Time paradox question?
138044
Science fiction has explored this in tremendous detail, and has come up with no solid answer.  I'm not going to, either, but let me see if I can share a little bit of thought to help you find an answer you're comfortable with...\n\nEnvision the existence of a human being as a path that the human moves along, moving only in one direction: always closer to the end of the path, and further from its start.  So far, so good?  (Mathematically, it would be a 3-dimensional curve in a higher dimensional space; (string theory wants it to be 10 or 11 dimensions, I hear) your perception of time would be caused by your traversing that curve.)\n\nNOW: Time travel says that there is a way of bending this path around so that, although you're still moving closer and closer to the end of the path, the path itself loops around behind itself.  Think of a rope that's laid on the floor in a zigzag or a loop.\n\nFirst: the person who is me in, say, 2020, and comes back to visit me in 2006 is not identical to the 2006 me: that person is further down the path...  I might not even recognize the future me as me...\n\nSecond: I suspect that what happens depends whether the path zigzags without crossing itself, or actually crosses itself, forming a loop.  What the loop would do is pure guesswork...  It might separate off (See: "The Lincoln Hunters"); it might do nothing (See: "The End of Eternity") or it might cause an incredible release of energy, possibly destroying the individual altogether, and maybe lots of other things, as well.  (See: "The Weapons Shops of Isher")\n\nUntil we develop the ability to travel backward in time, we just don't know; all we can do is guess, guess, guess.\n\nWhich is fun--and the source of a lot of good fiction I've read!
125374
this is a sincere question   that  sure opens  more questions.....including  memory functions....there is much  misuse today  and  much misleading  ...how can i  call it  even  information....but  try  any  mathamatical  formula  with  time  in  it  sit  back  and  ponder  the  various  integrations  that  time  takes part  in.......try  many  formulas......time  may not  be  only a clock....check  into  what  physics  calls  a  half life...but  also  wonder  what  produced that  to  get  it  there.....interesting   spell  time  backwards...you get?.....as far  as  travel....or  what  is  backwards  or  forewards......remember  the  guy  who  jumped  out  of  his  bath  and  ran down  the street   yelling    i have  found  it......thats  what  happens to  most  of  us  ...when  we  reach  a degree  of  exploratory  freedom....good  luck...hope  this  helps
360918
time is relative. perhaps you can use this example: two twin brothers which born in the same time, the first one live on the earth and the other one live in the spaceship outside the earth's atmosphere, for a several years. when the second one returns to earth, the age of the twin brother is not the same. the reason? it's relativity, einstein told about this long time ago.
1152446
Well this one is interesting.  Mathematics tell us that to move in time, one must move faster than the speed of light.  There are particles that do move that fast so it is theoretically possible.\n\nWith that having been said, I'll go back to the particles that move faster than light.  These particles cannot be seen or measured in any way that we can figure out but we know that they exist because of the reaction of other things.  ( its like the wind blowing,  you dont see it but trees and stuff react to it )\n\nOne theory suggests that if we do manage to travel back in time,  we wont be able to interact with it at all. ( I dont understand all the mechanics on this one)  But it would be like being an invisible ghost.  You could observe things and events but couldnt make actual physical contact with anything thus you couldnt change events.
138504
not technically in the way we know it. According to Einstein time as the measure of distance in the figurative Universe can be turned back by exceeding a speed of the speed of light squared times the mass of the components at this speed. Read steven Hawking a history of time to learn further on the subject. Time in terms of the chemical equation, namely reactants to products can be reversed by this step. However, in respect to redoing certain moments in life, no. The only force which can do that is God.
1160950
The time machine wouldn't have been effected either way. It stays on it's own plane of existance, that's why, if you'd go back in time, no one but the person who created it would see it.
517973
I think you meant the time cube, not the quantum cube. 4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate inside 4 Time Cube Quarters to create 4 - 24 hour days within one Earth rotation. \n\n"Why not the Time Cube?"\nThe only reason is educated stupidity.
471434
The same time as it was one second ago. The only reason it would change would be if the time was like 8:21:59; one second from that would be 8:22.\n :)
736224
The fact that he took his return trip later just complicates the problem. The question can be restated as one person leaves from the top of the mountain and one person leaves from the bottom of the mountain. They leave at the same time. Explain why, if they follow the same path, they will run into each other each other at some point. Stated this way, it is obvious, right?\n\nIf you want a more rigorous solution, here you go. This is a continuity question. Let f(t) denote the distance *from the bottom of the mountain* at time t on the trip up the mountain and let g(t) denote the distance *from the bottom of the mountain* at time t. Change your units so that your time starts at zero (so 8AM is t=0) and you make it up the mountain in time 1 (so 1PM is t=1) and your distance from the bottom to the top of the mountain is 1. With this set up, g(x) lies in the interval [0,1] for every x in the interval [0,1], and the same holds for f(x). Consider the function g(t)-f(t). The physical interpretation makes it clear that f(t) and g(t), hence g(t)-f(t), are continuous functions of t; that is, you don't just disappear at one point and reappear at another point without having travelled through every point in between. g(0)-f(0)=1-0=1>0 and g(1)-f(1)=g(1)-1<=0. The intermediate value theorem tells you that there is some time t_0 such that g(t_0)-f(t_0)=0. That is, there is some time t_0 such that g(t_0)) = f(t_0). Your deja vu moment happens at time t_0.
515905
I've heard this somewhere.\n\nThere is no answer. This question is just a paradox that collapses upon itself when one tries to understand it ;)
519456
There are some strange solutions to Einsteins field equations which some theorists claim to offer the possibilty to travel backwards in time but these are pure hypothesis.\n\nFor one of these possibilties you would need a huge amount of "strange matter" which we yet even don't know what it is exactly, other of these hyothesis would allow to travel back in time, but not past the invetion of the thime machine, since this time machine is the "exit" on the other side of the "time tunnel".\n\nOther scientists say it will never be possible, for varios reasons, one of the most mentioned is the problem with causality (althogh there are again theories that that would't be a problem) another very funny one is by Stephen Hawking: There never will be time machines, becaus if it would we would see tourists from the future all the time.\n\nSo, seriuosly, don't expect to see a working time machine during your lifetime.
148905
This is called the Grandfather Paradox, if you go back in time and kill your grandfather, then you would not exist, so how could you go back in time and kill your grandfather? This is answered with a radical theory that I can't remember the name of, it states that their are multiple universes, and whenever you go back in time, you jump between universes, allowing you to kill your grandfather without consequence, but also killing off any possibility of ever finding your old universe.
299439
You've confused the statement of the theory. Let two observers be in the same inertial reference frame with two synchronized watches. One observer accelerates in a negligibly small amount of time to some fraction of the speed of light relative to the other observer. The latter observer will be called O1 and the moving observer O2. \nO2 will measure the time in 01's reference frame to be going *slower* than the time in his frame. Likewise, O1 will measure the passage of time in 02's frame to be going *slower* than in 01's frame (the half-life of particles "increases" depending on their speeds). In other words, given two events A and B that always occur t seconds apart in O, they will occur at some separation T > t when measured from O'. The same will occur if O' is switched with O in the sentence above.\nQuestions like this usually come from confusing the relativity of simultaneity. Remember that in relativity, there are no two events that are simultaneous with respect to all inertial frames. \nI recommend you check out the text "Spacetime Physics" by Wheeler et al.
1065560
Anything is possible "if" another impossible thing is found to be possible; so long as the original thing is made possible by the formerly impossible thing.\n\nIn other words, of course time travel is possible so long as other impossible things become possible that would make it possible, such as your catalyst which would open a space and time rift.\n\nTherefore, the real question is not whether time travel is possible, but whether any catalyst does exist that would make it possible.\n\nThanks for the post!
770621
"Planck time". Which I think is around 10^-43 second. It's basically the smallest possible amount of time between two moments. Nothing can occur faster than it.
767389
If you were traveling at such a speed that an hour lasted 60 minutes, then you would be traveling at the same speed which the Earth rotates. That is the spped that we are all traveling at all times, even when we are sitting still.
728817
Time is relative.  It doesn't really exist.  Time is effected by the speed of motion, and is not an object.