How is time travel actually possible??

you're doing it right now

ofc possible but not yet.

>>7705380
Depends how you define time travel

>>7705389
>Travelling forward or backward in time greater than the speed we are travelling in time now.

File: 20120405200500.gif (422KB, 268x288px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 268x288px

u cant travel against time, you travel yourself back and forth so you travel while you travel with time.
That's relativity.

>>7705412
don't post that immature gif you fucking child

File: mfw4.png (182KB, 415x373px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 415x373px

>>7705380
>be me
>timetraveler
>travel trough time
>only time, not space
>end up in space because earth + whole solarsystem has moved like it always does.
>mfw no spacesuit

File: images.jpg (10KB, 248x203px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 248x203px

Sure. If you want to observe it, use your memory and plan a bodily movement visually, then perform said action. Imagining motion = thinking 4th dimensionally.

I mean time isn't disparate from matter, but you can still lessen the fuck out of the mass and observe the same results. Atomic matter = waves of potential existence. Thought forms = waves

>>7705422
Get a load of this guy.

>>7705380

time travel has been proved wrong in quantum mechanics recently, there is still the possibility of time travelling via relativity

>>7705380
There is no such thing as time travel to the future or the past

Special relativity allows for things like the twin paradox, but I wouldn't call that time travel.

>>7705838
what happens when you create a quantum entanglement and then move on of the objects at a relativistic speed?

File: quantum-tunneling-overview.jpg (147KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x768px

If you traveled backwards in time, what's preventing your memories from being reversed to a point where you wouldn't even know you traveled back in time? Since it would be literally impossible to disprove that you, yes you the person reading this post, that you just traveled backwards in time to a point before you started reading this post couldn't we say that it's both true and not true. You the reader are now locked in a quantum state where you will always be traveling back in time after reading this, forced to read it over and over and over again. Please send me 1 bitcoin to be released from your quantum state. If anyone gets brain cancer from this post you can't prove it was my fault either.

>>7705961
kek

>>7705380
According to relativity, which seems to be correct, pretty much any form of FTL = time travel.

FTL is impossible through normal acceleration, barring some massive discovery, because it would require infinite energy.

Manipulation of space is a way around this but we don't have the technology to do this nor do we know if its really possible, it may work though we can't really say it doesn't.

Another possibility is the exploitation of things like quantum tunneling. Most scientists say this will not work but some say it could. Entanglement and quantum teleportation are do not work for this and they are both extensively tested at this point.

So basically, based on current knowledge, we with need to bend space or master quantum tunneling. These things may or may not be possible and if possible they may or may not allow FTL/time travel.

That's where we're at.

Theoretically if time travel were possible, traveling to the past would not end well, see the movie 'Primer'.

Traveling to the future might work out...

>>7705856

moot reappears on 4chan, but this time it is a Rei-fag

>>7705431
>be me
>see time travel comic
>wait for space thread
>paraphrase comic
>lean back in chair and bask in how clever I think I am
You are the annoying kid in class who is picked last even if fat Chelsea wants to play with a broken leg

>>7705961
>what's preventing your memories from being reversed to a point where you wouldn't even know you traveled back in time?

>Not getting the memory option in your time machine
>Being this nigger

>>7706000
Theoretically, the movie primer doesn't explain any theory to how time travel works, and it also chooses to handle the grandfather paradox in a specific way that has no theoretical basis.

TL:DR Primer is just as shit (or good) as Back to the Future and Dr. Who.

TL:DR:DR:TL Time travel to the future is time travel to a future that doesn't include you so is it really the future? Why is there a breaking of symmetry between travel "to the future" vs. "to the past"?

File: Jacob-Barnett-New-Einstein’s-Theory-of-Relativity-2.jpg (66KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x480px

>>7705978
I read an article recently that sound's capable of travelling faster than light.

http://phys.org/news/2007-01-mach-scientists-faster.html

SO MUCH FOR RELATIVITY. Jacob Barnett, you're up.

>>7706359
>group velocity
>article itself says the test violates neither special relativity nor causality

Learn to read anon

>>7706287
we might not be able to send matter into the past, but if we can send information then .......

>install backup memory module in your brain
>take all data from your memory module and compress it
>send the information into the past with light/information only time machine
>information gets downloaded into your memory module
>your consciousness has now traveled into the past
>BONUS: your body is a younger version of yourself

>>7706424
>BONUS: your body is a younger version of yourself
top ramen kek

>>7705380
Get onto a really fast aircraft

You have now timetravelled into the future, congrats

>>7706599
>Exist

You are now time traveling to the future, congratulations.

>>7705395
>Travelling forward or backward in time greater than the speed we are travelling in time now.

Yes, there's confirmed experimental evidence that that is possible. Due to the combined effects of gravitational time dilation and relative velocity time dilation, astronauts on the ISS travel an extra second forwards in time every year. (That is, for each year that passes on the ISS, a year + 1 second passes on Earth.)

So technically the ISS is going forwards in time faster than us.

>>7706724
> be me, gay nigger from outer space.
> travel for 50 years in an orbit around earth on my faggot-rocket pretty close to the speed of light.
> when i stop, earth is 2000 years older, while i have aged 50 years.
> how is it possible, physiologically?

>>7706772
What do you mean? There's nothing wrong with that.

Twin paradox brah

>>7706784
two people are in the same room. abdul hamza jerks off the whole day to trap porn, whereas itztak rubinsteyn rotates in his office chair at almost the speed of light. rubinsteyn rotates for a year, then he stops and finds his now long-bearded friend 10 years older. both people shared the same environment, yet one has aged 1 year, the other 10. WOT THE FACK

>>7706824
I don't see why you think this is a big deal. Its a little weird I guess but that's all.

>>7706772
> how is it possible, physiologically?

What do you mean, physiologically? I can't really explain how aging happens physiologically, but it's a biological process caused by the passage of time. Because 50 years of time occurred along your worldline, you aged 50 years.

The hand-waving explanation for this is that special relativity means that if you move faster in space, you move slower in time. It follows a kind of inverted Pythagorean theorem: [math]interval^2 = time^2 - space^2[/math]. The interval (distance in space-time) along an object's path through space-time is how much time that object experiences. So if you observe me moving 99 light-years in 100 years, a speed of 0.99 c, then you will observe only [math]\sqrt{ 100^2 - 99^2 } = 14[/math] years passing for me in that span of time.

>>7705443
never go full retard.

>>7706838
i don't doubt the mathematics of time dilation, i just seek a non-mathematical explanation (which probably isn't possible anyway). i also struggle with accepting time as a physical unit rather than a psychological.

>>7706724
I thought it was something like 0.07 seconds? Surely they'd need to reach way higher speeds to pass the 1 second mark

>>7706869
i calculated .02

A frame of time is just a collection / pattern / arrangement of matter. So to travel back in time, you just have the put matter in the pattern / arrangement that equals to a past time / state. So yes, time travel is obviously possible. I don't understand why people don't ever talk about this method considering this method is actually the only way..

>>7706864
>i don't doubt the mathematics of time dilation, i just seek a non-mathematical explanation (which probably isn't possible anyway)

The best you're going to get is a geometric one, I'm afraid. The mechanics of time dilation and space contraction follow directly and quite obviously from the assumption of Minkowski space-time, but the space^2 - time^2 distance formula may still feel too "mathematical" for you. (And it means that any diagrams you draw are not quite accurate, since in Euclidean space a right triangle should have a hypotenuse *longer* than its legs, not *shorter*.)

I mean, you can get a really good idea of the foundation behind that math, and why it should be that way! But since "non-mathematical" intuitive explanations fundamentally work by relating physical processes to the physical ideas we already innately accept about the world, physics that talks about situations fundamentally different than the approximate physics we involved to deal with can be almost impossible to describe intuitively.

>>7706869
It is 0.07 NASA has tested it already. There's an article out there on it, too lazy to Google but I read it before.

>>7705961

i chuckled

>>7706886
>We just have to reverse entropy guys, no big deal :^)

>>7706864
Best non math way of explaining it I ever heard is this.

Imagine falling out of a plane. You don't have a jet pack or anything like that, you can't stop yourself from falling. Even without that though you can slow your fall can't you? You can spread out your arms/legs to increase wind resistance or tuck them in to decrease it and if you have a parachute you can slow yourself considerably. That said you can't stop or reverse your fall.

Think of time like that. Its a dimension we're falling through. We're all going the same direction through it no matter what we do but we can speed or slow our decent through various means (traveling at high speed through space, being in intense gravity).

As for "struggling to accept time as physical" it may not be. This theory doesn't necessarily mean it must be a physical thing but whatever it is this is how we measure it to work. Einstein himself said that space time doesn't necessarily have to exist literally as he described it just whatever it is seems to function this way.

>>7706869
>>7706871
>>7706976

Huh, I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was a second. Maybe I misread 0.07 as 0.7 and rounded up to about a second, or maybe the source was wrong.

>>7705443

take you meds.

maybe >>>/x/ can help you

Just the fact that general relativity allows it to happen ( in fact we have observed time dilation of small proportions, certainly not doctor who but it is messing with time)

>>7707020
Time dilation != time travel, at least not in the traditional sense

>>7705978
>we don't have the capability to warp it to that degree

An Alcuburrean warp drive (I hope I spelled that right) does require negative energy density, but by screwing with the way quantum mechanics works, you can make that on a really small scale. If you mess around with the design and have the inside larger than the outside, you can make it more achievable. But considering we had to use two theories that don't always work together to make a time machine hypothetical, I wouldn't rely on it.

>>7705978
>we don't have the capability to warp it to that degree

An Alcuburrean warp drive (I hope I spelled that right) does require negative energy density, but by screwing with the way quantum mechanics works, you can make that on a really small scale. If you mess around with the design and have the inside larger than the outside, you can make it more achievable. But considering we had to use two theories that don't always work together to make a time machine hypothetical, I would not rely on it!

>>7707050
Yea its very hypothetical but sure it might work. We can't say for sure it doesn't but I wouldn't hold my breath.

define the moment.