Time Travel & Anti-Gravity

[Just thinking]

... I just assumed that space-time would only curve if mass existed in both space and time.

Well, there's a bit of a stretching of the use of the words in this. To exist, something must exist in some extension of time (or space-time), otherwise it doesn't exist. But to extend that meaning to the creation of gravity through forward motion in time is misleading at best. The amount of gravity associated with a mass is dependent on the amount of matter present and the distance one is from the center of mass (as long as that distance is outside of the matter's surface). To say that it depends on the matter moving through time (and not the amount of matter), would imply that a styrofoam ball the size of Earth would project a gravitational field identical to another sphere of the same size composed entirely of lead -- I assure you this isn't the case.

This curvature or movement through space-time would be caused by matter moving through the 4th dimension as its not moving through space but yet is still moving.

I hope you might now disagree with this statement as written.

I completely didn't realize that no one really explains what causes gravity since I can't seem to find any theories on it...

Matter is what matters.

The other theory being that gravity is caused by matter traveling through time towards the future through the 4th dimension creating a curve in space itself. The more mass an object has the faster it falls into the future.

I don't see the connection -- both examples I gave earlier would move into the future at the same rate. In fact, the gravitational field around a more massive object causes clocks to run slower.

Black holes with their mass don't just curve space but actually pierce it so therefore matter that makes up black holes is actually occupying the future.

Pinch might be a better descriptor. But this putting matter in the future has me puzzled.

 

[Shadow]

More Speculation

I agree pinch is a better word. I didn't mean to imply that objects of the size create the same field of gravity however the opposite. Objects with more mass project more gravity (according to my speculation) because the more mass of an object the greater strain on space-time causing it to bend more. I speculate the strain is caused because when time propels a sphere of lead through space-time it has more force than the force of a sphere of stryfoam of the same size because time as a constant t*mass*volume=stress on space-time (a crude and speculatory formula). I suppose that time becomes relative only when matter takes motion through space, because now an object has two vectors of travel one through space at a certain speed and one through time at a constant. All these calculation require differential geometry, tensors, metrics, and minkowski space(which I have yet to learn) in order to do calculation of obejcts in 4 dimensions. However I suppose that time differances occurs in objects moving because instead of matter sitting still and creating a dimple in space-time it is now moving and the motion through space lessens the pull or push of time on space-time. Gravity is a force that is bound by c so therefore when objects reach the speed of light the gravity around the object lessens because it spend less time exerting force on a particular spot in space time. I also speculate that this means traveling faster than light would allow for time travel backwards if the matter goes beyond the limits of light then the matter achieves negative mass and produces anti-gravity. It seems that an object MUST have negative mass in order to surpass c. Without negative mass, the possitive mass of the object will prevent it from going beyond the limit of c without a source of infinite energy to propel it. These conclusions of mine seem vagualy similar to pop-science(discovery channel). I lack creditentials, knowledge, terminology, and expierance.

But this putting matter in the future has me puzzled.

I view blackholes as being in the future as the matter they are made up of is not visable, so it should be somewhere. If more matter and less volume means more stress on space-time then it would be pushed through normal space to... what I suggest which is the future(but possibly the past?) because the matter is not viewable to the present but yet the effects of its gravity is still there.

More Speculation,
I view time as a three dimensional entity interacting with space. Time to me isn't just forwards and backwards but also right, left up, down. I believe the different position coordinates in time are different arrangments of matter for that particular frame of time. This would mean that time at the 12,6,9 coordinate is a different setup of matter than time at the 12,6,10 coordinate.

This allows for multiple universes all using the same matter. To travel to a "different" parallel universe just means that matter there is in a different sequence than the matter where you were. This also allows for the conservation of matter, otherwise multiple universes would mean infite matter and infite matter would mean that there is infite energy and infinite energy would mean that no universe would have empty space as the energy would bleed over to the other universes unless there is no way for the interacting of universes which would defeat the purpose of saying there are multiple universes. I just believe in alternate realities made of the exactly same matter found in our universe, this is speculation/ranting.

 

[Just thinking]

... Objects with more mass project more gravity (according to my speculation) because the more mass of an object the greater strain on space-time causing it to bend more.

This sounds somewhat circular, as the bending of space-time is another way of looking at the gravitational field -- not something else. Matter distorts space-time; we call this distortion gravity.

I speculate the strain is caused because when time propels a sphere of lead through space-time it has more force than the force of a sphere of stryfoam of the same size because time as a constant t*mass*volume=stress on space-time (a crude and speculatory formula).

Time does not propel anything through space or space-time. There are no forces associated with movement through time. Plus, if anything, time is not a constant.

I suppose that time becomes relative only when matter takes motion through space, because now an object has two vectors of travel one through space at a certain speed and one through time at a constant.

It is true that time is relative to motion, but note that motion itself is relative. Hence, observers moving past you will show to you their clocks moving slower than yours, and then to them your clocks moving (again) slower to theirs -- and both will be correct.

All these calculation require differential geometry, tensors, metrics, and minkowski space(which I have yet to learn) in order to do calculation of obejcts in 4 dimensions. However I suppose that time differances occurs in objects moving because instead of matter sitting still and creating a dimple in space-time it is now moving and the motion through space lessens the pull or push of time on space-time.

You seem to keep implying (I believe) this universal time that is affecting things moving through space-time. There is no such thing -- a rather hard concept to initially grasp, but true none-the-less. Therfore there is no push or pull on time or space-time.

Gravity is a force that is bound by c so therefore when objects reach the speed of light the gravity around the object lessens because it spend less time exerting force on a particular spot in space time.

Well, first off -- matter cannot reach the speed of light. The gravitational field from matter moving rapidly, like from the matter in a rotating black hole, distorts significantly; and here I must confess ignorance, as I don't know the details. But I don't believe it lessens the field.

I also speculate that this means traveling faster than light would allow for time travel backwards if the matter goes beyond the limits of light then the matter achieves negative mass and produces anti-gravity.

Since it would take an infinite amount of energy to propel regular matter to the speed of light, getting it to go faster is rather moot.

It seems that an object MUST have negative mass in order to surpass c. Without negative mass, the possitive mass of the object will prevent it from going beyond the limit of c without a source of infinite energy to propel it. These conclusions of mine seem vagualy similar to pop-science(discovery channel). I lack creditentials, knowledge, terminology, and expierance.

You might want to look up tachyons ... but note, they are hypothetical.

I view blackholes as being in the future as the matter they are made up of is not visable, so it should be somewhere.

Yes ... they are in our universe, as their gravitational influence is felt. But to get to them (the singularity) one must leave what we know as our space-time and go through the event horizon. From what I've read, space and time switch on the other side -- there is only one path in space you can travel, to the singularity, unlike here where there is only one path in time you can travel, to the future.

If more matter and less volume means more stress on space-time then it would be pushed through normal space to... what I suggest which is the future(but possibly the past?) because the matter is not viewable to the present but yet the effects of its gravity is still there.

Just becasue something can't be seen now doesn't mean is doesn't exist now. There are stars forming far off of which their light has yet to reach us, but they exist now (assuming the same inertial frame of reference, or close enough).

I'm going to forego your speculations as it's getting late -- perhaps someone else might want to jump in.

 

[epepke]

A light beam does have a gravitational field associated with it, as it does have mass -- small as it is.

Actually, no. It doesn't have mass. What it does have is energy/momentum, which is what causes and is affected by gravity.

 

[Just thinking]

Actually, no. It doesn't have mass. What it does have is energy/momentum, which is what causes and is affected by gravity.

Recent indications ...

Here.

 

[brettDbass]

Can I just point out that we do not know with any certainty that the arrow of time points in the same direction in all places in the universe simultaneously. Indeed, this might open up the possibility that the arrow of time might change direction in a relativistic sense to an object passing from one direction-zone to another.
Could this have implications on the whole "time travel issue"?

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/35/34/301 - abstract of Gurzadayan's study including a link to the full article.

Originally found (and described more clearly for the layman) in this New Scientist article.. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825210.100;jsessionid=GIPNBFJKGFDL

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Recent indications ...

Here.

I'm with epepke on this. That abstract only indicated the limit up to which we can measure photon mass. No mass was actually measured. In other words, we can only say (experimentally) that photons can have no more than such and such a mass.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

An interesting aside to this conversation. The negative sign in antimatter can mean either negative charge, OR negative direction in time. In fact, Richard Feynman once speculated (to a disbelieving John Wheeler) that every electron in existence is just a single electron moving forward in time, and every positron is that same electron moving backward.

In other words, if you rose above our limited slice of the universal worldline, you’d see not many separate worldines for each electron, but a single gigantic Flying Spaghetti Monster sized worldline encompassing them all.

 

[Just thinking]

An interesting aside to this conversation. The negative sign in antimatter can mean either negative charge, OR negative direction in time. In fact, Richard Feynman once speculated (to a disbelieving John Wheeler) that every electron in existence is just a single electron moving forward in time, and every positron is that same electron moving backward.

Then what of vapor trails made by positrons that show up with the same mass as an electron (same size spiral) but with opposite charge (opposite curvature)? Since they come into existance together, it seems unlikely that one is traveling back in time -- would it not have then existed prior to the electron's appearance? They also start from the same point in space-time and spiral out together in what we call positive time. They also both appear to have positive mass.

 

[sphenisc]

Then what of vapor trails made by positrons that show up with the same mass as an electron (same size spiral) but with opposite charge (opposite curvature)? Since they come into existance together, it seems unlikely that one is traveling back in time -- would it not have then existed prior to the electron's appearance?

Stueckelberg-Feynman interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stückelberg-Feynman_interpretation

To answer your specific question
From the forward-travelling electron's perspective (and ours), the particle antiparticle pair appear together and spiral away from each other. From the backward-travelling electron's ('positron') perspective the two particles appear some distance away from each other and spiral inwards to meet and mutually annihilate.

 

[Belz...]

No, no ... anti-matter has positive mass just like regular matter, it just has oppositely charged particles (positrons, anti-protons, etc.). Therefore it has a gravitational attraction to all other matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter is not negative matter, nor does it have negative mass.

Humm... why exactly does anti-matter and matter anihilate one another on "contact" ? Anyone know this ?

 

[Belz...]

I agree pinch is a better word. I didn't mean to imply that objects of the size create the same field of gravity however the opposite. Objects with more mass project more gravity (according to my speculation) because the more mass of an object the greater strain on space-time causing it to bend more.

Now... wouldn't the discovery of the Graviton put quite a wrench in that theory ?

I speculate the strain is caused because when time propels a sphere of lead through space-time it has more force than the force of a sphere of stryfoam of the same size because time as a constant t

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the time dimension, but I'm not sure we "move" in it the same way we move in space. Can someone clarify this ?

*mass*volume=stress on space-time (a crude and speculatory formula).

Not to be annoying, but if everything you say is speculation, you might want to read up on the existing theories first.

Gravity is a force that is bound by c so therefore when objects reach the speed of light the gravity around the object lessens because it spend less time exerting force on a particular spot in space time.

Last I checked, gravity's speed is either instantaneous travel or really, really fast. I never read about it beign limited to c.

I view blackholes as being in the future as the matter they are made up of is not visable, so it should be somewhere.

The way I understand it, black holes are created by singularities, which are similar to the one that resulted in the universe. If so, there probably is just chaos in there. I wouldn't expect to find matter "in" the singularity.

I view time as a three dimensional entity interacting with space.

I had that same thought a few (read: ten) years back. Seems to make sense, but only if you consider that space and time are distinct, which they may not be.

This allows for multiple universes all using the same matter. To travel to a "different" parallel universe just means that matter there is in a different sequence than the matter where you were.

Again, I thought about this too, but see my answer above.

This also allows for the conservation of matter, otherwise multiple universes would mean infite matter and infite matter would mean that there is infite energy and infinite energy would mean that no universe would have empty space as the energy would bleed over to the other universes unless there is no way for the interacting of universes which would defeat the purpose of saying there are multiple universes.

Slow down, tex. The total energy of the universe is zero. Infinite times zero is still zero. I think.

 

[Belz...]

Recent indications ...

Here.

Woah. If this is true, then c might not be a limit after all. Otherwise, how could the photon, with mass, reach it ?

 

[Belz...]

An interesting aside to this conversation. The negative sign in antimatter can mean either negative charge, OR negative direction in time. In fact, Richard Feynman once speculated (to a disbelieving John Wheeler) that every electron in existence is just a single electron moving forward in time, and every positron is that same electron moving backward.

In other words, if you rose above our limited slice of the universal worldline, you’d see not many separate worldines for each electron, but a single gigantic Flying Spaghetti Monster sized worldline encompassing them all.

Could that also mean that every particle is just ONE particle ??

 

[Just thinking]

... From the forward-travelling electron's perspective (and ours), the particle antiparticle pair appear together and spiral away from each other. From the backward-travelling electron's ('positron') perspective the two particles appear some distance away from each other and spiral inwards to meet and mutually annihilate.

What you (and the link) are suggesting is that the positron's clock is running (to us) backwards, no? I'm not sure this means going backwards in time, at least in the sense that events occur in a backward manner with it to us. As we watch a motion picture run backwards, the running of the film is still occuring in forward time even as those in the picture would show clocks going backwards -- and they would not notice anything unusual. For something to go back in time (for us), it would have to project itself before we interact with it. Plus, with respect to the positron, the universe would appear to be contracting, putting the 2nd law of thermodynamics in chaos -- do positrons exhibit this symptom? Do they go from a state of lower order to higher order, as we see them getting younger in the process?

I think there's a difference between a backwards running clock and traveling backwards in time -- as odd as that might sound.

 

[homer]

We've had some talk about the singularity at the heart of a black hole . My understanding of this is that it means we don't know .
Relativity , so I've been told hereabouts, predicts that matter will collapse to zero size , in that case what does quantum mechanics have to say on the matter , since it deals with things on this small scale ?
You can , apparently get time travel near to a black hole , but only forward , faster as you get nearer . Tidal forces would maybe destroy you before you got very far forward . Travel backwards makes no sense here , since you would have to find negative gravity implying less than nothing mass .

 

[Just thinking]

Woah. If this is true, then c might not be a limit after all. Otherwise, how could the photon, with mass, reach it ?

Because it has zero rest mass. It can only travel at one speed, c (in space-time).

 

[Xeriar]

Anti-matter has regular gravity, but since it has a negative mass, the gravitational force has a negative sign. This means it atracts other anti-matter and repels regular matter.

No, it attracts matter and antimatter alike.

 

[Xeriar]

What you (and the link) are suggesting is that the positron's clock is running (to us) backwards, no? I'm not sure this means going backwards in time, at least in the sense that events occur in a backward manner with it to us. As we watch a motion picture run backwards, the running of the film is still occuring in forward time even as those in the picture would show clocks going backwards -- and they would not notice anything unusual. For something to go back in time (for us), it would have to project itself before we interact with it. Plus, with respect to the positron, the universe would appear to be contracting, putting the 2nd law of thermodynamics in chaos -- do positrons exhibit this symptom? Do they go from a state of lower order to higher order, as we see them getting younger in the process?

I think there's a difference between a backwards running clock and traveling backwards in time -- as odd as that might sound.

It's an example of time-reversal in physics. Ie, normally, there should be an equivelant process if you ran time in reverse (entropy being the exception).

 

[aggle-rithm]

....Richard Feynman once speculated (to a disbelieving John Wheeler) that every electron in existence is just a single electron moving forward in time, and every positron is that same electron moving backward.

So where are all the positrons?