http://news.discovery.com/space/time...on-110724.html
So, the Borg aren't coming back for us, but the whales do go extinct.
Printable View
http://news.discovery.com/space/time...on-110724.html
So, the Borg aren't coming back for us, but the whales do go extinct.
What a shame!
That mean we really have no chance against Skynet, doesn't it.
We're all time travelers. It's just that we're only going in one direction.
On the plus side, this means the only possible ancient astronauts were wormhole traveling space aliens. I was rather uncomfortable with the "I am my own technological grandfather" paradox. :D
If wormholes are involved, why would they have to be aliens?
So, time travel is only impossible if there are no wormholes involved?
You're the one who brought up wormholes. If you're hypothesizing their use, why would they have to be used by aliens rather than humans?
Well, the aliens weren't time traveling, just space traveling, which would take far too long going slower than the speed of light, so wormhole travel.
The theory of wormholes is that they'd connect two points in spacetime, so that they could be used to travel through time as well. The research mentioned in that article does nothing to negate the work Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever did in the 1980s to show how time travel with a wormhole might work. The limitation would be that the wormhole could not be used to go back in time to a point earlier than when it was altered so that one of its mouths is accelerated through time at a different rate from the other mouth.
The article is about far more straightforward travel than that.
Alright. Cool. This isn't really something I know all that much about outside of the fi-sci (fictional science) I see in movies and on television.
So very true.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
This is ringing a bell, I think Stephen Baxter used this premise in one or other of his novels. His sci-fi (IIRC) often uses the latest scientific postulations.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
Timelike Infinity. Great read.Quote:
Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí
Of course, the article in the OP merely closes the book on one potential form of time travel. They might as well say they found a mammal and determined it was a mouse, therefore cats are impossible.
Yeah, one of the comments pointed out the tautology: they have proven light cannot exceed the speed of light. It's cool work they're doing, but it's focusing on only one small part of the whole wide range of possibilities out there.
If time travel is going to exist, it's likely to be gravity driven.
I always like the thoery that if you did create a gravitationaltime machine, it would work from that point onwards, but you couldn't go backwards before its creation. But if you encountered it in the future, you could go back to its creation point. Of course, the argument against it, is that if time travel existed, why hasn't anyone come back in time to tel us about it.
I wonder if it would be possible to go forward in time to the next universe and watch it evolve all over again and effectively catch up on yourself as it repeats itself?
Quite so. And remember Arthur C. Clarke: "When a distinguished scientist declares that something is possible, he is very likely right. When he declares that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong."Quote:
Originally posted by AllWalker
It's an amusing point, although not quite a proper tautology. The "speed of light" measured against isn't the speed of light, but the constant c. And as it happens, photons (i.e. light) do travel at this speed normally. There's occasionally a bit of playing fast and loose in the other direction, when reports talk about light being "slowed down" to a certain speed in some materials.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul