Future and Time / hypothesis /

[s0cratus]

Future and Time / hypothesis /
1
If you travel with a speed less - less than constant speed
of quantum of light ( c < 1 ) then you have your present future
( sooner or later the death will come ).
The classical deterministic principle works in this situation.
2
If you travel quickly enough ( with constant speed
of quantum of light c = 1) then the time doesn't 'exist for you
and you don't know your future.
3
If you travel quickly enough (with speed faster than quantum of light c > 1)
then sooner or later a new time and future will come to you.
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle need to use here.
=.
Of course, a person cannot travel with such speed,
but a quantum particle has this possibility.
==,
socratus

 

[Black Rose]

Future and Time / hypothesis /
1
If you travel with a speed less - less than constant speed
of quantum of light ( c < 1 ) then you have your present future
( sooner or later the death will come ).
The classical deterministic principle works in this situation.
2
If you travel quickly enough ( with constant speed
of quantum of light c = 1) then the time doesn't 'exist for you
and you don't know your future.
3
If you travel quickly enough (with speed faster than quantum of light c > 1)
then sooner or later a new time and future will come to you.
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle need to use here.
=.
Of course, a person cannot travel with such speed,
but a quantum particle has this possibility.
==,
socratus

All particles move as quantum possibilities within and outside your body. They are bound in entanglement to your history and timelines. As we do move into the future we are aware continually present. Awareness is a superluminal holon.

 

[The Introvert]

And quantum particles exist everywhere. The problem, (As I assume Animekitty was attempting to say) is that consciously, there is no future for a quantum particle. The point is moot in that regard.

However, this isn't to say that the actions of said particle cannot influence the 'present' for conscious beings...

This is also assuming that time is directly correlated to light.

 

[Vrecknidj]

A person constrained by a body with mass cannot travel at such speeds. It may, nevertheless, be possible for a person unconstrained in that way to travel at such speeds. If "travel" and "speed" make sense for body-less persons.

 

[s0cratus]

And quantum particles exist everywhere.
The problem, (As I assume Animekitty was attempting to say) is that consciously,
there is no future for a quantum particle.
The point is moot in that regard.

However, this isn't to say that the actions of said particle cannot
influence the 'present' for conscious beings...

This is also assuming that time is directly correlated to light.

Interesting points.
Does quantum particle have future ?
Is time directly correlated to light ?
=.

 

[s0cratus]

Future and Time / hypothesis /
1
If you travel with a speed less - less than constant speed
of quantum of light ( c < 1 ) then you have your present future
( sooner or later the death will come ).
The classical deterministic principle works in this situation.
2
If you travel quickly enough ( with constant speed
of quantum of light c = 1) then the time doesn't 'exist for you
and you don't know your future.
3
If you travel quickly enough (with speed faster than quantum of light c > 1)
then sooner or later a new time and future will come to you.
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle need to use here.
=.
Of course, a person cannot travel with such speed,
but a quantum particle has this possibility.
==,
socratus

Some details
=.
My first heretical point is:
No matter how the quantum particle travels
( c<1, c=1, c>1) its speed and own time are relative .


My second heretical point is:
there are two different reference frame -
one system without time, mass and gravity (according to Einstein's SRT) ,
and another system where there is time but this time is depended on
speed and mass (according to Einstein's GRT)


My third heretical point is:
the quantum particle can travel between these two systems.
Therefore we can see 'vacuum fluctuation '


My fourth heretical point is:
No matter how the quantum particle travels ( c<1, c=1, c>1)
for it - its own time ( history) is ever 'now'.
==,

 

[Vrecknidj]

Time only arises as a result of an interaction?

 

[Reluctantly]

You can travel faster than the speed of light. But your reference velocity to another object that can see you can't be greater than the speed of light.

For example, say you have three objects aligned in the following manner

A <-----------------------> B <---------------------------> C

B is moving right from A at say 1/2 the speed of light. C is moving away from B at say 2/3 the speed of light. C is then moving away from A at 7/6 the speed of light (faster than the speed of light), so A can not see C, nor be effected directly by C.

A is however effected by B, which is partly effected by C.

Right?

 

[Hawkeye]

You can travel faster than the speed of light. But your reference velocity to another object that can see you can't be greater than the speed of light.

For example, say you have three objects aligned in the following manner

A <-----------------------> B <---------------------------> C

B is moving right from A at say 1/2 the speed of light. C is moving away from B at say 2/3 the speed of light. C is then moving away from A at 7/6 the speed of light (faster than the speed of light), so A can not see C, nor be effected directly by C.

A is however effected by B, which is partly effected by C.

Right?

Kind of, although the speed of light is the max speed you can go. The passage of time compensates for this speed limit which gives the observation that someone has travelled faster than light.

Take CY Canis Majoris - If you could travel at 0.999999% speed of light, it would take you about 7 hours 30 mins to complete a single orbit. An observer waiting at the start/finish point however, would not see you complete the orbit for about 4.5 weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

 

[Reluctantly]

Kind of, although the speed of light is the max speed you can go. The passage of time compensates for this speed limit which gives the observation that someone has travelled faster than light.

Take CY Canis Majoris - If you could travel at 0.999999% speed of light, it would take you about 7 hours 30 mins to complete a single orbit. An observer waiting at the start/finish point however, would not see you complete the orbit for about 4.5 weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

So the implication is that Bertrand functions in the same way as a light clock. And light becomes a function of space-time. So Bertrand sees light moving C, but only because one second takes a lot longer for him, making light still seem to travel at C?

But the spaceship is still moving at an actual speed independent of all of this, even if we can't observe it directly, right? So what I said still applies?

Edit:
So how would that effect how he sees light moving perpendicular to him? Wouldn't Bertrand see it as moving faster than the speed of light, since his perception of a second is longer?

 

[Hawkeye]

So the implication is that Bertrand functions in the same way as a light clock. And light becomes a function of space-time. So Bertrand sees light moving C, but only because one second takes a lot longer for him, making light still seem to travel at C?

Yeah, the faster you go, the slower time passes.

But the spaceship is still moving at an actual speed independent of all of this, even if we can't observe it directly, right? So what I said still applies?

You're correct in what you are saying, I was just clarifying that you can't go faster than the speed of light. You can only be perceived to have travelled faster than the speed of light due to time dilation.

So how would that effect how he sees light moving perpendicular to him? Wouldn't the objects around him appear to change velocities? Or does it have something to do with the ghosting of an object moving away or toward something close to the speed of light? For example, as he is moving to pass by an object he would see it as speeding up and when he passes it, he would see it as slowing down. Is that right?

This is where the phenomenon called length contraction comes in. Length contraction is where the length of an object is shortened along the direction of motion. Have you ever watched Star Trek where the ships go into warp?

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRqQtqwUFo

If this were to occur in reality, the opposite would happen. You'd see the ship contract rather than stretch. To the crew on the enterprise, the universe would appear to contract also. This doesn't look as fancy as stretching though. ^^

I remember an example involving a train and a tunnel. In reality the train is longer than the tunnel, but to an observer in the tunnel the train would appear to be smaller than the tunnel as it passed through.

Basically, everything perpendicular would look squashed.

 

[Reluctantly]

This is where the phenomenon called length contraction comes in. Length contraction is where the length of an object is shortened along the direction of motion. Have you ever watched Star Trek where the ships go into warp?

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRqQtqwUFo

If this were to occur in reality, the opposite would happen. You'd see the ship contract rather than stretch. To the crew on the enterprise, the universe would appear to contract also. This doesn't look as fancy as stretching though. ^^

I remember an example involving a train and a tunnel. In reality the train is longer than the tunnel, but to an observer in the tunnel the train would appear to be smaller than the tunnel as it passed through.

Basically, everything perpendicular would look squashed.

Okay, so if the Interprise is coming toward us at a speed close to C, it would appear longer? Whereas if it were moving away from us, it would appear shorter?

I'm reasoning because as it's moving away, the light at the back of the ship would update quicker than the front, giving it the perception of being smaller.

And when moving toward, the light at the front of the ship would update quicker than the back, giving it the perception of being bigger?



But theoretically, when Bertrand is going back to Earth at a speed close to light, he would be going in the opposite direction of the light and then his perception of time would speed up to match it (his perception of a second would be shorter); then when he returned to Earth to see Einstein, the same amount of time would have passed?

however, if we were just considering Bertrand as a light clock, then even on the return trip, his perception of a second would still be slower, making me wonder what speed he would see the light going past him as? Or wait, he wouldn't see it at all, would he? I guess that would make sense.

But then, I'm still confused on the perpendicular light as he's traveling close to the speed of light. Objects he passes are going to appear stretched or contracted, but as light travels to him perpendicular to his directional velocity, in theory he would see it as moving faster than C because his perception of time has slowed and that perpendicular light would then appear to speed up. Unless each axis, x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis has its own perception of time. In which case, it would still be the speed of light. So theoretically we'd have to look at the effect that light has from all directions and somehow weigh the impact of each?

I guess one could then be both traveling past an object and away from it. And the faster of both, the longer the distance and the slower the passage of time. So it would be a light clock measuring light in three dimensions and not two.

Okay, I think I get it. Maybe. Thanks.

Maybe some day I'll understand Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle as well. Maybe I'll ask BAP.

 

[Hawkeye]

Okay, so if the Interprise is coming toward us at a speed close to C, it would appear longer? Whereas if it were moving away from us, it would appear shorter?

I'm reasoning because as it's moving away, the light at the back of the ship would update quicker than the front, giving it the perception of being smaller.

And when moving toward, the light at the front of the ship would update quicker than the back, giving it the perception of being bigger?

But theoretically, when Bertrand is going back to Earth at a speed close to light, he would be going in the opposite direction of the light and then his perception of time would speed up to match it (his perception of a second would be shorter); then when he returned to Earth to see Einstein, the same amount of time would have passed?

however, if we were just considering Bertrand as a light clock, then even on the return trip, his perception of a second would still be slower, making me wonder what speed he would see the light going past him as? Or wait, he wouldn't see it at all, would he? I guess that would make sense.

But then, I'm still confused on the perpendicular light as he's traveling close to the speed of light. Objects he passes are going to appear stretched or contracted, but as light travels to him perpendicular to his directional velocity, in theory he would see it as moving faster than C because his perception of time has slowed and that perpendicular light would then appear to speed up. Unless each axis, x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis has its own perception of time. In which case, it would still be the speed of light. So theoretically we'd have to look at the effect that light has from all directions and somehow weigh the impact of each?

I guess one could then be both traveling past an object and away from it. And the faster of both, the longer the distance and the slower the passage of time. So it would be a light clock measuring light in three dimensions and not two.

Okay, I think I get it. Maybe. Thanks.

Maybe some day I'll understand Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle as well. Maybe I'll ask BAP.

Well, the length of the ship would only contract as contraction only takes place in direction of movement. So viewing the ship from the front or back wouldn't show a difference in dimensions.

However! You would notice something else. The colour of the Enterprise would change due to another phenomenon (Doo-Doo Doo-Doodoo) - The Doppler Effect

Example:

Spoiler

As the Enterprise flies towards you, the wavelength of light you see would be compressed creating a blue-shift. This would give the Enterprise a more green/blue appearance.

Likewise, as the Enterprise flew away from you, the wavelength of light would be stretched creating a red-shift. Naturally, this would give the Enterprise more of a red appearance.

The same effect would occur to the passengers on the Enterprise

Spoiler

When travelling close to the speed of light, time slows down relative to the normal frame of reference - a place with 0g. To Bertrand, 1 second still equals 1 second. To an observer, Bertrand's second could equal 10 seconds or a month depending how close to the speed of light Bertrand is travelling.

However, the speed of light remains a constant. This means that when Bertrand activates his headlights, the light will still zoom off ahead at the speed of light.

I guess the issue in getting your head around it is that we are dealing with near speed of light speeds. The way I see it is at the speed of light, time effectively stops which is why it is possible to be the same speed in all frames of reference. The speed of light is not affected by time.

Therefore, any objects passing perpendicular to Bertrand would never exceed the speed of light. He would see these objects in a squashed form of their natural dimensions much like the tennis ball example above.



Another cool thing about time is it also slows down around mass. This is why in order to make GPS work they need to offset the satellite clocks on Earth, so that when they are in their orbit the time dilation doesn't cause issues.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well, the length of the ship would only contract as contraction only takes place in direction of movement. So viewing the ship from the front or back wouldn't show a difference in dimensions.

However! You would notice something else. The colour of the Enterprise would change due to another phenomenon (Doo-Doo Doo-Doodoo) - The Doppler Effect

Example:

Spoiler

As the Enterprise flies towards you, the wavelength of light you see would be compressed creating a blue-shift. This would give the Enterprise a more green/blue appearance.

Likewise, as the Enterprise flew away from you, the wavelength of light would be stretched creating a red-shift. Naturally, this would give the Enterprise more of a red appearance.

The same effect would occur to the passengers on the Enterprise

Spoiler

When travelling close to the speed of light, time slows down relative to the normal frame of reference - a place with 0g. To Bertrand, 1 second still equals 1 second. To an observer, Bertrand's second could equal 10 seconds or a month depending how close to the speed of light Bertrand is travelling.

However, the speed of light remains a constant. This means that when Bertrand activates his headlights, the light will still zoom off ahead at the speed of light.

I guess the issue in getting your head around it is that we are dealing with near speed of light speeds. The way I see it is at the speed of light, time effectively stops which is why it is possible to be the same speed in all frames of reference. The speed of light is not affected by time.

Therefore, any objects passing perpendicular to Bertrand would never exceed the speed of light. He would see these objects in a squashed form of their natural dimensions much like the tennis ball example above.

KK. Thanks alot, btw. I struggle with physics. I guess a lot of people do.

But when Bertrand left, Einstein turned his lights on. Then on the return trip, he would see Einstein's lights going in the opposite direction. If Bertrand measures that light, one might think he'd have to account for his speed, but you're saying the light coming towards him would compress to keep C the same with that light? aka blue-shift?

Another cool thing about time is it also slows down around mass. This is why in order to make GPS work they need to offset the satellite clocks on Earth, so that when they are in their orbit the time dilation doesn't cause issues.

I kind of figured, since thermodynamically, the farther you are away from something the less it would have an effect on you. I guess that implies that light weakens the farther it has to travel.

 

[walfin]

Could one make oneself invisible by perpetually travelling at the speed of light?

 

[s0cratus]

Basically, everything perpendicular would look squashed.

if photon's speed is equal to c - then photon doesn't have volume.
we can see photon as a very thin line ( as in the picture)
=

 

[Hawkeye]

But when Bertrand left, Einstein turned his lights on. Then on the return trip, he would see Einstein's lights going in the opposite direction. If Bertrand measures that light, one might think he'd have to account for his speed, but you're saying the light coming towards him would compress to keep C the same with that light? aka blue-shift?

Yeah, the light would blue-shift because you are travelling towards the source. The speed would remain constant.

Could one make oneself invisible by perpetually travelling at the speed of light?

You could, but the outcome is similar to this:

Spoiler

(This is obviously omitting that you have a mass.)

if photon's speed is equal to c - then photon doesn't have volume.
we can see photon as a very thin line ( as in the picture)
=

Indeed, which is why I'm guessing the question mark is added. I think the absence of a drawing at c would confuse people more than help them.

Also, it could be argued a line doesn't have a volume.

 

[Hawkeye]

This may be of interest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e99vsYHIbsQ

 

[s0cratus]

conclusion
1
according to SRT photon at speed c=1 must be a flat particle.
2
according to thermodinamics at absolute zero particle doesn't
have volume and must be a flat particle.
=.

 

[Bonbonnom]

No matter how fast you go, you can't break through time because past and present don't exist separate from the present. The past present and future all exist together in one point. The past and the present don't exist separately, but within the present. I'm sick of explaining this to people so if you don't get it from this simple explanation then you're on your own.

 

[Hawkeye]

No matter how fast you go, you can't break through time because past and present don't exist separate from the present. The past present and future all exist together in one point. The past and the present don't exist separately, but within the present. I'm sick of explaining this to people so if you don't get it from this simple explanation then you're on your own.

This just sounds like a pedantic rant. The past, present and future are all subjective.

Imagine you're on Earth getting ready to take a journey into space travelling at speeds close to the speed of light. You kiss your wife, wave goodbye and set off on your journey. You fly close to the speed of light for a year and return back to Earth. 2,000 years have passed for Earth compared to your 1.

You are still in your present timeline, but to your wife you are in the future relative to hers. Technically, you have broken through your default/natural present timeline.

 

[Bonbonnom]

it is a pedantic rant... gotta love that inebriation. But i'll try to explain what i was saying there a little better. Regardless of how much you age or anything else ages, since you still exist withing that period of aging, you are still in the present, both theirs and yours. You haven't traveled into the future, you've lived into the next present, sounds like semantics but the idea i'm trying to say isn't cooperating with my shamefully low vocabulary...

Essentially until you have gone into the future where you exist, it isn't time travel. And since you even agree that that is impossible as one can not exist in two places in one time, true time travel is an impossibility. I just hope that makes sense.

Sorry for my irrational irritation. But i'm enjoying the fact there's actually someone on these forums that can make me think. i haven't had any good mental exercise for a good couple of years and i've gotten rusty.

 

[The Introvert]

Time is relative, right?

Essentially until you have gone into the future where you exist, it isn't time travel. And since you even agree that that is impossible as one can not exist in two places in one time, true time travel is an impossibility.

So, in reference to yourself; no, you cannot travel through time. Of course you cannot be two places at once (or at least it doesn't logically make sense to me).

However, in reference to a third party:

You are still in your present timeline, but to your wife you are in the future relative to hers. Technically, you have broken through your default/natural present timeline.

In reference to points unassociated with the object in question, time travel can at least logically make sense.

 

[Bonbonnom]

Time is relative, right?

So, in reference to yourself; no, you cannot travel through time. Of course you cannot be two places at once (or at least it doesn't logically make sense to me).

However, in reference to a third party:

In reference to points unassociated with the object in question, time travel can at least logically make sense.

Yes, it can logically make sense, but it still isn't true time travel. If you think of it as a perspective the entire universe is still on entity, one object, and one party. If you remember the scene in the MIB movie with the marbles, imagine something kind of similar, and within each marble time travels the same in perspective when outside of those marbles. Correct? It ends up being the grander the size the smaller the scale.

So i'll agree time travel in the utmost abstract sense, is possible. Time travel in the most precise sense; however, is not.