Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #35 - goldenfairy (06/21/2014) [-]
Doesn't some theory say amount of energy in the universe is constant? (including energy from E=Mc^2)
So how does it work if you send matter into the past/future?
#49 to #35 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/21/2014) [-]
Didn't read what any of the replies said so I am just going to tell you my view and hope no one else covered it.


Energy is constant in a closed system. For it to be constant in our universe it would require our universe to be a closed system. For one thing, if you could travel through time it would no longer be closed. Another thing is that it is perfectly possible that our universe isn't a closed system. No evidence that it isn't a closed system, but that doesn't get rid of the possibility.
#44 to #35 - mooproxy ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing, but I may be able to help:
Conservation of energy is accurate, and e=mc^2 ties in when you're converting between mass and energy, but it gets a bit hazy in the quantum area, for example vacuum fluctuations - particles can appear from nowhere and exist for a time inversely proportional to their mass until they cease to exist (even then for a very, very short time), but while they're in existence, there's a very tiny bit more energy in the universe than there was before.
The concept of time travel is also a bit fuzzy on the quantum scale, as I think there's no mathematical difference between, say, an electron travelling forwards in time and an anti-electron travelling backwards in time.
Also, relativity dictates that the closer to the speed of light a particle travels, the more slowly time pass 'from its point of view' though if we extend this to photons (which of course travel at the speed of light) then presumably time doesn't happen at all 'from their point of view', so a photon that starts in a far-off galaxy and collides with earth, while it'll travel many millions of light years, it wouldn't perceive any concept of time (if it could have a point of view).
I think this article involves projecting a photon along a path through spacetime without changing its spacial location, and since mathematically there's little difference between forwards and backwards in time (and photons don't have corresponding antiparticles) they somehow managed to persuade one to go backwards in time, though remember it's a simulation and not an experiment that has actually happened yet.
Remember of course, that I'm no expert on the matter, and I could be completely wrong. Time is always very difficult to understand when people are messing with it.
User avatar #37 to #35 - honkan (06/21/2014) [-]
I have no idea, so these are just guesses.

1. The theory is wrong, or more specifically, does not apply in this situation. Like our current theories don't work in the time shortly after the big bang.

2. The amount of energy is constant, if you also consider all energy from the past and the future. Creating energy is still impossible, but you can transport it through time.
I have no idea if this makes sense. It's kinda hard to wrap my head around.
User avatar #39 to #37 - donutzrawsum (06/21/2014) [-]
I think I can explain. It's believed time functions linearly, as in point A to point B. However seeing that time is relative to the speed of light, if you move as fast as light time stops, if you move slower time speeds up, all being relative. That's just the setting here, time functions, the way I was told, like a big tunnel. You can see what's at the end of the tunnel, and if there's someone at the end they can see you. How you ask? Well you're always looking BACK in time irregardless of how far you are, it's however long it takes for light emitted to reach you. Now, imagine that tunnel was say 5 lightyears long. That means that if Person A and Person B were to take their positions at their positions at the exact same time, they would never be able to because it would take them 5 years to see each other. Time is relative to the field it is perceived in. Energy in the universe is constant, the universe exists as a whole in past present and future. Take something to bring to the past and you've taken that from the future and given it to the past. +1 -1, you net 0. From what I see in this case, time travel would indeed be possible, but the result would be irrelevant. Because the universe is constant, there is already a dimension in which you did go back in time to change something (provided you could) so even if you did it would only be relative to you who was witness to it and that universe would only be relative to you. As a whole however the universe you were part of has already move past that point and you ultimately can't change the outcome there. You would however take yourself out of the picture for universe one. -1. Preventing universe One from progressing. But there's also a universe in which this is expected and has already happened, +1. Ultimately you net 0.

I went off on a tangent, TL;DR: the universe interprets past, present, and future simultaneously.
User avatar #40 to #39 - donutzrawsum (06/21/2014) [-]
I THINK*.
 Friends (0)