Slashdot Mirror
No Time Travel, Sorry
MOBE2001 writes "The bad news is that time does not change. Spatial velocity is given as dx/dt. Velocity in time(dt/dt) is nonsensical. As simple as that. In other words, no time travel to the past or the future, no motion in space-time, no wormholes and no hanky-panky with your great, great grandmother. There is only the changing present, aka the NOW. The good news is that distance is an illusion and we'll be able to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere."
That's weird because I could have sworn when I went to bed last night it was yesterday and now its today.
Nevertheless...this is fun. Looking at the equation from which all his arguments flow, it seems he is only demonstrating that it doesn't make sense to talk about one's velocity through time. I would agree. If I hop in my time machine and zip off to tomorrow, it doesn't make much sense for you to ask how long it took to get there. Or if you and I both have time machines and we decided to race to 1:00 pm tomorrow it would be always be a tie. But this is a far stretch from demonstrating that it is impossible. By this same logic we could define slope as the change in x over y or s = dx/dy. Does this definition make it impossible to move along the y axis because then the slope of our movement would be dy/dy? No. but it does say that if you move along the y axis your slope will be a constant.
But in all my readings, I have learned one thing about physics. Nothing is "as simple as that".
I'm sorry, but if you're going to put up a web page in which you call all the foremost theoretical physicsts in the world frauds, then you'd better have more evidence than some undergraduate-level pseudo-calculus and verbal smoke screens.
The t-axis or time-axis velocity component is 1, a dimensionless number. Now there are relativists who will insist that it is perfectly acceptable to express velocity in time with a dimensionless number but the rest of us with our head on our shoulders, know that it is not true. We know that a dimensionless number such as 1 has absolutely no meaning in as far as expressing velocity.
Not true. Normalized velocities are perfectly reasonable things to express. Mach 1.25 is a perfectly well-defined speed that does not violate any laws of physics, and what do you know--it's a dimensionless number.
I'm sorry, but this page is really quite embarassing for the author's parents and any physics teacher's they've ever had. This sort of reminds me of people that read things like A Brief History of Time, a perfectly excellent book, and then try to tell me that the physics is really great and it would be so much better unencumbered by the mathematics.
I don't think real time travel, a-la Dr. Who is physically possible. But the "arguments" on this web page don't really make sense, much less prove all those physics wrong.
Craig Steffen
Ph.D. Physics, Indiana Unversity, 2001
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Spatial velocity is given as dx/dt. Velocity in time(dt/dt) is nonsensical.
That would be a lovely argument if changes in position were measured in velocity.
You describe spacial travel as the dx, not the dx/dt. It stands to reason that you would describe time travel with the dt, not as some rate of travel we haven't come up with yet.
Then again, maybe I should just "laugh, it's funny"...
If "time travel" just means the usual physics definition of "tracing a trajectory backward" then of course you can regard it as happening all the time. Positrons (anti-electrons) can easily be regarded as electrons traveling "backwards" in time, so that a positron-electron annihilation event is nothing more than an electron traveling "forward" in time, then reversing itself and traveling "backward" in time. Obviously we (traveling steadily forward in time) see two particles with opposite properties converge and disappear. Whoopee.
However, I think what most people mean by "time travel" is something different, a causality loop. That is, they mean you do something (which they call "time travel") and this something lets you become your own grandpa, or influence the outcome of the Civil War, and so forth. Since, of course, those things influence the you that's influencing them (otherwise the story is not interesting), this makes a nice little loop of cause and effect: you influence x which influences you who influences x, and around and around.
Whether or not the physics of the universe allows such a thing, I can't see any obvious reason why it would cause big problems -- or even be interesting. Certainly it could not manifest itself the way it's shown in the movies, in which you see the loop first one way (Marty McFly's parents marry and produce him), and then another way (Marty's parents fail to marry, because McFly travels back in time and interferes with their meeting). That's logically impossible. If the loop exists at all, it must have one unchanging form.
That is, if Marty McFly does go "back in time" he obviously can't (or rather doesn't) prevent his parents from marrying and having him, because they actually did. Whatever he does "back in time" is already part of history. His "changes" already exist, and have always existed. Indeed, they can't even logically be regarded as "changes" because nothing really changed. Although...it's possible McFly, with his imperfect knowledge of the past, could have assumed something about the past was different than it actually was (e.g. he thought his parents met at the dance, instead of afterward, when some strangely-dressed clown introduced them). Therefore, when he "changes" history (by interfering with his parents meeting during the dance, and then "fixing" things up by introducing them afterward), he might be under the illusion that he is really "changing" history instead of simply causing it to happen as it actually did.
I suppose we could now argue about whether Marty's sense of free will (as well as our own) is therefore just a big fat self-delusion, but, ugh, not before a pint or two.
_Special_Relativity_ says that two observers moving past each other in unaccelerated reference frames will each perceive that the other's clocks are running more slowly. The observations are consistent. To get the two observers into the same reference frame, one or both of them would have to accelerate, and general relativity conveniently works it so that the paradox vanishes.
In the actual example, one observer is remaining stationary, while the other is accellerating to high velocity, then accelerating to change velocity ("around the solar system") and then presumably accelerating a third time to return to the original reference frame. All three accellerations, plus travelling at high velocity relative to the rest frame, will cause the traveller's clock to run more slowly, as observed by someone in the rest frame.
Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is saying is that, if an object moves over any distance d x, there is an elapsed time d t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change (evolution), the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential. The self-reference comes from having to divide dt by itself. dt/dt always equals 1 because the units cancel out. This is of course meaningless as far as velocity is concerned.
Does the impossibility of motion in spacetime invalidate Einstein's relativity? The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events. If one chooses the former, one is obviously a crackpot or a fraud, or both. If one chooses the latter, then general relativity is to be seen as a mere math trick: the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it.
This guy seems like an idiot to me. If you make the step to say that this is a mathematical construct that best describes our limited understanding of reality, which I believe to be true, you'll never be able to describe OR refute a more complete understanding of reality using that construct. You often need to discard and rethink the original concept or adapt it for it to improve. None of our knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is fully and completely right. Not one bit, it's just the best abstract model we've got. Everything we know will eventually be demonstrated to be incomplete, inconsistent or wrong. Which means you can't use any existing models to refute a new one. You can use them as a guide, you can say that the old and the new are inconsistent, but to refute them you need to go to the real world.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth