Time and space are the same thing, if you’re traveling in time it seems like you could travel in space at the same time.
I think that's the joke. Media presents time travel as just inputting the date and off you go, but really you need to input time AND space because the two are interconnected.
Of course we could just imagine that all time machines somehow calculate the space itself just by knowing the current spacetime and the inputted time, but now we're giving writers too much benefit of doubt. In most cases time travel is used as plot device and very little thought is given to how it could work.
And an interesting sidenote. This also means that teleportation is a special case of time travel and if you've solved time travel you've probably also solved teleportation.
Media presents time travel as just inputting the date and off you go, but really you need to input time AND space because the two are interconnected.
Alternately since we're Earthlings, someone designing a time machine might think it's a good idea to automatically calculate the location using the Earth as a reference point because that's likely to be the most common use case and doing so would prevent you from dying to the void of space if you make a tiny math error. At which point you would just need to input the destination time if the target is the same location relative to Earth.
I teleport two Klingons every morning and I’m still late to the staff meeting.
So you're saying that, if you're traveling in space it seems like you could travel in time at the same space.
If they were really the same thing, traveling into the past would be trivial. Greg Egan's Orthogonal series explores the consequences of space and time actually being the same thing. You can also the the difference in formulas related to proper time, where terms for space and time have opposite signs. Space and time have the same relationship to each other as real and imaginary numbers, in a fairly literal sense.
What is time, if not curvy space?
Couldn't this be solved even if they weren't linked by just flickering in and out of phase or whatever to keep gravitationally relative with the earth
A time machine would necessarily need to have some way of defining what reference frame one is stationary in space relative towards, because there is no universal frame that everything moves relative to. This suggests that a time machine ought to let you move through space as well as time
So to travel into the future and be in the "same place" relative to your planet you'd need to solve the n-body problem for at least your local system to a suitable length of time. A slight error might mean you appear inside the planet or in outer space.
Or maybe I don't understand this stuff. :-)
Mass bends spacetime so one could assert that a time machine could anchor itself to a sufficiently large mass, just like how things in orbit are still bound to the earth's mass.
And this is why you need the spice melange
Since relativity tells us there is no universal reference frame, then it having its reference tied to earth is perfectly valid.
Also sidenote: my favourite idea about time travel is that time travel is entirely possible, but will never be invented, because the timeline where its not invented is the only stable timeline. Because any timeline where it IS invented gets changed as soon as you use it, meaning the timeline changes over and over again every time time travel is invented repeatedly either infinitely or until someone accidentally creates a timeline where its never invented, only then does the timeline stop changing and we can actually experience it. So because we exist and can experience time, we can deduce that we will never invent time travel.
There can be stable timelines with time travel - there's actually 3 states:
-
Perpetual instability, where the timeline changes each time the time machine is used but never reaches the same state twice
-
Perpetual cyclic stability, where people's actions in modifying the timeline lead to it eventually reaching the same state, eg. you go back in time to kill someone who becomes evil and oppresses you but the near death experience leads them capture you, so you can't time travel any more, and to blame your people and start oppressing them, leading to the same actions
-
Stability without time travel, which is the default state but incredibly hard to get once time travel is invented as with nobody to stop time travel being invented it would probably get invented again, however parts of a cyclically stable timeline could have nobody having access to time travel, but any actions by time travellers to stop time travel would likely lead to the second rather than third option
-
Yeah I think we don't have to worry about it for the same reason why you don't have to worry about getting thrown backwards when jumping in a moving train.
Sure, but it's a lot of fun to think about :D
Rotational reference frames are out though! (Unless you want to deal with magic forces acting on your masses)
And since the earth rotates around itself and the sun, and the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy, you will always have to deal with a moving target.
You might have better luck and accuracy using our galaxy' s black hole for reference marker depending on how much time you intend to traverse
How much do you know about the "double slit" experiment and its subsequent variations? Because I think that's a rabbithole you'll enjoy. That first video is really just context; this next link is another video in that series, and this is the one that really pertains to the consequences of time travel: https://piped.video/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
In most media time machines are also teleporters - many are explicitly so, with the destination space needing to be chosen at the same time as the destination time, but even when that's not shown they still make the time traveller suddenly vanish and then just suddenly reappear elsewhen.
One movie I've seen with a more "realistic" time machine is Primer. It's not at all a teleporter or portal. Very slight spoiler:
It sidesteps the whole issue that OP presents because the place where you exit the machine after traveling is just where the machine is when it's turned on to begin with. You can't time travel outside the machine, including to before it exists, and your path (in all four dimensions) is contiguous.
I prefer the H.G. Wells The Time Machine style of time travel , where you affect the flow of time instead of a discontinuous jump.
You're still attached to your current location, things just happen faster (in forwards or reverse). It also means that time travel takes time, which can be a handy plot tool.
Edit: grammatical swipe keyboard errors
Primer is one of my favourite movies ever. It was made on a budget of 3 peanuts and pocket lint, and it shows, but damn it's an interesting premise.
Still in my top 5. I think the acting is better than most science fiction blockbusters and every science fiction series.
Great movie. I enjoyed the lofi feel of Primer as it handled a really fun concept.
Same with The End of Eternity - they can travel to different times at which the machine existed.
In fact, isn't it a bit similar with the only 'real' possibility of time travel - you create a wormhole and take one end on a relativistic journey to create a time difference between the ends, but the only possible travel is between the two ends that you have created.
Guess this is why the TARDIS had to be a space ship as well.
The name TARDIS is literally the solution, "Time And Relative Dimension In Space".
Time machines have been invented dozens of times since the 1800s; there's s trail of them drifting through deep space.
I feel like the scientists smart enough to invent time machines would have thought of that
Well, since this was posted in Science Memes, I'll be so pedantic that science does not support the idea of travelling back in time.
It does support travelling forwards in time, at various speeds, but you'll constantly be aware of where you are (even if one method involves travelling really fast and therefore may still leave you in empty space).
I'm traveling forward in time right now.
Big, if true
I thought it was possible in relativity if only you could solve that pesky going faster than light problem. Only going to the speed of light is impossible. If you were to start out beyond the speed of light you should be traveling backwards in time. Mathematically that should be possible.
I have heard that notion before, but don't know how the maths is supposed to work.
I can tell you, though, that light would be going faster than light, if it could.
Here's a simple equation you probably know:
F = m * a
(F is force, m is mass, a is acceleration)Well, if you rearrange it, you get this:
a = F / mWe currently believe photons to have no mass.
Insert that into the equation and you get a division by zero, but our closest approximation means acceleration is infinite, as soon as any non-zero force is applied.Infinite acceleration results in immediate infinite velocity. It makes no sense for light to only accelerate until 300,000 km/s and then take its foot off the gas pedal.
This is why it's instead believed that there is a speed limit to causality itself.
The speed of light (as well as of gravitational waves and other massless things) just happens to be the same value, because they're going as fast as is possible.Here's a video about the speed of causality: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/
if you believe in the notion that the universe is cyclic then you can mimic time traveling backwards by traveling forwards, past the end of the universe, and stopping at just the right time in the new universe.
e.g., to get to 1700 you’d go (present time) -> (death of the universe) -> (1700 in next universe)
I mean, personally, I actually don't believe that the Big Bang created everything out of
thin airvacuum, because much like travelling backwards in time, that would break causality.It makes much more sense for everything to just have always existed and the Big Bang is merely a very visible event + expansion afterwards.
I'm open to the notion that expansion and contraction happen in some sort of cycle, because well, many things do.But for it to be cyclical to the point where it repeats precisely the same? Why?
Can't we just let the universe flobber on its merry way without assigning some higher meaning to everything it does?Futurama has an episode like that. It was a pretty good one.
I like the idea that time machines are like phones in that you need a receiver to pick up the signal. A consequence is that you can only travel back to the time that the machine was turned on.
Imagine building the first receiver, and immediately have 20 people spawn within the same space
More like 2 million inconsiderate time tourists comming to gawk at the first reciver..
You may enjoy Ted Chiang's The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate, the short story.
The whole book is great if you like thought-provoking sci-fi premises I guess: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/41160292
This meme format having a redemption arc is my favorite. It wasn’t super sexist, but it was just unnecessarily sexist.
Rescue peepo from the nazis next.
Time machines don't exist and (as far as we know) cannot exist. Therefore, we can say they work however we want. If you can travel back in time, surely you can do that while remaining close to an arbitrary point of reference.
Hence how the artist was able to choose that the time machine in this context rewinds time while conserving the universal position(?)... Relative to the center of the universe(??)... assuming eucledian space(???)
How, uh, far back in time did you want to go?
That's probably the guy that offered people a few dollars and a chair to watch all of earth's history.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/33514/how-fast-are-we-moving-relative-to-the-cmb#33515
Earth moves with somewhere between 230-500km/s, long term average should be 370 km/s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth
The solar system and earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.
https://numbat.dev/?q=370+km%2Fs+*+4.6+billion+years+->+ly⏎
That means the solar system travelled 3.45-7.67 million light-years (5.67 for the average speed) since then.
That plural form (millions of light years) is borderline, but actually not incorrect.
Jokes on you, space doesn't exist
I suppose you're going to tell me that the earth is flat too....
I honestly think this would not happen because you would be time-travelling in the Earth's frame of reference
Yeah, or if the time machine is genuinely a teleporter, then the invetor should at least know how to correct for drift.
I mean, it's the space-time continuum, it's connected! As the documentary Stargate SG-1 shows, we're well acquainted with spatial and chronological drift over interstellar distances.
There is no space reference in time traveling only a time reference, the time traveler don't change his start point, but the Earth and the whole solarsystem do. If you travel 6 month to the future, you are still in the point where you started, but the Earth will be on the other site of the Sun. A time machine must be a spaceship, otherwise you won't survive. That is the error of almost all movies about time travel since H.G.Wells.
If you travel 6 month to the future, you are still in the point where you started, but the Earth will be on the other site of the Sun.
Why would you remain spatially locked to the sun? The solar system is moving around the milky way. The Milky way is traveling at around 370 miles per second if we use the universe as a frame of reference. A point is both a place and a moment. Everything is moving relative to everything else. Time travel is also space travel.
This is a huge assumption. Why is it necessary that time would not have a space reference? I'd actually say that based on relativistic physics there probably is a space reference because the dimensions are linked. I think it's possible that the momentum of the current movement could remain constant and thus stick the time traveling device to the earth. Coming to a complete referential stop in space would require beyond immense energy and be inefficient if one only wants to travel in time
Kinda depends, doesn't it? A travel that let's you see glimpses of reality/earth implies you're making smaller skips that may keep you somewhat held in place. Being able to establish a vector through time may also imply control of vectors in space.
Also, six months would likely take us farther than the other side of the sun. If we're completely de-referenced we might be able to find a universal reference frame or some wild shit.
Being human sucks.
Ooh, but what if the time machine came from Mars and uses that as its frame of reference?
Someone should build a space machine so we can travel through space freely
We are all space machines on this blessed day
Blessed be
🤯
Why would you time travel to a position relative to anything other than the earth?
This. It would have to be set as relative to something, why you would define that as any object not Earth or on Earth is a mystery to me
Ooh, new science fiction idea. We built a time machine and can only use it to reach other star systems. But just those that have been or will be at the same "spot" as earth.
I think gravity is the solution to this problem. The time machine just has to be able to lock on to the earths gravitational force from across time
Well, since no one bothered to create a savepoint, we can't travel back in time anyway.
I'd like to believe that mass (and then by extension the Earth) "defines" the spacetime around it as much as it distorts spacetime near it. I suspect this may even be the underlying cause for the observation of speed of light being constant in the presence of earth/solar/galactic movement.
When I was a kid I thought that spacetime was created by mass. I thought that if you were to ever find the end of the universe you wouldn't be able to travel beyond because you would just create new spacetime everywhere you went.
And I thought that was scientific consensus. No idea where I got it from, though.
My view has always been that space is "round", that there is no end of the universe because it just loops back around. Apparently this is all still unknown.
It'd be really interesting if time moves at different speeds in different bits of the galaxy, find out that none of the other solar systems have life because closer to the galactic center of someone dropped a teapot when the first life evolved on earth it still wouldn't have hit the floor.
Of course there's a lot of reasons this isn't the case but I dismiss them by saying they're all just an effect of distortion due to time variance.
Maybe we'll get s message from voyager saying 'arrived at a star 224 light years away, it was super quick because there's no time in the middle so you just skip that bit'
Similar to a solar system's habitable zone there exists (or is suspected to exist) a galactic habitable zone. I think because of cosmic rays and radiation. So I guess most habitable planets would have more or less the same time dilation.
Ahummm, well actually, * adjusts monocle * time travel is not possible and since nobody has invented time machines yet, neither of these scenarios would happen in reality.
So either we would have to invent teleportation along with time travel/ have some sort of "magnet pad' that must exist and not break at all times on earth, or its the time machine type where it just fast forwards everything around you until somehow you're in a mall
Since space and time are intertwined, we must travel both to achieve the desired goal
Maybe this is why Stephen Hawkings time travellor party never worked out lol
I should hope that if we had time travel landing pads, we'd have a pretty good log of maintenance times in the future.
The tough part to figure out, though, is that the more a pad is used, the more maintenance it requires, which in turn modifies the logs.
This is why you have to calibrate your time machine to track the relative gravity well.
It’s my belief that Time Machines aren’t immune to the effects of gravity. When time changes, the machine goes to the space it would be at if it was affect gravity for the whole time.
Nah. Location is relative.
the question is, what's your frame of reference? if it's the earth you're good. if it's the sun, you could presumably move forward any integer number of years because earth would be in the same place in its orbit relative to the sun (but try to move forward by a year and a day and you may have a bit of a chilling discovery about orbital mechanics). however, the position of our solar system (which, you'll remember, includes the earth, the sun, me and presumably also you) is not static relative to the rest of the universe so if that's your frame of reference then you'll have to move in space and time instantaneously in order to move in time but seem stable in space to an observer whose frame of reference is the earth.
The other particles and patterns of information that I'm most entangled with, temporally and atemporally.
That is my frame of reference.
I once saw a short film where this was taken into account: they moved back in time a few hours and ended you a few miles away too
Same as "7 days", they had to take the location shift into consideration.
We dont just live it, we are part of it.
