Is time travel Impossible Because time Doesn't Exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes time travel is impossible because time doesn't exist.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes time travel is impossible because time doesn't exist.

Really? It is impossible to experience as if times runs backwards? Based on what?

[Alex K]

It seems many of the questions raised in this thread are philosophical in nature, not scientific. I therefore don't feel particularly competent to answer them as a physicist. At least I might be able to offer some perspective or correct scientific misconceptions.

If you argue that time travel backwards might be impossible because the past doesn't exist, there is little in the way of scientific."proof" to pitch against that. But I find it unlikely for one reason: the concept of "now" in the theory of relativity is much more complicated than the Newtonian view or common sense for that matter. If you go beyond your immediate location in space X and ask the question: what time is it "now" in location Y, you get vastly different answers depending on the velocity at which you move. An observer which moves relative to you with velocity v, will see a slice through spacetime as "now" which is at an angle with respect to yours, because different frames of reference have times which differ by lorentz transformations. This becomes particularly obvious in General relativity when considering the time of someone falling into a black hole. They never reach the event horizon as seen by an outside observer, but cross it in finite time from their perspective. There is a complete disconnect between what different observers consider the moment now, going so far that events happen for observer B that never happen for observer A, or only in the infinite future. This lack of a well-defined concept of now (for lack of a global unique time for all places in the cosmos) lets me think that both the past and future hold an ontological existence.

I believe the distinction between past and future to be a statistical phenomenon (as has been alluded to elsewhere in this thread) caused by the increase of entropy. This is obvious in classical physics, but more difficult to argue in quantum theory because of the apparent wave function collapse which only proceeds from past to future - but that is likely an artifact of the formalism because it is not present in all interpretations of quantum theory

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes time travel is impossible because time doesn't exist.

Really?  It is impossible to experience as if times runs backwards? Based on what?

Well that's just the point. We experience our own perception of something we call "time" which is just our own subjective arbitrary measure of how we experience life. "Time" is not something that exists objectively. All there really is a present pulsating moment.

[Anomalocaris]

Really?  It is impossible to experience as if times runs backwards? Based on what?

Well that's just the point. We experience our own perception of something we call "time" which is just our own subjective arbitrary measure of how we experience life. "Time" is not something that exists objectively. All there really is a present pulsating moment.

Fine. Shift the definition of time from some objective entity to a subject perception, how does that preclude time travel? It seems to me that actually reduced the difficulty of achieving the equivalent of time travel.

[Edwardo Piet]

You can alter your perception and say that you're time travelling... if you wish. But hallucinating dinosaurs is not the same thing as visiting the dinosaur time... nor is hallucinating Star Trek ships the same as actually visiting something that hasn't happened yet by definition

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My immediate and transformative Lorenzo location is generally relative at time why(?).  I find this to be statistically phenomenal and entropically quantum.

Quantum, quantum, quantum. 

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

You can alter your perception and say that you're time travelling... if you wish. But hallucinating dinosaurs is not the same thing as visiting the dinosaur time... nor is hallucinating Star Trek ships the same as actually visiting something that hasn't happened yet by definition

How do you know it is impossible for you to visit dinosaurs in reality?

[vorlon13]

You can alter your perception and say that you're time travelling... if you wish. But hallucinating dinosaurs is not the same thing as visiting the dinosaur time... nor is hallucinating Star Trek ships the same as actually visiting something that hasn't happened yet by definition

Meh, eff the dinos, I just want to see Brian.

[AFTT47]

It seems many of the questions raised in this thread are philosophical in nature, not scientific. I therefore don't feel particularly competent to answer them as a physicist. At least I might be able to offer some perspective or correct scientific misconceptions.

If you argue that time travel backwards might be impossible because the past doesn't exist, there is little in the way of scientific."proof" to pitch against that. But I find it unlikely for one reason: the concept of "now" in the theory of relativity is much more complicated than the Newtonian view or common sense for that matter. If you go beyond your immediate  location in space X and ask the question: what time is it "now" in location Y, you get vastly different answers depending on the velocity at which you move. An observer which moves relative to you with velocity v, will see a slice through spacetime as "now" which is at an angle with respect to yours, because different frames of reference have times which differ by lorentz transformations. This becomes particularly obvious in General relativity when considering the time of someone falling into a black hole. They never reach the event horizon as seen by an outside observer, but  cross it in finite time from their perspective. There is a complete disconnect between what different observers consider the moment now, going so far that events happen for observer B that never happen for observer A, or only in the infinite future.  This lack of a well-defined concept of now (for lack of a global unique time for all places in the cosmos) lets me think that both the past and future hold an ontological existence.

I believe the distinction between past and future to be a statistical phenomenon (as has been alluded to elsewhere in this thread) caused by the increase of entropy. This is obvious in classical physics, but more difficult to argue in quantum theory because of the apparent wave function collapse which only proceeds from past to future - but that is likely an artifact of the formalism because it is not present in all interpretations of quantum theory

Alex, is General Relativity right or isn't it? Does not General Relativity assert that space and time are a 4-D construct of space-time or doesn't it? As far as I understand it, General Relativity asserts that the past, present and future all exist and that any observer's viewpoint is equally valid. I thought we settled this > 100 years ago. Am I in error in my understanding of General Relativity?

I'm not asking about the possibility of travel back in time. I understand that while GR may not forbid it, the prohibition of decreasing entropy might. I'm asking about the 4D construct of space/time where the past, present and future exist - irrespective of the theoretical ability to travel back and forth along the time axis. Does GR assert the existence of the 4D space/time construct or doesn't it?