Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?Page 4 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Oxymoron,
Jumbo shrimp is an example
Jumbo means large
Shrimp means small
The words are opposite.

The whole point of using the black hole for time travel, based on the video was because of it's intense gravity, which is because if it's intense mass??
If we made a mini-one, it would have mini-mass and mini-gravity and thus not be a black hole... am I wrong?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 77
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:02:56 PM
If you "have" to assume something then it is a house of cards built on assumptions, not actual "knowledge"

You're being contrary for the sake of being contrary. That kind of crap may pass for thinking at new age parties filled with people who find science too hard to think about, but it's crap.

Pretty much all "observations" pertaining to gravity would work just as well whether it was a force exuded by an object or a flow of particles TO an object proportionate to its size

No, it wouldn't. and you actually have no idea what you are talking about. From the viewpoint of general relativity, gravity is NOT a force, so you can eliminate the notion that it is. As far as quantizing it into particles, well, one can quantize almost anything, but since the resulting theory in this case is non-renormalizable, there is no renormalizable quantum theory known and there is no particle theory of gravity much less the simplistic one you suggest. On the other hand, should a quantum theory of gravity be found, your notion of a particle will need more drastic revision than it already does, since the graviton would literally be a particle of spacetime geometry.


Infact to some extent the behaviour of light near the event horizon of a black hole would be better explained with the later and would make sense without also then having to assume "space and/or time" needs to be bent

Feel free to demonstrate that in detail, but first I should explain something about black holes. The theory which predicts the existence of a black hole and which describes how it would be evident in astronomical observations is general relativity. So, as soon as you discard spacetime curvature as the description of a black hole, you have to invent a new theory that predicts black holes with exactly the same properties general relativity does, since observations of objects with those properties are the only evidence we have for the existence of a black hole.
Could you define the horizon without referring to any result derived from general relativity? I'd really like to see how you'll pull that off, especially with fewer assumptions. You're already assuming the existence of a black hole because general reltivity tells you what they are, so it would be sophistry to backpeddle and try to claim spacetime curvature is irrelevant.

Surely the size of the matter at the heart of a black hole can vary in size,

There is no matter in a black hole. If there was, it wouldn't be a black hole.
 Cdnguy81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/16/2011 9:15:38 PM
I'm not really an expert on this subject but I'll chime in with some of my own thoughts. It seems to me that time travel isn't possible, firstly because in order to 'time travel' you'll need to be able to define time.

How do you define time? What is a second, a day, a year and so forth? We've calculated those instances using astronomical phenomenon. A year is the amount of time that planet earth makes one revolution around the sun. A day is the amount of time it takes for the planet earth to rotate 360 degrees.

Suppose that we invented a spaceship that was powerful enough that we could travel beyond the solar system. You no longer have planet earth is a measuring stick to define 'time' anymore. So, what becomes a day or year without having Earth as your measuring stick?

You're going to need to tell a 'time machine' what 'year' to go or define a point in time to visit, but if there's no way to define time, then how do you do that? It might be the year 2011 on Earth, but what about if there is a planet with life in the Andromeda galaxy, who says they measure time the same way? What if I want to go to that planet' s beginning and witness how life started there, what time am I telling the machine to take me to? Am I using earth time or planet x' s time?

Also, when people are saying, faster then light velocity is key to time travel, that' s not true time travelling to me. This is equivalent to me taking a flight from Toronto, Canada (where I'm from) to Los Angeles, which is 3 hours behind. Have I really time travelled?

I've gained 3 hours yes, but I haven' t visited the past per say. It' s not like I can tell people from L.A. what just happened 3 hours from now, because I haven' t time travelled.

If you are travelling at the speed of light or faster to Alpha Centauri and return back to planet earth, time would have slowed down for you but you' re the only one affected. Time will slow down when you' re going really fast but resume when you' ve stopped.

To go back in time you' d essentially have to freeze time for the entire universe.
 Bishopboat
Joined: 9/3/2010
Msg: 79
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/18/2011 7:07:15 AM
Time travels already been done. Using a SR-71 blackbird and two atomic clocks made from the same isotope.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/18/2011 10:07:03 AM

You're going to need to tell a 'time machine' what 'year' to go or define a point in time to visit


I really cant get what youre saying with most of the bit about time needing to be "universal"

How WE measure time is relative to the cycles of our planet. If we colonised another planet chances are we would still use seconds, minutes and hours, but years, months and days would be different legnths

For "programming" a time machine it wouldnt need to "understand" time the same way as a ruler cant "understand" distance and a volume control doesnt understand decibels theyre just calibrated to what we choose to calibrate them too

What you would effectively program into a time machine is how many seconds, minutes or hours you want to go back by. The fact that in TV programs people enter the date doesnt mean time machines need to understand the concept in the same way the autopilot on a plan cant understand altitude, distance or speed. The autopilot itself can ONLY understand zeros and ones because its a digital computer


To go back in time you' d essentially have to freeze time for the entire universe


The rest of the universe would just carry on as normal, same as it would if you were travelling at light speed or faster rather than being "slowed down"

I have to admit I found that notion to be quite silly

Imagine if someone went back in time and died what then?

Would the entire universe be left on "pause" for eternity?

 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/18/2011 10:43:16 AM

There is no matter in a black hole. If there was, it wouldn't be a black hole


So what is the stellar mass that has collapsed when a sun has gone super nova made out of then if not "matter"?

Its unlikely that this happens ONLY with suns of an exact and specific size, so the size of the "matter" at its core causing the gravitational anomalies would therefore be different too


Feel free to demonstrate that in detail, but first I should explain something about black holes. The theory which predicts the existence of a black hole and which describes how it would be evident in astronomical observations is general relativity. So, as soon as you discard spacetime curvature as the description of a black hole, you have to invent a new theory that predicts black holes with exactly the same properties general relativity does, since observations of objects with those properties are the only evidence we have for the existence of a black hole.


If the force of gravity was caused by the flow of super teeny miniscule particles towards matter with the flow of those particles increasing dependant on the amount of matter grouped together you would have in effect a tidal type flow

As the core of a black hole is a much higher density of matter than found elsewhere the propensity for those particles to flow towards it would be higher than towards less compressed and therefore less dense matter

The best way I could describe it is using water as an analogy

Imagine making a robotic swimmer, the robot swims at a fixed rate in a straight line and cant do anything else.

So put it in a swimming pool and you have it going at its normal speed from one end to the other

Put it in a river though trying to swim from one side to the other and although the robot is still effectively swimming at the same speed and still in a "fixed" direction (because thats all it can do) relatively speaking it is not only travelling more slowly across the river but will also be moving in what appears to be an arc because of the effect of the tidal cross currents

Space nor time would need to be "warped" because all that is actually causing the effect and the relative slowing and deflecting of photos would be the way theyre interacting with the exponentially increased levels of gravitons flowing towards the incredibly dense concentrations of matter at the core of the black hole

Maybe rather than super teeny minscule something slightly out of phase with normal matter might be better, but sticking with the super teeny miniscule thing for a moment.

A planet being quite a large collection of matter obviously wouldnt attract quite as many of those particles as a black hole, but those particles is super duper tiny would pass through most forms of matter similar to how radiation does

But also like radiation some would impact and lodge. A bit like how a parachute works with air particles forcing the parachute to offer resistance

So those countless "impacts" or even something along the lines of "drag" caused by passing through lesser densities of matter towards the much greater mass of the earths core would be the force that holds us to the surface of the planet but by forcing us down onto it rather us being "pulled" down by the mass itself as in that idea the mass would be effectively inert, but simply in effect a kind of plug hole that the gravitons (water) is naturally predisposed to run towards

The other way to increase "mass" with that model would also be to rush matter through space therefore increasing the amount of gravitons it would encounter. Which would have the effect of an object "seeming" heavier the faster its going similar to the relationship with magnetic flux lines generating more current in a generator the more quickly it spins

I wouldnt expect that to fit in pefectly with "accepted" theories, and arent claiming its the "actual truth" btw

Simply that it "would" be a way to explain how photons behave differently near a black hole without needing to assume that space and time are being "warped"

But as daft and abstract as it might be when put alongside what is thought to be the way things work I still kind of like it as a possible alternative train of thought nonetheless and would probably be able to make it sound far more "scientific" if I was a physicist and could probably even wangle it so it DID fit in with some of the existing theories

The only reason I stated from the point of assuming that the gravitons would be immensely miniscule was because then they would be able to affect orbits of electrons as much as they would be able to affect the orbit of a moon around a planet which rather than being "scientific" I just thought was kind of "cute" and would give a sort of consistency from a subatomic level all the way up to a planetary one

Working from my (obviously) limited scientific vantage point though I was struggling with how to make the water staying in a spinning bucket fit as someone appearing to be in zero G during freefall inside an airplane

Although I did manage to suss the bucket one though I didnt have time to come up with an idea about the zero G freefall but give me time haha

Dons tin helmet and kevlar vest whilst retiring to the bombproof bunker



 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 82
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/22/2011 10:21:50 AM

So what is the stellar mass that has collapsed when a sun has gone super nova made out of then if not "matter"?

How could you claim to know anything about black holes without knowing what happens to matter that crosses the horizon?

If the force of gravity was caused by the flow of super teeny miniscule particles towards matter with the flow of those particles increasing dependant on the amount of matter grouped together you would have in effect a tidal type flow

That's called the LaSage theory of gravity, it cannot work and that has been known for more than a century. You can find lots of information that explains in detail why it cannot work.

The best way I could describe it is using water as an analogy

Skip the analogies and just post the mathematical details.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/22/2011 11:24:34 AM
The maths would be exactly the same

The only difference being that the gravitational waves, flow of gravitons or whatever actually causes gravity would be flowing TO the mass rather than being generated by it

Rather then whatever symbol is used to denote gravitational force or influence being the measurement of its radiance from an object it would simply be a measurement of its flowing towards it

If electrons had been origionally thought to flow from + to - none of the maths would have changed when it was discovered they travelled in the opposite direction and none of the other physics like how much current a wire could carry etc would have changed simply because the direction of flow was altered


I did just think of a question though

If you jump off a building high enough to reach maximum freefall velocity compared to jumping off one 5 times taller would you accelerate more quickly in one scenario compared to the other if both were a vaccum or the air density was equal?

At a guess I would think where all else was equal you might accelerate more quickly from the lower perch but curious what the actual answer would be
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 84
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/22/2011 4:27:20 PM
cdnguy81- I agree.
I think if you could travel in time at all it would only be forward in time.
Even then, I believe that you could only travel forward in small increments.
Also, I don't think the time it would take to travel forward could be equal to the amount of time that would pass in the time you left.
What I mean is the amount of time it would take to obtain proper speed, verses the challenge of matching it with "real time".
You make a good point, how would you go forward to something that hasn't happened yet?
Like I said before, time travel is an interesting concept, but I don't think it's possible.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 85
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/22/2011 11:48:26 PM
The maths would be exactly the same

If that's the case, then it should be straight forward to state your starting assumptions in mathematical terms and prove the equivalence formally. You can try if you wish, but I'll save you some time and just tell you that it hasn't ever been done. Quantizing general relativity to get gravitons produces a particle theory which is unrenormalizable, so there is no particle theory of gravity. If you had one that even reduced to general relativity in the appropriate limit, you'd be collecting a Nobel Prize.

[quote class="quote">The only difference being that the gravitational waves, flow of gravitons or whatever actually causes gravity would be flowing TO the mass rather than being generated by it
Tht is called the LeSage theory of gravity. It didn't work when it was proposed and it's been known for more than a century that it can't work to give Newtonian gravity, much less general relativity. You can plenty of references for it that demonstrate how spectacularly it fails.

If electrons had been origionally thought to flow from + to - none of the maths would have changed when it was discovered they travelled in the opposite direction

Althugh that isn't actually relevant, yes, it would have mattered. ``Electrons'' that flow in the opposite direction in an electric field are positrons and it makes quite a difference whether what we observe flowing is matter or antimatter.

If you jump off a building high enough to reach maximum freefall velocity compared to jumping off one 5 times taller would you accelerate more quickly in one scenario compared to the other if both were a vaccum or the air density was equal?

In Newtonian theory, gravity is a force, so the force on a mass m due to the eath's mass, M, a distance r from the center of the earth, with r > R, where R is the earth's radius, is given by:

F = ma = GMm/r^2
or
a = GM/r^2

The accelration due to gravity therefore decreses the further away from the earth you are. In general relativity, gravity is not a force, so the general relativistic way of looking at this is quite different. However, by using the Schwarzschild metric and finding the radial geodesics, you get the same result, with a slightly different interpretation.

however high it is the effect of gravity on your acceleration rate is the same mainly becuase it is a constant.

It's only constant in the approximation that the gravitational field doesn't vary over distances that are small compared to the radius of the earth. In particular, h is some distance avove the earth's surface, if r is a distance from the center of the earth to some point above the earth and R is the radius of the earth, then,

r = R + h and the result derived previously is,

a = GM/(R+h)^2

The quantity 1/(R + h)^2 may be rewritten as:

1/(R + h)^2 = (1/R^2) (1/(1 + x)^2)

where x = h/R. Expanding 1/(1+x)^2 in a binomial series gives:

1/(1+x)^2 = 1 + (-2)x + (-2)(-3) x^2/2! + ... = 1 - 2x + 3x^2 + ...

So that the complete result obtained by plugging everthing back in is:

a = GM/(R+h)^2 = (2GM/R^2) (1 - 2h/R + 3(h/R)^2 + ...)

For distances h that are small compared to the radius of the earth, all of the terms on the right containing h/R are very small and can be neglected to give the approximation:

a = GM/R

If you plug in the constant G, the mass of the earth and the radius of the earth, you get

a = 9.821 m/sec^2

the value usually quoted for the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface. If you go some height h above the earth's surface, say 5 miles, then the value 9.821 m/sec^2 is only off by a couple hundreths of a percent, so for most applications close to the earth's surface, the acceleration due to gravity can be taken to be constant.


 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:00:52 AM

Althugh that isn't actually relevant, yes, it would have mattered. ``Electrons'' that flow in the opposite direction in an electric field are positrons and it makes quite a difference whether what we observe flowing is matter or antimatter.


P=VI
V=IR
I=V/R
R=V/I

The direction of current flow is totally irrelevant for all of those

And whether people had thought current flow was from + to - OR from - to + the maths would be identical

The only relevance is how it interacts along the way

So with the gravity thing gravity like flux magentism is a noticed effect that alters with density. So the relevance is the flux density and how it interacts, and whether a field flows in one direction or the other would for many purposes be irrelevant but the interaction would be the same whether it flowed from the earth or towards it

But cheers for the lasage thing, I'll do a bit of googling about that over the weekend
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 87
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/23/2011 11:52:44 AM
P=VI
V=IR
I=V/R
R=V/I

Those are irrelevant. What matters is he current density j, which s a vector (or 4-vector in relativity). Hint: Look up the Hall effect, which was how people figured out the sign of the charge carriers.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:10:46 PM

well yes you are correct but given he guessed the one with the lowest potential energy was the one most likely to travel faster [why would anyone think this ?] I thought it best to keep it simple


Lowest "potential energy" but its closer to the gravitational mass

So unless someone a couple of miles into space would accellerate more quickly than someone 100 feet from the earths surface I would say the lower perch (which I said) would be more affected by gravity


Obvioulsy he agrees now hence why he made absolutely no mention of my post

At a guess I would think where all else was equal you might accelerate more quickly from the lower perch
So obviously I guessed correctly, but you were so busy being patronising that you read what you expected to read rather than what was actually written

MSG106

At a guess I would think where all else was equal you might accelerate more quickly from the lower perch


MSG109

The accelration due to gravity therefore decreses the further away from the earth you are
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 89
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 6:55:31 AM
As a long time aficionado of science fiction, I have read a plethora of time travel tales. IF time travel were possible, the opportunities to travel would be highly limited--how would ancient Egypt "suddenly" cope with an influx of tourists from the future?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 7:35:10 AM
Actually they dont seem to cope very well with tourists now so in ancient times it would be even worse and you'd probably need biohazard suits just to take a dump. although many people would claim thats also needed now too
 Karie58
Joined: 12/24/2008
Msg: 91
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 1:00:22 PM
Time travel... Psycic phanomonon.
There is a part of the human that can and does visit the future and or past.
Perhaps not in a physical state. That does seem to be the ultamit road block here.
Matter...Finding destiny.
One needs to have first been in contact in one way or another to re travel it.
The same way a ghost re enters the world he once lived in. Or a psycic leaps into it's future. One needs to touch it to attain it. Now of course a ghost has no body so how exactly does it touch? But it does. How exactly does a ghost hold it's momentum?
It doesn't. That is why the need for an INSTINTANEOUS transformation.
How else would one get from here to there in time?
Borrowing... no body knows.
Leave your body behind? Not unless you wish to be a ghost.
But what if you had a body waiting for you on the other end?
A blanky sort of body. Not one that is really being used very much.
You know the type... asks no questions, follows blindly, does all that is expected of him, sleeping his life away.
Going through the motions but... who's driving anyway?
Eventually they would be gone and a new personality emerges.
As if being born again,
Would you like to be a donner?
Many alien life forms are waiting for donners.
We can't leave home without it.
Time travel??? ..... Get out a town! No such thin as alien.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 1:12:25 PM
The whole ghost thing is a bit silly really

Especially the ones that walk through walls but dont fall through the floor
 Karie58
Joined: 12/24/2008
Msg: 93
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 3:07:27 PM
Point is, there is a part of you that CAN time travel.
You just can't take your body with you.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 4:15:27 PM
And the imagination is also a very vivid and wonderful thing

I've yet to see an independantly verified test that has proven anything of this ilk. Even the much tamer "past life" type claims tend to be ridiculously vague

I personally think is more feasible is that if everything in existence is governed by physical laws then realistically the ONLY possiblity would be pre determinism I.E. everything that has happened, is happening and will happen are the ONLY things that could have, can or could happen

So rather than "travelling" through time, it would be more likely someone just sees the flow of the pattern of the universe either in a forward or backwards direction, like some variation on autism

They wouldnt actually be "travelling" just extrapolating which isnt the same thing
 Karie58
Joined: 12/24/2008
Msg: 95
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 4:42:42 PM
Then how do you explain that they know what is going to happen before it happens?
They feel what they will feel before they experience it.
they see what they will see.
There must be some part of the being going forward ahead of time to know this.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/24/2011 6:59:44 PM
It depends on whether you think everything is related is governed by one or more physical/scientific laws or that theres a "supernatural" element in the universe outside of science really

Personally I believe the former, that although we are probably only aware of a few of the laws governing the universe that everything, even stuff we cant begin to explain or understand yet is just science

So with that in mind theres no such thing as "chance" or even free choice. because every thought, every action, every occurence is governed by the laws of nature/science of the forces that are involved

So the things youre talking about would be somebody whos brain for whatever reason has a glimpse of how a pattern will work out or the pattern that went before

Some autistic kids look at a piece of paper with as an example 1213 dots on it and to them its as clear as if the number was written to the rest of us. But everyone else would need to actually count the dots one by one

So they for whatever reason see the paper in a totally different way to us or process what they see differently

This could just be a similar type of thing pertaining to a different type of pattern recognition
 Karie58
Joined: 12/24/2008
Msg: 97
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/25/2011 10:14:33 AM
OK, then we are all part of a pattern projected in time.
(If everything were predestined then time would be mearly a way of marking what has, is, and will happen. Time is only like a clock or calendar.)
Why not use that info to time travel?
If i wanted to get from time pattern point A to time pattern point B,
I would simply touch A to B and transfer what?... what is the word? life substance?
(So hung up on matterial things) You do not believe there is anything beyond the material world? You do not believe there is anything running your brain? Can you see what is running your brain? Is it mearly bells and whisltes, lights and signals responding to input? Are you saying you are mearly a computer that was programmed by simply gathering info like a machine? There is nobody inside with intellegence? Can you see who runs your brain? Are y0u a strictly a material being?
Yes, I am saying that perhaps there is some truth in this autistic, phycic, different perspective, that may lead to real time travel. If a mind can jump the gap. How does it do it? Even if it only sees and jumps projected patterns. If life is predestined then it is jumping time. A phycic autistic may be a genious in time travel. Perhaps the part of the human that matters most of all is not seen in a material world. Who's driving your brain?
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 98
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/25/2011 11:36:22 AM

Point is, there is a part of you that CAN time travel.
You just can't take your body with you.


No, you can't.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 11/25/2011 12:47:36 PM

If you jump off a building high enough to reach maximum freefall velocity compared to jumping off one 5 times taller would you accelerate more quickly in one scenario compared to the other if both were a vaccum or the air density was equal?

You have moved the goal posts to save face. They would only be at 500 ft or x5 above the lower perch. I did simplify it for you as you seem to struggle with complex information


I didnt "move" any goal posts

I said the "lower" perch which was correct, but rather than correct your comment saying that was wrong you obfuscate as usual

The "in space" comment was in addition to the origional example and not in place of it

The initial commens still remain as

MSG106



At a guess I would think where all else was equal you might accelerate more quickly from the lower perch


MSG107

Most people [ who get it wrong] think the higher perch is faster [I have no idea why you think the lower one is tbh]. as it has more potential energy than the lower one. Which is true but it does not accelerate faster due to this.
PS if you hold a 30 kg weight at either height it is still not faster


And from abelians post he doesnt from what I can see say the speed "is" constant, but that the difference is so small its "classed" as being constant

My point and the reason for choosing the lower perch is that the potential energy would factor into the kinetics rather than the freefall acceleration. That would be dependand on the gravitational force which starts off strongest near the mass and gradually declines the further away you get, So higher = slower

Whether its a negligible difference or not doesnt make selecting the correct one of the two as "stupid", but being as partonising as youre being does tend to do that quite effectively
 bilby886
Joined: 7/19/2007
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/3/2012 11:16:52 AM
yes if we are talking about atomic or sub atomic particle and a few microseconds or whatever.

If you are talking about HG Wells time machine then the answer is no .
Why?
firstly given it is possible then we must assume it will be inevitable in some point of the future history of intelligent lifeforms in this universe.

because by now (our now) someone from the future would have already come back to our now or history and if altering something, which is inevitable, would cause a tear in time i.e. that which is at time the time traveller comes from may not exist. - time paradox

example
***
***in the future a time machine is made
one of our decendants from the future travels to 1901
while there he accidently or purposely obliterates the sun.
we dont get to exist
the time machine is never made
he doesn't get to exist
thus he doesn't travel back in time
doesn't obliterate the sun
we get to exist
go to ***

even as we speak we may be in the middle of above cycle.
It may very well be that "god does not play dice"
but also : The universe doesn't play silly buggers!
or my name is Slarty Bardfast and I make Fjords

Given even if you travelled a few milliseconds you will not be in the same spacial co-ordinates anyway and out of synch

If you wanted to see a living dinosaur you would have to travel in time and space!
planets orbit suns, suns orbit galaxy centers and influences by other gravitational forces, galaxies move inside the universe

no time travel is not possible for us, and time travel for quarks and whatnot is still conjecture.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?