/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6341220
Time travel to future is real and many astronauts and cosmonauts have done it.

Time travel to past is impossible since it violates a large number of physical laws.

Holy shit, that chick is sexy.

>>6341235
What laws does it violate?

the government has been time travelling since the 70s. Google "project pegasus". There is a truth movement around it.

>>6341235
>Time travel to past is impossible since it violates a large number of physical laws.

not entirely impossible, it would just only be possible to go back as far as the time machine in question has existed

With enough power you could 'reverse' time in isolated areas

>>6341235
>>6341243

ITT: nerds telling me time travel is impossible but whenever I ask, they can't explain why.

I always imagined it to be impossible to go to the past, because with unlimited time that would make unlimited chances to travel to the past. Since I haven't seen unlimited amounts of people come back from the future I don't see any evidence of it being possible. I only ended up in this thread from the 4chans main page though, so I am not that great at science.

>>6341260
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

>>6341276
I bet you believe the sky should be completely white at night too

okay here's what i understand

when you think of time you think of this

----------------------when you were born-------now

with the ---- indicating the line of time.

now time isn't a linear event, it's just quantum change. it's just a bunch of particles moving around and constantly rearranging along a sort of latticework of 'time', but if you move faster than another object, your particles are changing relatively slower than theirs, so when you get back they've aged more than you, so you have in essence 'traveled forward in time'

But because time isn't quite a linear event, this means that it is impossible to actually 'go back in time' because there is no actual 'back in time'. The only way you can reverse events is to completely take control of all known quantum material and reverse its direction until you've basically reconstructed the past event.

>>6341220
Einstein's field equations do have solutions with closed timelike curves, see for example Gödel's solution, from 1949:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric
However, nothing has yet been observed which suggests that the universe is such a solution, i.e, our universe does not have closed timelike curves, so time travel is impossible in our universe.

>>6341220
do you have mathematical proof that time travel is possible?

>>6341281
This.

Do you have enough energy to reverse all the particles in the universe?

>>6341330
Well duh, we can use the unused energy of the past

Time travel into past doesn't even make sense from the logical point of view.

Suppose you did have a time machine right now, and you could step into it and travel back to some earlier time. Your actions in that time might then prevent your grandparents from ever having met one another. This would make you not born, and thus not step into the time machine. So, the claim that there could be a time machine is self-contradictory.

>>6341339

no, the past is the present is the future. there is no past nor is there a future, just a bunch of particles moving around and rearranging.

>>6341342
Your action could also cause your grand parents to meet

>>6341344
Due to conservation of energy we won't require more than the energy available

>>6341349

because there will only ever be the energy 'available'.

>>6341351
Exactly, so time travel is possible

>>6341347
>Your action could also cause your grand parents to meet

and you also could change nothing. but the very fact that you could violate and prevent the timeline contradicts the statement.

pic related to greentext.

>>6341365

there is no such thing as a practical 'timeline' except one that exists on paper. It's all just bullshit

>>6341356

yes if you can rearrange the entire universe on a quantum level, it is possible.
>>6341281

>>6341371
that's because time travel to past isn't possible.

>>6341260
Many people have given you the right information. You are just too stupid to understand it.

It's not currently known to be impossible despite efforts to find such a law. To know for certain we'll need a complete theory of quantum gravity. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_protection_conjecture

I don't think we understand enough about time to say that we can or can't travel backwards. Obviously, like others have said, people can/have traveled to the future because of time dilation. Going to the past requires somehow obtaining information that's been deleted. It doesn't sound possible, but like I said. I don't think we can know that until we learn more about time.

Travelling back in time would mean the second law of thermodynamics is invalid. You could make a temporal heat engine that would run forever with a feedback loop.

So, it's impossible unless you have suggestions for revising the second law.

>>6341529
Let's say you were to make a time machine to physically move everyone to the past or future. Let's think about what we would need. For this example, let's use cosmic string theory and wormhole theory. A cosmic string is a string-shaped "crevice" which has an extreme mass. You can think of the crevice as something the same width as an elementary particle and at least the length of a galaxy.

It has immense mass, giving it the property of space-time distortion. If you were to travel through that distortion, you could make a full rotation around the string in less than 360 degrees. In short, you can do something resembling a warp. This is called a space-time angular deficit. When you pass through an area of angular deficit, transit time becomes zero. By applying this, once the cosmic string moves approaching light speed, according to the theory of relativity, time will flow slower for the cosmic string in relation to its surroundings. Therefore, passing through the distorted area of angular deficit would cause the zero transit time to become negative. In other words, it will be the "past" after transit.

So if you use two cosmic strings, you can do a space deficit jump. If you revolve back to your original location, you can return to the same time you started revolving. Also, so nobody misunderstands, cosmic string theory is different from superstring theory. With that out of the way, you need three things in order to travel to the past with cosmic string theory.

1. Cosmic strings. Two are necessary. (they are hypothesized to exist only where the universe was first formed, gl lol)

2. You need the energy to make them move at near light speed.

3. A spaceship able to go all the way to the cosmic strings. The time traveler must be on board.

>>6341544
There are two holes ties together by a tunnel. Transit time through the tunnel is zero. No matter how far away the second hole is. But there is a catch, the tunnel suffers from super gravity, and collapses as soon as it opens. Which is why we need something to negate the effect of gravity. The so called "exotic matter". It's a substance with negative mass, which repels gravity.

The wormhole tunnel is all squished and squashed like if you made a fist. In order to pass through, you need something inside my hand to oppose the "grasping force" so that I cannot squish anymore. If you stabalize a wormhole with exotic matter injection, teleportation becomes possible. For example, let's say there's a wormhole entrance in your room to whatever town a few towns over. Now imagine the hole in the town a few towns over goes all the way to the end of the universe at near light speed and once it reaches the end, it immediately pulls back to your room. According to the theory of relativity, time slows down for objects moving at the speed of light. Meaning the hole that returned to your room would be further in the past than the hole a couple towns over.

The prerequisites for wormhole theory are simpler than the ones for cosmic string theory.

1 The wormhole itself. They may exist somewhere int he universe, but nobody has seen one.

2. The energy required to move a wormhole to the end of the universe and back near light speed.

3. Exotic matter, which, by the way, has not been confirmed to exist.

>>6341545
Time travel to the future is available to us right now, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, that is.

For example, let's say someone were to go to an airport and board a plane to another airport. Upon arrival, that person would be about 1 hundred millionth of a second further in the future than you. Time moves slower for objects as they approach the speed of light. That is, according to the theory of relativity.

For an extreme example, if someone were able to run at the same speed as light, then time would move half as fast for him. If he were to keep running at that speed for 24 hours, 48 hours would elapse in his surroundings, meaning he would leap one whole day into the future.

Going to the past is even possible right now. Take a look at the sky by telescope at night. You can see light from tens of thousands of years ago, can't you?

This is all sophism though.

this.

>>6341253
i've never even thought of that. i wonder if thats what would actually happen.

>>6341562
> no preferential reference frames

>>6341562
this. Always thought this.

>>6341562
You'd probably be outside the Milkyway if this were the case, not just outside Earth.

>>6341548
>Time travel to the future is available to us right now
I travel to the future every day

>>6341562
>implying absolute space

>>6341598
>>6341615
>>6341562
motion is always measured with respect to a reference frame

>>6341622

Yeah, but we've never dealt with a true absolute position. And we don't know how time travel works. Who knows, maybe it is the absolute position at the absolute time.

>>6341625
wat

>>6341279
Do you even know the difference between SR and GR?

>>6341315
>argument from ignorance

>>6341318
>shifting the burden of proof

>>6341412
No proof has been posted. I don't see any math ITT, only uneducated pop sci drivel.

>>6341728
>i wanna travel back in tiem ;( plz dont disproof my daydreme fantasiez

>>6341740
OP asked a question related to general relativity. If GR is too hard for you, then stay on /pol/, fuckface, and don't pollute our science board with your imbecility.

>>6341748
So OP belongs on /pol/?

How the fuck would something be able to reverse time of the ENTIRE universe?

>>6341276
Time is limited.

>>6341548
Then are photons and light are really twice as far away?

>>6341235
as far as i know almost everything in physics works backwards in time aswell!

...and then there is entropy.

>>6341351
yeah, but have you ever heard of energy conversion efficiency being lower than 1 at all times?

>>6341772
When you move from one place to another, do you think you're changing the position of the ENTIRE universe?

>>6341220
You're right, Einstein's field equations do not seem to prevent it. We have solutions that violate causality (i.e. G?del's.) However, whenever we try to construct a region of spacetime inside our universe (basically, asimptotically flat) where causality is violated, let it be alcubierre or other shit, then stuff happens: you need negative energy here, here you have a topological soliton you can't build, here the energy density is beyond planck scale, here a huge fucking wall of fire incinerates you when you try to timetravel and so on. So what one suspects is that time travel (or global faster than light on asympt. flat, they are equivalent) is actually impossible, but the proof remains elusive. This is the Chronology Protection Conjecture.

Einstein's equations in themselves don't forbid CTCs. There are known exact solutions with CTCs, like the Gödel universe and anti de Sitter.

The problem can be thought of as coming from how time and space are difficult concepts in general relativity - it's a theory of spacetime after all. Let me give an example.

In special relativity every observer has a now, which can be taken as t = 0 in their frame of reference. If an observer knows the electric and magnetic fields at = 0, he or she can use Maxwell's equations with this initial data to find the electric and magnetic field in the future. Conversely, every solution of Maxwell's equations can be associated to some initial data: pick any intertial system and any slice t = t_0.

This works because in flat space you can split spacetime = space + time. Now, this splitting isn't unique since observers moving relative to each other will disagree on what is space and what is time, and will not agree about simultaneity, but it's not important that the splitting isn't unique. (TBC)

>>6342277
Now in curved spacetime, it may or may not be possible to split spacetime = space + time, or to "time slice" it. The Big Bang models allow such a split, the Schwarschild metric does, too. Anti de Sitter space and the Gödel universe do not. A spacetime that allows a time slicing is said to be globally hyperbolic. Such a spacetime does not allow time travel, in fact the condition is stronger than just forbidding time travel.

You can state Einstein's equations analogously to a wave equation. The precise formulation of the existence of solutions is technical (You can look in Wald's book, or if you really want to go deep, Hawking and Ellis) but it's something like this:
You give two symmetric 3x3 matrices that you think of as representing the metric and its time derivative at t = 0. Then there is a (unique) globally hyperbolic spacetime, such that the metric solves Einstein's equations, and on one of the slices, the metric agrees with your initial data.

But Einstein's equations make sense even in a spacetime that can't be sliced into "now"s. These spacetimes do not come from an initial value problem. (TBC)

>>6341529
Or it would mean we would dump entropy into the past until it has just barely enough ability to perform useful work to develop time travel.

>>6342300
Being globally hyperbolic is precisely the condition that guarantees that initial-value problems for equations like the wave equation make sense. This is of course because the condition has something to do with causality. Causality means the non-existence of CTCs, or time travel. If there is a CTC, then a wave could propagate along it and so the solution of a wave equation wouldn't be determined just by the initial data, unless you imposed further consistency equations.

Since in physics we want to have initial data formulations, it makes sense to consider spacetimes that are globally hyperbolic. I know there is at least one paper on how to do physics (wave equations) without this condition but I i haven't read it.

Also, being globally hyperbolic is strictly stronger than just not having CTCs, it is the strongest of the causality conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_conditions).). It implies stable causality, which means that small changes in the metric don't cause CTCs to appear. So, if spacetime is approximately, say, a Big Bang metric, or Schwarschild, you will need large perturbations to build a time machine. And of course since the coupling matter <-> metric is really weak, it's probably infeasible..

>>6342324
Source: I have a M.Sc. in physics with a thesis in general relativity.

>>6342247
ö
Hold Alt and type 148

>>6341235
No it's extremely unlikely to achieve, not impossible.

Time travel suggests a model for computation by which P = NP.

It is not likely that P = NP.

Therefore, time travel is not likely to be possible.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf

>>6342375

>Time travel makes a (Possibly, although someone supposedly proved P=NP last month) impossible problem solvable
>Therefore it can't happen

This is seriously the most retarded thing I've seen in this thread. Yeah, in a world without timetravel, x is impossible. If time travel was possible, then x would be possible. That doesn't make time travel impossible.

>>6342407
You're literally retarded if you don't understand the logic being used here.

TT --> P = NP
!(P = NP)
Therefore, !(TT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

>>6342375
>Time travel suggests a model for computation by which P = NP.

>It is not likely that P = NP.

>Therefore, time travel is not likely to be possible.

>QCD

>>6342501

Getting to the moon = m
Rockets = r

r -> m
(!m)
Therefore, !r

Because getting to the moon is impossible without rockets, rockets can't exist.

>>6342333
sorry, I'm on my phone and party van does this shit. The character shows up fine until I post. It makes me bamboozled.

>>6342606
Are you seriously arguing against one of the most basic rules of logic.

Having rockets is not a sufficient condition for getting to the moon.

Time travel being possible is a sufficient condition for P = NP.

Using general relativity as a framework to argue for something that should have been observed but hasn't is sketchy. Even the big bang is technically against the rules because manifolds must be open...

I'm much more comfortable with special relativity, because that seems to be a nessecary and sufficient symmerty of nature to construct laws of nature (see: standard model and string theory)

>>6342920
special relativity explicitly prohibits time travel

>>6342920
>Using general relativity as a framework to argue for something that should have been observed but hasn't is sketchy
wut.
>I'm much more comfortable with special relativity
Well, everyone is, but GR is obviously... more general
>>6342928

>>6342900

Are you literally retarded?

I don't see how that makes a difference.

Fine, replace rocket with rocket with enough fuel to get to the moon, as well as a compartment for people to survive a trip there and back.

Are there any logical problems with this? Information is sent from the future by blocking the particle stream and creating gaps.

>>6341253
>>6341276

>>6341545
>>6342247
>>6342300

going back in time is stopped by interference.. Stephen Hawking talks about it in his Discovery series. he uses the example of speakers not being synced and playing a sound that has already happened, causes an infinite loop that cause the loud screeching sound that can blow the speakers. this electrical interference cause a loop that closes on itself. it is impossible

Actually believing the notion of time travel as depicted by Sci fi is for fucking morons.

It doesn't work like that, time travel exists, but not like you think.

First from the General Relativity theory, and some part of Special Relativity, we see that any massive object of dense mass can warp space. And now we know space AND time is the same thing ( hence, spacetime ) So just the presence of mass curves spacetime, making you age faster or slower in some places of the Universe. This is why astronauts and cosmonauts don't age like us back here at Earth.

Anyway the point is, if you're orbitting around a massive black hole at unbelievable speeds, time actually goes faster for you, like if you orbitted around the black hole for 2 weeks, in reality, for people observing you on Earth, 2 years have actually passed.

Bam, you just travelled to the future son. Now this experiment was pretty much confirmed, but if going to the future is possible, then the past should be aswell? Some theories claim that negative energy or dark energy can curve spacetime negatively, making it smaller ( This is actually the idea behind warp drives, you make the space between you and your destination smaller ) and some people hypothize that this might actually in reality turn the space affected back in time, but that might be it, simply that.

No you filthy pleb, the power to reverse the whole universe will never exist. You might as well say you can also time travel before the Big Bang to see what existed then, seems retarded? Nah on a probability level, it's still as legit as time travelling to meet your great grandma.

The probability of reversing time flow in a particular space might actually exist in the future to undo some damage I bet, but believing that could be done on a universal scale really shows the fruit of your 2 digits IQ. Now stop watching sci-fi bullshit and hoping for some flux capacitor bullshit or any of that kind.

It will never happen.

>>6343283
The dark energy part was a mistake*

I forgot it expanded space, not shrinked it.

Time travel is impossible because it violates the most basic law of the universe - cause and effect. You can't travel back in time because then you would be able to kill your grandfather.

>>6343363

That implies there's only 1 timeline, and pretty much everyone who believes time travel is possible believes that if you go back in time, every action you do creates a tangent universe.

>>6343371
This isn't time travel then. Its trans-universal travel.

>>6343250
SUFFICIENT CONDITION, DUMBASS.

Someone has got to want to fucking get there.

(Someone wants to and has the resources to get to the moon) --> (Someone gets to the moon)
!(Someone gets to the moon)
Therefore, !(Someone wants to and gas the resources to get the moon)

Get it? Now PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself by arguing against logical structures that have been around since antiquity.

>>6343395

Are you literally insane?

>>6341504
Interesting point

>>6341622
He must've been using the sun to power the machine.

>>6343403
Nope, just smarter than you.

>>6343415

Eating ice cream with a spoon requires spoons.

Since you can't eat ice cream with a spoon without a spoon, spoons don't exist.

QED.

>>6343423
The correct claim the other poster made was that the conclusion is "you don't have a spoon", which, by your own thesis, is true. Come back when you're smarter than a 5 years old retard.

>>6343438

That doesn't mean spoons are impossible, which is the point I'm trying to make.

He's saying because P != NP, Time travel is impossible.

>>6343447
If time travel were to exist, we would be able to construct a circuit capable of solving NP-hard problems in polynomial time.

NP-hard problems cannot be solved in polynomial time, ever.

Ever.

EVER.

Assuming that !(P = NP), that is. Which most people do.

Therefore, motherfucker, time travel is not fucking possible. If you do not understand this logic you seriously need to reevaluate your life.

>>6343455


First off, if you construct a circuit, and run NP algorithms through it, the observer would see a P time. The code still executes NP number of lines, so you're just being retarded.

Second off

>NP-hard problems cannot be solved in polynomial time, ever.

>Ever.

>EVER.
>*Except with time travel (Which can't exist because P NEVER equals NP, because time travel can't exist, because P can NEVER equal NP...)

Do you realize how completely circular your argument is?

>>6341235

how have astronauts and cosmonauts done it but not everyone else.

>>6343455
>If you do not understand this logic you seriously need to reevaluate your life

How is "you seriously need to reevaluate your life" a logical consequence of "If you do not understand this logic" ?

>>6343473
indeed everyone has done it in some way compared to others

>>6343463
The assumption that P =/= NP does not rely on time travel not being possible so there's no circularity.

And it's the discrepancy in computational time/observation time that is the problem. Read the relevant part of the paper I originally posted.

>>6343486

>The assumption that P =/= NP does not rely on time travel not being possible so there's no circularity.

But you're saying if Time Travel is possible, that means P = NP, which can't happen, so time travel must be impossible.

How does that not rely on time travel being not possible?

>>6343491
How does P =/= NP not rely on time travel not being possible? Well I guess that it does but time travel not being possible isn't the main reason why people assume P =/= NP. More like time travel not being possible is the logical conclusion of P =/= NP, rather than the other way around.

What this doesn't change is the fact that time travel is not possible.

>>6343504

Let me get this straight...

P != NP

Except for time travel

But P != NP

Therefore no time travel

This is what I'm getting from you. I don't see why you think that makes sense.

>>6343527
Naw dude I'm sorry but if you're still not getting it from >>6343455 then I'm seriously done talking to you.

TIME TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE.
TIME IS NOT LINEAR, MERELY IT'S PERCEPTION AS A DECAY DUE TO CONSEQUENCE OF TRAVEL IN SPACETIME. A SINGULARITY VIOLATES LINEAR FORMULATIONS, ACHIEVING ONLY A "TIMELESSNESS" EFFECT, BUT THEN YOU'RE A STAR.

>>6343530

I pointed out how circular your argument was, then you just said "It's not circular because P!=NP" Then I showed you why it's wrong, and you said "I guess it is circular", then I showed you why your circular argument makes no sense.

You have yet to demonstrate to me in a coherent, logically sound way why time travel is impossible because P != NP.

>>6343530
DON'T ASSUME THAT WE CAN NEVER SOLVE AN NP PROBLEM SIMPLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T NOW. YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE A CAVEMAN SCOFFING AT THE CONCEPT OF A CITY BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A WHEEL YET.
THAT SCALE ONLY APPLIES TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

>>6343534
HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PERPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM IS OF AN INCONCEIVABLE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, THE CALCULATIONS OF WHICH, WHEN RAN THROUGH CURRENT PROCESSING,WOULD TAKE AN INCONCEIVABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT WITH TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE NOW IT WOULD TAKE AN INCONCEIVABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO DEVELOP TIME TRAVEL. WHICH IS A RETARDED ARGUMENT, SINCE WHEN YOU HAVE TIME TRAVEL, YOU CAN INVENT IT WHENEVER YOU WANT.
BUT THIS IS NOT HOW TIME TRAVEL WORKS ANYWAY, MORE AKIN TO I FLATTENED MYSELF INTO A HYPERSPACE PLANE AND CONVERTED INTO PURE ENERGY AND EMERGED AS PERFECTLY RECONSTRUCTED MASS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE THROUGH SIGNAL RECONSTRUCTION.
WHICH WOULD STILL BE IMPOSSIBLY COMPLICATED DUE TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGY REQUIRED.

>>6341243
the first result is the marvel universe.

>>6343550
>>6343539

No one's going to read your posts when you post in all caps. Stop being obnoxious.

>>6343560
NO ONE READS YOUR POSTS.
OH WAIT. WE BOTH LIED.
START BEING MOAR OBNOXIOUS.

>>6343550
No dude. P =/= NP is not a statement to do with processing power, not enuff ram, etc. It's a fact. A bonified law of the motherfucking universe that neither nature nor any other means of computation conceivable within it can show otherwise.

And your other points about hyperbolic space and energy sound like retard talk. If you're going to impersonate shitposters from /lit/, at least do it with a comparable amount of intellectual content in your posts.

Time doesn't actually exist. The term is used to measure the speed at which things change. You can't unchange anything. So you can't go 'back in time'. Mathematics are irrelevant. Asking for a mathematical proof only demonstrates ignorance of the subject

>>6343572
> It's a fact. A bonified law of the motherfucking universe

No it's no you idiot. People can assume P!=NP all they want, but it means nothing until it's proven one way or another. A hundred years ago people assumed light traveled through the aether of space.

>>6343363
As long as there is a cause for an effect, what does it matter if they happen out of order?

>>6341238
Cant tell if trolling or has a pathologically shitty taste in women.

>>6343257
what? What is that supposed to depict? What field? Where are the particles and what are you doing? How and in what do you make gaps? Isn't your detector at a later time than the emitter? What does that wavy non-timelike line mean?

>>6344550
Vertical lines represent stationary objects because they don't change position over time. The black line depicts the path of one particle, several would be represented as many parallel lines of the same shape.

A particle traveling through the theoretical field has its path bent through the future. Gaps are created by using a gate that closes within the field and blocks the stream in bursts.

Say you have a button that closes the gate, a field that displaces particles 2 seconds into the future, and a detector that is set to activate a light if it stops receiving the particle stream.
If you go to press the button, the light will turn on 2 seconds before you reach it.

>>6343572
>bonified
The other guy thinks you're an idiot because of this, too. It's "bona fide"...

>>6345004
Guys like that are a diamond dozen.

>>6345004
sry not gay, please don't bonify me

>>6344950

This makes absolutely no sense. That cannot be the path of any real particle, because it is not timelike. A field does not work that way, a worldine cannot be bent 'through the future', whatever that means. A particle always has u^mu u_mu > 0 (with (+---) signature) and thus the tangent vector to the wordline is always inside the future lightcone. This is a purely kinematical/geometrical concept that is unaffected by any force applied to the particle. The tangent to the worldline, in a space-time graph with c=1 always forms an angle less than or equal to pi/4 with the vertical.

And still, with your setup, the light turns on later than you stop the stream.

>>6346392
What if the particle has imaginary mass?

>>6341342
There's two things that are presented you'll either get projected into a completely new universe or you'll be the cause for everything that happens now to happen.

>>6341562
I always felt like scientist would counter this by actually calculating the displacement. Lets be honest if you could actually go back in time I'm sure you could calculate the Earth's new position.

There is no time-travel, because there is no time.

Time may be different in perception when you compare the earth to a black hole, but we are both on the same second.

Time is bullshit. The universe uses objects in relative motion, not "time".

The reason you think time-travel is possible is because there is money to be made from the bullshit pretend story, not because time exists.

>>6347801
there are no such particles. If you try to build a field theory with imaginary mass (i.e. negative mass squared) there don't turn out to be any imaginary-mass excitation. This is because the classical theory simply can't oscillate around the symmetric vacuum because it is not a minimum of the potential. What actually happens is that simmetry is broken spontaneously, and redefining the degrees of freedom you can recover a theory of interacting particles, none of them tachyonic. This is more or less the Higgs mechanism, and even if the field is tachyonic, all resulting particles (all experimentally verified) are massless or massive.

A more elegant approach to your question is that correlation between measurements at spacelike separation are always zero. But you'll have to believe me on this.

In short: no FTL in a Lorentz-invariant field theory (as one would have expected from the beginning.) An example: the goddamn standard model and 99.999999% of its proposed extension up to almost the planck scale.

>>6341280
Top lel

Russia occupied one of its neighboring countries, made a military blockaid around it. Slowly starved to death 9 million farmers (who were 95% while it sold their grain to the US to fund its missle program than tried to cover up the existence of their genocide.

You tell me if soviet Russia is great. Go ask a Ukrainian what it was like to have to eat the remains of your dead sister in order to survive.

This theory states that the present is not the forefront of time, and so we are our future selves' past. Thus, if sometime in the future a time travel device were created, someone from the future would have already brought it back to us, thus establishing itself as "already" existing in our time as a result - and likely copied and recopied. Since our present selves are still wondering about time travel, this theory states that we will never be able to build a time machine, because if we are still wondering, then no one from the future has built a time machine and brought it back with them to us, and if no one in the future has built a time machine, then we in the future will not build a time machine, and no one can ever build a time machine because no one in the future has built one.

taken fom Wikipedia

Time travel IS possible, but many-worlds is false. Every time somebody invents time travel somebody goes back in time and prevents time travel from being invented. I'm not saying there's some sort of time police or anything, but humans, as linear beings, cannot function in a world where time is alinear. In other words, time travel fucks so much shit up that somebody else goes back and stops time travel from happening, and that this happens frequently but we never know about it because it never happened.

>>6341562

To put the picture in words: "You cannot travel through time without traveling through space."

To put it further, considering the multiverse theory, you don't just travel through one dimension (fourth dimension or time) but through many dimensions as well. (first to third, etc.)

See, there was this theory that talked about the eleven dimensions, from the zeroth dimension up until the tenth dimension. Zeroth as the absolute nothing, the first three are what we are all familiar as "space", fourth as "time", fifth as the different "timelines", sixth as where these timelines are laid. From what I understood, and I barely understood a thing past the sixth dimension, if you want to travel to the "past", you have to travel through the sixth dimension. If you were able to travel down through your own timeline, well then congratulations! You just successfully travelled to the past!

But that would only mean you just travelled within a "closed" time loop. Take that whole time travelling plot in the Harry Potter movie as an example. Harry and the gang travelled to the past because they were bound to travel to the past. Did they change the timeline? As far as I know, they didn't.

>>6348542

But we did say that we are considering the multiverse theory, right? Time travel to the past is still possible AND you can still change the events. However, when you do travel to the past and successfully change the course of events, you are also changing the timeline in which you are travelling on. Think of it as travelling inside a train and you change tracks. No matter how parallel these tracks may be, you still cannot change the fact that these two tracks are not the same. To cut it short, you are in another timeline that is different from your original timeline. (the trains as the "fourth dimension", the tracks as the "fifth", the ground where the tracks are laid is the "sixth")

Now, when you do this jump from one timeline to another timeline, you could also say that you just left your timeline... for good. It means that you just erased your existence from that timeline. You'll just disappear from that timeline leaving all of your possessions, your friends, everyone you know behind. There's no assurance whether or not you'll be back. You may try, but you just might end up in another parallel timeline. But if you do manage to go back to your original timeline, everything would still be the same since you did not change a thing in its past. Maybe you just got older depending on how long your time travel took.

tl;dr: "time" traveling is possible. Travelling to the "past" is possible. You can or cannot change your timeline, it depends. Changing the past means changing the timeline you are in. You cannot change anything in the past when you are in a closed time loop. Time travelling is an awesome way to say "I'm fed up with you guys and your shit! I'm out of this timeline! Sayonara, bitches!"

I would also like to cite the movie "Source Code" as an example but that's a different and more complicated story to deal with.

If you traveled to "the past" it wouldn't be your past, because the particles making up you and your device would displace others and an etiological change would occur fundamentally altering the future in which you're supposed to be from, thereby creating a paradox.

You can create a reprogrammed time-travel event, buy you would know what your message was before you send it.

You can create an event that spells "DICKS" before you send it, but you would know what you are sending "DICKS" before you receive it. Electronics does something similar by creating a "hole-charge" that electricity in a circuit wants to flow to and balance.

Time-travel is still impossible. Creating a bullshit story is still easy.

>>6341220
Time travel to the past is impossible because people have not yet met any time travelers.

>>6348542
this is so wrong I don't even know where to start cringing.

>>6341220
You are time travelling right now, don't believe them.
/thread

>>6341220
Look up entropy, OP..
This rapes your concept of time travel

>>6349407
It doesn't.

What happens to time when the universe stops expanding and starts collapsing back to a singularity?

>>6341342
>>6348403

as they said on LOST "whatever happens, happened"

>>6348420

define motion without time

>>6349411
P1:entropy is by definition irreversible
P2:entropy exist
P3:time travel affects P1
C1: Entropy does not exist or travelling backwards is impossible
What postulates any possibility of backwards time travel anon?
There are no theories...

You would violate the laws of causality and dynamics.

>>6349447
Entropy is locally reversible.

>>6349387
>>6349407
>>6349447
Oh look, it's /sci/'s village idiot again. Please never stop using that name tag. Your stupiditiy is pure comedy gold.

Keep entertaining us with your ignorance of both, GR and thermodynamics.

>>6349459
Oh look a shitposter!
I see you've come to join me in my revelry by not addressing any actual topic within the thread/having any particular argument.

>>6349469
Listen, kid. You already told us you're an engineering undergrad. Please stick to your engineering classes and don't talk about things you don't understand. In the other thread you were talking bullshit about IQ and now in this thread you're talking bullshit about physics. When we (the educated posters of /sci/) discuss physics, math or whatever, then we talk about it on a level someone like you cannot even imagine. You are lacking the educational background and the education to participate in our threads.

>>6349469
Listen, kid. You already told us you're an engineering undergrad. Please stick to your engineering classes and don't talk about things you don't understand. In the other thread you were talking bullshit about IQ and now in this thread you're talking bullshit about physics. When we (the educated posters of /sci/) discuss physics, math or whatever, then we talk about it on a level someone like you cannot even imagine. You are lacking the educational background and the intelligence to participate in our threads.

>>6349454
But not universally right?
>>6349478
>>6349479
Who is "we"? What exactly is your educational background besides 'Trolling 101'
How the fuck have you actually contributed to this discussion besides having some sort of personal vendetta against me?

>>6349469
Tell us how you believe entropy contradicts closed timelike loops.

>>6349482
You don't know shit about GR and what you said about entropy was plain wrong. You are even too ignorant to understand why you were wrong. If your disability wasn't so sad, your posts would be an artistic masterpiece of comedy.

>>6349407
>fuck yeah, a thread about a topic I don't understand
>my perfect chance to be an annoying pseudo-intellectual moron!
>better spout a completely unrelated buzzword!

>>6349482
>Who is "we"?

The educated posters of /sci/. It was explained in the post.

>>6349479
Why do I have the feeling that you are the one creating these silly threads?
>>6349483
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

>>6349486
>what you said about entropy was plain wrong
Explain anon, I'd like to see you actually make an argument for once/contribute to actual discussion instead of samefagging and spouting fallacies.
>>6349492
>entropy has fuck all to do with the flow of time
Sure anon, we can pretend...

"You dun kno shit about..x.x.x..U WRONG"
Is the closest thing to a retort I'll get from you, I remember you from the other thread.
You've shown no sign of being capable of actual debate and explaining "Well see this is WHY you were wrong about x"

It seems like you hold a stance for once though...explain =]

>pic related

>>6349501
I asked you to explain how you believe entropy contradicts closed timelike loops.

These wiki links are not an answer and if you think they are, then you obviously didn't even read, let alone understand them.

>>6349508
CTC would create a condition in which entropy of the universe would be decreased.

>>6349546
How? Please write down the math.

>>6349548
I'll give you this...you are an excellent troll..
>implying you can formulate an equation with modern day tech that could accurately represent orders of chaos this high
There really isn't any math that could accurately describe any of this in accordance to modern day physics.
You are attempting to apply GR concepts(CTC) in conditions that unquestionably violate causality.

>>6341344
>>6341349


These two don't understand that >>6341339 is making a reference to tunneling theory.

/sci/ is such a fucking joke these days.

>>6349568
You made a fucking claim. You said a CTC would decrease the global entropy. Please either prove that claim of yours or admit you were talking out of your ass.

>>6349577
X=the past
Y=the present
Z=an object
If someone in Y sends Z to X, entropy would be decreased in X. The existence of Z in X would decrease the universal entropy in X.
Z could be any object that isn't a tachyon. Its existence will mean there will be a higher energy potential in X.
Of course, you'll act like you have trouble understanding this(and I'll hope you are acting).

>>6343257
>>6344550
>>6344950

oh god this is such bullshit. my sides hurt so much

>>6349619
>The existence of Z in X would decrease the universal entropy in X.
so what?
it's not a closed system

>>6348432
>simmetry
hue

I don't care what you were saying, because I doubt you can understand it yourself. Spelling and grammar are of paramount importance for communicating complex ideas.

>>6349619
This is a science board and not your elementary school philosophy class. "X=the past" is cringeworthy. You have no understanding of how to use mathematical notation in physics at all, let alone knowledge of GR.

Time travel is impossible because the concept of events that have yet to happen and those that have already occured, called "future" and "past" respectively, do not exist. There is only now.

>>6349638
>elementary school philosophy class

Troll please leave, he used mathematical notation correctly.

>>6349619
>If someone in Y sends Z to X, entropy would be decreased in X
Bullshit.

>The existence of Z in X would decrease the universal entropy in X.
Bullshit.

>Z could be any object that isn't a tachyon.
Bullshit.

>Its existence will mean there will be a higher energy potential in X.
Bullshit.

Holy fuck, this is literally the dumbest post I've ever seen on /sci/ and I can proudly say that I read every single creationist troll thread since /sci/'s inception.

>>6349628
>it's not a closed system
Depends on what theories you are using
>>6349638
I'll redirect you to >>6349501
and ask you to actually form an opinion

>>6349638
That wasn't philosophy anon, it was simply me being lazy
Although I could've shortened it to simply "Is he seriously asking me if throwing potential energy into a system decreases entropy?"
But I opted for the roundabout method...because you are a fucking troll..

>>6349645

>>6349651
I'm using the ones that don't violate laws of physics, as you should too

>>6349651
I'll ask you again: Please demonstrate how a CTC would imply decreasing the global entropy.

Please make a real argument and don't post obscene puerilities like >>6349619 ever again.

It's okay if you don't know GR. Just admit it and stay out of our thread. But the cancerous shitposting you've done so far is truly upsetting.

>>6349619
This is just too hilarious.

Guys, it's over. This shitposter has won 4chan.

>>6349675
> comic sans
now who's the shitposter

>>6349661
If you send an object to the past, you are sending potential energy to the past.
The past would have more potential energy, meaning the entropy of the past has been lowered.
>Please demonstrate how a CTC would imply decreasing the global entropy.
Now I've done it 3 times over.

>>6349655
I'm assuming you support the theory involving the heat death of the universe/finite expanding universe?

>>6349680
*whose

>>6349682
Entropy is allowed to decrease locally. I don't see your problem.

>>6349682
> I'm assuming you support the theory involving the heat death of the universe/finite expanding universe?
nope.
That's a consequence of there being no time travel, not the other way around.
Try again

>>6349682
>the past

There is no universal time. Please watch a youtube video on relativity.

>>6349682
>Now I've done it 3 times over.
You shitposted 3 times over? Cool achievement. I'm still waiting for an actual scientific answer, i.e. more than incoherent kindergarten blather. So far all you did was concatenating words without the slightest understanding what they mean.

>>6349688
Isn't it beyond a local problem? You are traveling in respect to time in the whole system.

>>6349697
How was my last response 'unscientific' by your arbitrary definition?
I'm starting to enjoy you anon.

The stupidity ITT has reached levels beyond /x/, /pol/ and creationism combined. Is that namefag the biggest retard or the biggest troll of all times? Will we ever find out?

>>6349701
>time in the whole system.

What time? Do you really believe there is a universal time? Have you never ever heard of relativity?

>>6349631
I also don't care if your brain undergoes bsod because of a typo.

>>6349701
OP mentions Einstein's field equations. Do you know what Einstein's field equations are? What quantity do we want to determine from them? Please explain in your own words.

I know you're gonna look it up on wikipedia and I hope you're gonna learn something.

>>6349709
No, I suuuure don't. Could you explain anon?
>"no, you babby I'm trolling LEL kindergarten"

>>6349714
>I want to stay ignorant and there's nothing you can do about it!!!1!!1

I was trying to make you learn something. If you reject this, there is no help for you. Have fun with your "le e/b/in trole" while I enjoy my education.

Time travel to the past is not possible. It violates the law of causality and the second law of thermodynamics. You will never live out your fantasy of playing doctor who.

>hurr durr but you can prove its not possible.
You're as bad as those religious fags.

Stop day dreaming and focus on shit that is actually possible.

>>6349730
> It violates the law of causality and the second law of thermodynamics.
it doesn't

>>6349730
>It violates the law of causality
not a law

>and the second law of thermodynamics.
No, it doesn't.

>>6349704
Sure it may be .01s in a random region and 10s back in respect to the time traveler's region. you'd still be traveling in respect to time, the states of all regions would be reset to their initial conditions in respect to any local time(disregarding the event horizons of black holes etc SR)...more specifically you are travelling in respect to the curve in time

>>6349720
Do you make these threads on /sci/ with the deliberate intent do derail your own thread into an amalgam of shitposting/samefagging/and trolling by yourself?
Is this some sort of self masturbation?

>>6349747
What are you still arguing? It has been repeatedly pointed out that you don't know general relativity. Please stay out of a thread when you can't contribute.

>>6349747
except time is just another dimension.
you wouldn't say an object across the room couldn't affect your entropy.
Why would you think that an object across time couldn't affect your entropy?

>>6349747
What makes you believe I'm OP? And the only one shitposting and derailing right now is you. I am constantly correcting you and even helping to educate you. But obviously you're not interested in learning. All you want is to spread anti-intellectualism.

>>6349752
>you wouldn't say an object across the room couldn't affect your entropy.
>Why would you think that an object across time couldn't affect your entropy?
Except that is what I've been saying.

>>6349759
So you agree that entropy doesn't contradict time travel?

>>6349759
Can you please post the mathematical definition of a closed timelike curve?

>>6349754
>What makes you believe I'm OP?
LEL
>I am constantly correcting you and even helping to educate you.
You haven't said anything of note anon, you've just been spewing ad hominems...don't act like you actually offer any substance in any of your post.

>>6349761
No I'm saying that an 'object affecting entropy across time' is a precise reason that time travel isn't possible. If an object did affect entropy in the past it would, emphasis on would, decrease entropy

>>6349765
No, I can't.
Can you please use Google?

>>6349774
> If an object did affect entropy in the past it would, emphasis on would, decrease entropy
And the problem with that is?
It gets energy from the future to decrease the entropy of the past.

Just as the sun despite being millions of miles away decreases Earth's entropy.

>>6349774
>No, I can't.

That's what I expected. Please leave.

>>6349774
>If an object did affect entropy in the past it would, emphasis on would, decrease entropy

This is a claim. A baseless claim.

>>6349774
Please stop posting you autistic self-insert

If time travel was possible there would be time tourists everywhere at all times, there isn't so it's not.

>>6349774
>doesn't know what a timelike curve is
>posts in a thread about timelike curves

>>6349787
If you add an object to a system, you are adding potential en..fuck
just read
>>6349682

No going backwards, only forwards. You can also stop moving in time if you're in some black whole, but that's basically it.

>>6349774
11/10 troll

You sure rustled a lot of jimmies.

>>6349799

Did I just misspell "hole"? God damn it.

>>6349796
We told you that there is no universal time and that local decrease of entropy does not imply global decrease of entropy. How many times do we have to repeat this until you get it?

>>6349774
>>Can you please post the mathematical definition of a closed timelike curve?
>No, I can't.

GTFO the fuck out of our GR thread.

>>6349796
>more potential energy implies less entropy

What the fuck am I reading? Did you fail babby's first statistical physics?

>>6349796
Do you even know what entropy is?

>>6349796
We were talking about entropy, not potential energy. Do you know the difference?

>>6341235
ITT: faggots prove OP's point

>>6341253
This

How this goes:
If I make time machine and will go back in time, how planet earth is still there where I end up? How is there other things than "now-time + future", planet is always changing place in space-time.

>>6349836
There should be a diagram for time travel in Looper. It seems to be the more common type of time travel in comics and other shit.

If time travel is such a well understood phenomenon...why hasn't anyone been time traveling?

Yes, there is a mathematical proof.

>>6350067
future time travel: astronauts in space do constantly on the order of fractions of a second.

past time travel: unproven using experimental means, purely theoretical under the theory of relativity, expense, working out the mechanics and the engineering, etc, etc

>>6350037
This time travel in Looper works the same way it does in Time Squad. You can change the past because time fluxes. In fact time can change itself all on it's own without time travelers interfering. This is of course bull shit.

test
<span class="math">
{\lim_{x \to \infty}} \frac{1}{x} = 0
[/spoiler]

>>6341342
Depends on what theory of time travel you subscribe to.

Maybe traveling to the past always takes you to an alternative dimension, thus side stepping any potential paradoxes.

The Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.

>>6341220

Was about to post the Godel metric but it was already posted.

Anyway the simplest way to understand why time travel is impossible is that the laws of thermodynamics state that the energy and mass must be conserved. Now the principle of relativity states that the laws of physics must be the same for every observer. If mass could go back in time it would break the conservation of mass and energy. More mass and energy would be in the past rather than the future.

So that provides a logical reasoning for it, but what about the practical reasoning? That comes from relativity. In relativity we find that, as stated, the laws of physics are the same for all observers. One law is that time must move forward (Which you can think of as governed by increasing entropy over time) Now the rate at which time flows can be changed by approaching the speed of light. However as you do changes relative to other observers occur which maintain the same physical laws and at the same time prevent you from going faster than light. Your mass, time and space change but physics relative to those changes are constant. At light speed your mass would be infinite and proper time zero. If you could go faster your time would go in reverse, however your mass would be something beyond infinite, violating physics. Therefore you cannot move faster than light and cannot move backwards in time.

>>6351757
>that the laws of thermodynamics state that the energy and mass must be conserved

This has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

>>6351757
>One law is that time must move forward

Now you're just talking out of your ass. Nowhere in relativity are CTCs disallowed.

Couldn't we exchange equal mass and energy from the past? Or find a way to observe the past from an outside source without interfering?

What valid physical equations exist for CTCs?

>>6354597
Didn't you already get laughed out of this thread before?

Time travel is real. Pic related.

>>6354603
I just went to sleep
>ids real because nubuddy stop muh drems
>lets apply non relativistic consepts to relativistic physics without regarding any of the laws!
Please don't tell me this is your only valid argument

>>6354386
>Nowhere in relativity are CTCs disallowed.
The formation of CTCs is disallowed in all exterior solutions of the EFEs. The other solutions are ridiculous garbage and merely artifacts of the theory because there is no classical definition of the horizon or interior. It would be equally retarded and naive to state that the entropy of a black hole is infinite, too. This stuff is just undefined and can't be trusted classically.

Dynamics can't smoothly evolve step by step in time with the CTCs either which means even at face value they don't make any sense. A classical computer with access to CTCs would be able to solve NP-complete, PSPACE-complete and even EXP-complete problems which is also fucking absurd. Energy conditions which are required to make sense of GR once you start coupling other classical fields make any kind of CTC unstable. CTCs simply have no place in physics classically and are washed out completely by the proper quantum mechanical description of horizons.

>>6341220
That picture is disgusting. Please delete it.

>>6350026
the planets and the sun don't just go in circles, they spiral in a journey.

>>6351299
while that is possible, its just some cheap "NUH UH WELL I HAVE AN INVISIBLE SHIELD SO I WIN" argument someone made up, totally attempting to change the subject.

>>6351757
>if something happened different than what some person made up as a law differently than they were ok with, EVERYTHING WOULD JUST BREAK!!!
>I made a law!! now water has to be nice to me!!

U VIOLETED MY PHYSICS BECAUSE ITS NOT FAIR


scientist think that if they make up some rule the universe has to listen to them, yet again and again unexplainable things happen.

the universe follows no rules, just general consistencies that can change whenever.

>>6343935
the longer you stay on /sci/ the lower your standards become...

>>6354748
>A classical computer with access to CTCs would be able to solve NP-complete, PSPACE-complete and even EXP-complete problems which is also fucking absurd.

How is "fucking absurd" an argument against its possibility?

My Headcanon is that the world never build the time machine. Nobody managed to do that, beacuse earth fucking exploded, apocalypse or some shit happened that end everything. Assuming that there is a way to end everything.

I think this shit really doesn't belong in /sci/, i think this discussion is fucking stupid as fuck, as stupid as my post

>>6341220
There is no accurate mathematical proof of CTCs
>>6357168
The real question is how fucking absurd does someone have to be to actually believe CTC based time travel is actually possible.

>>6343363
>the most basic law of the universe - cause and effect
cause-and-effect is neither a "law", nor "basic", Einstein
Lrn2causality

>>6357888
>Headcanon

What the fuck is that? Are you some kind of wizard? nce triple

>>6341220
I would tongue that chicks asshole.

>>6341376
What? The non-linear nature of time isn't caused by not being able to travel backwards in time.

>>6341220
in the case time travel to the past were possible, wars would wage through time ceaselessly using time travel as a military weapon to dominate society and gain advantages. The party that creates backwards time travel has complete dominance over society and the technological rate would instantaneously rise at an infinitely exponential scale.

Were this to occur underground the second time travel is achieved the paradox writes itself over as going back in time with current technology ensures say time travel 100,000 years into the past the people would discreetly live underground and exponentially repeat the technological progression.
in a frame of chronological past to future X-Y

Y goes back in time to X with Y technology
X continues up untll Y point with Y technology, Y sees that the trend continues and this reiterates infinitely, each time seemingly instantaneously yielding more and more technology due to the fact that the time is spend between X and Y when coming from Y so where man in time Y does not change positions, with enough discrete out of the way maneuvering enough to have minimal if any impact on the earth or development person Y stays exactly in the spot of person Y when technology advances at a paradoxically infinite rate due to the time around the person at time Y changing from things repeating themselves in the past and carrying the Y2 technology back to point X in time and creating Y3 technology instantaneously upon the non time traveling individual monitoring the time travel staying in the same time as X approaces Y back to X to Y2 back to X to Y3 again and again as person at tim Y stays in the exact same place and time moves at the same speed save technology nearly instantaneously appears due to the paradox or whatever its call

>long story : if backwards time travel were real it would have too instantaneous of an impact for any stability of time to occur
]

The real question: HOW are you going back in time?

Reversing matter change throughout the whole universe?

Transporting yourself to a parallel universe? (Do parallel universes actually exist beyond a mathematical abstraction of probability theory?)

Moving yourself along a "time line?" (Do time lines actually exist beyond an abstraction?)

I tend to be an absolutist. I have not heard any firm evidence to prove that other dimensional planes physically exist. I have not seen any evidence to prove time exists as anything but a concept. Change and interaction are fundamentals of the universe and we experience time as the flow of interactions. Pause the flow, pause "time." Time is just an abstraction based on a frame of reference so it cannot be "accessed."

The only sound argument that can be made is that energy and matter formed somehow, and time is ONLY the experience of change. Moving through space alters the experience of change (faster movement to the theoretical maximum slows change). Matter itself warps space (gravity).

The question is whether any mathematical abstractions exist in reality. I am inclined to believe that it is not necessarily impossible for other planes of existence to exist, but I have not seen any evidence to point to existence of anything but our current material universe. That effectively rules out any ideas regarding transportation of an experimenter as a viable method of time travel.

That means that the only true method of time travel would be to reverse time for the entire universe (or locally if you only care about a planet or solar system) except for a pocket containing us. Essentially reverse entropy with the experimenter held separate. That would effectively require as much or more energy than has ever existed, plus an ability to manipulate the physical world far beyond anything we currently have access to.

>>6359248
Going further in this vein, essentially the question becomes what is observable and what is theoretical, which is a distinction that mathematicians and physicists need to delineate much more clearly than they currently do.

To reiterate, I do not believe that any matter or locations exist outside of our current observable universe, so transportation is impossible, leaving us only with manipulation of what already exists.

>>6358025
>There is no accurate mathematical proof of CTCs

There is also no accurate mathematical proof that P doesn't equal NP. Math is done with proofs, not with lack of proofs. This isn't a religion thread.

>>6360844
There are accurate proofs that contradict CTCs scattered all through SR modern day GR and thermodynamics.
Are you some sort of elaborate troll?

>>6360861
You're talking out of your ass. Don't do that.

SR and thermodynamics are unrelated to OP's question. GR allows for solutions with CTCs.

Either you are intentionally shitposting or you are horribly ignorant and know nothing about these theories. In both cases please go to school and refrain from posting here.

>>6360861
I'd love to see you post on of your "proofs". Do you even know the mathematical formulation of GR? Reading your post it seems you are not even aware of the difference between SR and GR.

>>6350280

oh : (

Stand up and walk around, now u are time traveling.

>>6360844
>Math is done with proofs, not with lack of proofs.
CTCs have valid proofs?

>>6362610
CTC can be mathematically disproved? [citation needed]