Want to break your brain? (Time travel)

[Nev]

Disregarding physics for a second, let's imagine that at some point in the future a time travel machine is invented. It requires 3 MW of energy to use, every time, but it opens a hole in time and space to the past.

So, on May 1st, you purchase 30 MW of energy in some portable form (portable nuclear reactor - hey, it's the future, right?), and decide that on June 1st you will open a hole back to May 1st (i.e., the present) and give yourself all the energy you currently have at that point after using the machine.

If there is only a single timeline, you should end up seeing the version yourself from the future very shortly, bringing you lots of energy, which you will store and then give to the past version of yourself in a month.

How much will you get?

[Julius Seeker]

*Flashbacks to the R=U theory*

[SineSwiper]

This is why the single timeline theory falls flat on its face. I hate the single timeline theory with a passion, but of course, it's very possible that time travel doesn't exist and we are indeed in a single timeline.

Even then, I still don't believe in the single timeline theory. Einstein hinted at a 5th dimension, which I thought had to do with timelines, anyway.

[Nev]

So I'm guessing you guys noted that you'd actually get an "infinite" amount of energy, providing you could find a way to get it through the time travel device...

And if you only give half of the energy back to yourself, you end up with an infinite amount of energy when you return to the future (if you do go back).

(founds Exploiting Causality Energy, Inc.)

[Julius Seeker]

I personally do not believe in the fabric of time at all. I see it as an invention of humanity which stems from the measurement of the length it takes for things to occur. As far as the fabric of time itself goes, I subscribe more towards the idea that we are in no different place than the ancient Babylonians, the Dinosaurs, or even the beginnings of life on Earth. I can see how the idea of the fabric of time could find its place as an accepted theory in human society though. I also can't deny completely that it exists, because there is not really any proof that a fabric of time does not exist either. It's another one of those things that for now is impossible to know.

[Chris]

bah. time travel is nothing. I read enough comic books.

[SineSwiper]

Time travel is very possible. We do it ourselves every day. Stand still and your travelling in one time, and walk and your going slightly faster in time. We've already proven it with the fastest jet losing sync of its atomic clock, compared one on the ground.

Now, travelling backwards is the tricky part.

[Nev]

This is why the single timeline theory falls flat on its face. I hate the single timeline theory with a passion, but of course, it's very possible that time travel doesn't exist and we are indeed in a single timeline.

Even then, I still don't believe in the single timeline theory. Einstein hinted at a 5th dimension, which I thought had to do with timelines, anyway.

There is some evidence within quantum physics to state that "time" doesn't really exist, in a sense. The fundamental forces in physics - gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear - are all time-symmetric, except for the weak nuclear force in rare cases, meaning that an observer can't determine which way time flows by looking at them (except the weak nuclear force, but again, only in rare cases). Some people believe this means that the flow of time is more a result of perception than anything else. It's probability and causality, and the collapse of certain waveforms with respect to a single conscious observer's point of view. People are still trying to figure out how you define a "conscious observer", though, (see under Schrodinger's Cat - I spent a weekend reading quantum physics articles on Wikipedia ), so the whole thing is very up-in-the-air.

[SineSwiper]

Why do some people think that time doesn't exist? Time does exist, in the same sense that the number 1 exists. It's a frame of measurement that sometimes changes in acceleration depending how close the speed of light the object is travelling.

[Nev]

Not quite, Sine...remember that "it's all relative".

Someone traveling close to the speed of light is only moving slowly in time relative to those with different speeds compared to him/her...

Remember that, to the frame of reference of someone traveling "near the speed of light", that individual has no way to tell whether or not he/she is traveling at speed, or if the rest of the universe is traveling at that same speed relative to him/her.

[SineSwiper]

So, time is localized. So what? Time doesn't have to be a universal constant.