy. This is known as nonlocal behavoir within a quantum system.

IMO this nonlocality signifies faster than light travel. Special relativity prohibits faster than light travel, so is this instantaneous interaction a form of time travel? With absence of time, is faster than light travel possible?

If the spins have to come in opposite pairs I can see nonspooky vs. spooky.

1) If the spin of the electron were already determined but it simply hasn't been observed yet, then it's by a logical deduction the other is opposite.

2) If the spin of the electron is not determined and is determined by the observation, then information has been transmitted instantaneously about the measurement to the other electron. I guess that's the spooky version.

3) They're in the same probability wave and in fact share a single identity until the measurement happens. At that point it's sort of like a membrane that snaps and creates to separate identities. I really can't describe this one very well but it's not as spooky nor not really nonlocal. Local is relative.

I don't know the mathematics of this theory so I won't claim to truely understand it until I decide to go at it but I thought I'd just have some quick fun thinking about this.

Exactly what type of light is measured to determine the speed of light? This slice of light was photographed in my back yard by my wife. My question is this, was she time-traveling when she took it? This is a serious question about a real conundrum, how could she photograph the front, top and side of light moving at, well, the speed of light? If the speed of light is in fact variable, wouldn't that cause problems with your math? If you look at the center of the photo, just below the brightest light you might be able to see beings of light, that being the case, a passenger walking forward would in fact be moving faster than light. That brings me to m y next question, how much faster than light do you need to go to travel "in time?" Is there a scale or something to go by? How do you figure the speed of light that is stopped or moving slowly as this slice of light is? I suppose you could cop out and say the light was attached to something else, like a light to an aircraft, but i am hoping you will rise to the challenge.

Light moves at a constant speed through vacuum.

The speed is constant relative to two seperate observers traveling relative to the light at two seperate speeds.

Picture them traveling one behind the other. The rear one is moving at 1/4 the speed of light, the one in front is moving at half the speed of light. A laser is projected from their point of origin behind them.
It leaves it's point of origin and is observed as traveling at the speed of light.

The laser passes the rear ship, and relative to the rear ship it is traveling at the speed of light.

When the laser passes the front ship, it passes it at the speed of light relative to that ship.

How can this be? You might well ask, The same light is apparently traveling at three different speeds.

The C speed relative to it's stationary point of origin.
The C speed relative to the rear ship. which is moving at 1/4 light speed relative to the origin.
The C speed relative to the front ship, which is moving at 1/2 light speed relative to the origin.

Simply light does not move. It is everywhere along it's path simultaneously. Only a single point is observed at a time, and that point appears further away at a constant rate of awareness to the observer.

Light is not constrained by time. It is instantanious, yet observed from withing the framework of our observation point which is a juncture of time and space.

It is this principle which allows the observation of the origin of the universe near the time of the big bang.

Ask yourself this question, How is it I can point a telescope at the Sun, and I see sunlight from eight minutes ago?

Then I point the telescope into the depths of empty space and see the big bang 13 billion years ago?

Think about it, If light moves at a constant, actually travels (picture a ball), then isn't it likely that light would have already passed us, or not yet reached us, what are the odds we happen to time it right to catch the ball?
The light from origin is eternally reaching us!

reply to post by Cyberbian


It's actually quite simple. The background is an apparent surface that emanates from the beginning of time which is the limit of the visible universe. Any objects beyond that lightcone cannot be observed since observing beyond the backgound would be to observe something before the begging of the universe. Ever so slightly in back of it is the singularity which is forever unobserveable.

Light moves at a constant velocity relative to an observer because time changes in rate relative to another observer.

Edit: It occurred to me that if you travelled at the speed of light you would destroy the entire universe by collapsing it into a singularity again. Dude!

[edit on 7/28/2008 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by Cyberbian


From the point of origin, i can grasp the measured speed of light, but when the light passes the rear ship, the second point of view, itself traveling at 1/4 the speed of light, the apparent speed of the laser would be 3/4 the speed of light, relevant to the point 2. When the laser passes the front ship that is traveling 1/2 speeed of light point 3, an observer would measure the laser as traveling at 1/2 the speed of light. As we know, there is no fixed point of origin, the Universe itself is expanding at nearly a million mph away from point of big bang. It would seem that this would have to be taken into consideration, as well as the direction the light is traveling. Speeed = distance divided by time and a plus-minus factor of 2m is significant.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Cyberbian

 

It's actually quite simple. The background is an apparent surface that emanates from the beginning of time which is the limit of the visible universe. Any objects beyond that lightcone cannot be observed since observing beyond the backgound would be to observe something before the begging of the universe. Ever so slightly in back of it is the singularity which is forever unobserveable.

Say what? The big bang has to be omnidirectional, there is no behind it, the force of the blast would cause dispersal. I like the concept of a black hole in another Universe punching through the fabric of dimensional space/time much the same as a tire experiencing a blowout. All the material sucked out of "there" and blown into here.

Edit: It occurred to me that if you travelled at the speed of light you would destroy the entire universe by collapsing it into a singularity again. You do know there are things faster than light, right?

Crossing an Einstein-Rosen bridge could be considered faster than light travel. If traveling subluminally through the bridge took less time than it would for light to travel linearly to the same point in spacetime then relatively speaking "faster than light" travel is possible. Could this be what is taking place in examples of true nonlocality?

Wormholes are mathematically feisable but only theoretical because they have never been observed. If measuring a quantum system collapses the wave of potential triggering instantaneous interaction between entangled particles then IMO this is evidence of faster than light travel, time travel and possibly traversable shortcuts through spacetime.

Originally posted by debris765nju
This slice of light was photographed in my back yard by my wife. My question is this, was she time-traveling when she took it?

Probably not but maybe the aperture on her camera was quite large and the shutter speed was slow. Similar to t h i s over-exposure.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by EvaDavE]

reply to post by debris765nju


The speed of light measurement was originally done with spinning wheels to two separate hill tops... interesting and could probably be looked up in Google.

Time travel. Picture yourself on a jet plane in the middle section. The seats behind you are time past and the ones in front are time future. If you stay in your seat you will remain in time present yet move at the same rate of movement with time past and future. Now, unstrap yourself and walk forward. You are traveling faster than the plane itself which we will call the universal constant. Now as you step out into the isle you can freely walk into the future, or, if you wish go to the past in the back.

My thought is, to "step" out of the universal constant, one needs to understand first what it is and what traps matter into it. Some call it the "electric universe" We are chained to it, or "strapped in" for the ride. But if you cancel out the effect of time which is the constant, you are free. Create a static bubble whereby the effects of gravitaional force and resistence are cancelled out, you will be literally stepping out into the isle. It will look different and not unlike the picture in an above post. It will all stand still for you and you will find you way through it. When you turn off the "bubble" you will be sitting in a new seat of time space in the "present time" of that momment.

So.. how was that idea? Does it sound reasonable?

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Fromabove]

reply to post by Fromabove

Those coincide with my opinions exactly. Time is an artificial creation devised by man based on the number of rotations our planet makes in one
revolution around our Sun. Now the Earth is entering a phase where the planet is moving into a longer, more eliptical orbit. How is this going to affect our measurements of time? Say the year becomes two weeks longer than it is now, our imaginary slices of time take longer going from point A to point B so the defined speed of light would be reduced nearly 4% in the mathematical formula. I could see how this might cause problems in the future. A constantly changing constant is not constant at all. I know that light is Universal and is not affected by the changing of Earth's orbit but.........our measurements are not.

Originally posted by Fromabove
Now as you step out into the isle you can freely walk into the future, or, if you wish go to the past in the back.

What kind of science supports your claim?

My thought is, to "step" out of the universal constant, one needs to understand first what it is and what traps matter into it.

I'd love to understand or find merit in anything you're referring to, so by all means please explain.

Create a static bubble whereby the effects of gravitaional force and resistence are cancelled out, you will be literally stepping out into the isle.

How exactly would one create this static bubble? And how does canceling resistance and gravity help travel through time?

Originally posted by debris765nju
Time is an artificial creation devised by man based on the number of rotations our planet makes in one revolution around our Sun. Now the Earth is entering a phase where the planet is moving into a longer, more eliptical orbit. How is this going to affect our measurements of time?

Not at all, why would it? The second is defined as:

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

-Wikipedia

Current definitions of the second actually come from the theory of special relativity. So if time were to change its characteristics so would relativity.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by EvaDavE]

reply to post by EvaDavE

Wide aperture, slow shutterspeed? I guess the thought that it was an alien lightship probably never crossed your mind. If you can't see the people in the light, try looking at the people below the light. They came into my house, they were expected, invited even. Something you need to add to your equasions......living light. Intelligent, motile, immortal, first created...."let there be light!" It has choice. The speed of light chose to stop in my back yard and disembarked passengers, Here is photographic evidence of the event. I think the wife time-traveled. Maybe just nudged by the timewave that travels in front of the craft.


[edit on 29-7-2008 by debris765nju]

Special relativity has as one of its fundamental assumptions that the speed of light is a constant to all viewers in an inertial reference frame. It is from this assumption, and one other, that the inability of speed faster than the speed of light is derived. If it could be shown that the speed of light isn't a constant to all viewers in any inertial reference frame then it would invalidate special relativity, and general for that matter.

As to trying to couple relativity and quantumn mechanics you are on a difficult path. It is well known that relativity breaks down on the small scale and quantumn mechanics fails at large scales. They are not compatable theories. I think one of the most popular ways to create a theory of everything is to use string theory. Now string theory likes lots of dimensions rather than the 3-4 we are used to and occur in quantumn mechanics and relativity.

Perhaps if we use string theory to explain the link by suggesting another dimension whereby the electrons are linked the information passing between them could be at the speed of light but over a much shorter distance. This would be like the Einstein-Rosen bridge idea of having a short cut but uses a different dimension instead

On a slight tangent, I like the idea of Einstien-Rosen bridges (wormholes) but I think that it has been shown that to transverse one you would need negative energy matter which hasn't been discovered yet (Wikipedia link)

Quantum electrodynamics states that electrons go back and forth in time all the time. That's what we call positrons. Check it up, it's pretty great. Even got Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga the nobel price in physics 1965. Spooky, but true.

Time travel is obviously possible. But is it true with the wide range of objects in this vast cosmos. Perhaps not, since gravity becomes a major factor which sort of might stop it from happening. Penrose thinks so, God knows if he's right.

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Quantum electrodynamics states that electrons go back and forth in time all the time. That's what we call positrons. Check it up, it's pretty great. Even got Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga the nobel price in physics 1965. Spooky, but true.

Thanks, couldn't remember their names but their findings stuck with me. I believe that the secrets to the macrocosm is to be found in the microcosms.
Time travel is obviously possible. But is it true with the wide range of objects in this vast cosmos. Perhaps not, since gravity becomes a major factor which sort of might stop it from happening. Penrose thinks so, God knows if he's right.

Physicality is the major prohibitive factor. What would the effect of a gravity well be on sub-atomic particles traveling within its sphere of influence? What interior effects would occur on the atomic level?

There realy is no such things as time, but it is simply a measurement of change. Time speeds up and slows down constantly. The speed of change is determined by the force of density and gravity. This theory was already proven and the work is out there to read. As for the "static bubble", it would be an electrostatic field. Tesla, and Thomas T. Brown worked on it. If such a field were created, "change" or the process thast we call time would stop. Rather than go back in time, you would simply increase the power of the field and move to another location in "change" where things may be 1947 for example. I would not know if it's been tried. Then there is another problem that if you went back in time it would look and feel like that time but it would actually be a splitoff copy, or shadow of time as it was known, like changing lanes on a highway going in the same direction. So this reality wouldn't change, and whoever went back in time would simply seem to disappear. Change is a strange thing because if you attempt to change change, it can never be the same after that, and one would simply "splitoff" into a parallel universe identical to this one.

I disagree with you on almost everything you said. Time speeding up and slowing down. How? Time is an agreed upon measurement that indicates how far an event is behind you or how far it is in front of you. Current time is the time we all share, regardless of our position on the planet or in the Universe. We are all engaged in time travel to the future one measured second at at time. Our time is local time, not Universal. That is how Jesus can resurrect all the dead of all times and bring them forward in time to a new life without destoying the structure of Universal time. That non-physical spirit is able to traverse time, with the proper impetous. Now, if that is true for Earth time, why would the rest of Universal time react differently? I also have difficulty believing an entire new dimension that contains all that now is plus one paradox because of one time travel incursion. The power just isn't there for that kind of replication. Besides, there is no room to put it. If your body was the Universe and another "you" was created and had to be stored in the same space you already occupy. You have already used your quota of time past, and you need all of your quota of time future for your initial self.