Can only go back to when you started operating the device. So, basically the Primer time machine, except the math says it has to be done at galactic black hole amounts of energy sort of scale.
Mallett’s vision for a time machine centers on what he calls “an intense and continuous rotating beam of light” to manipulate gravity. His device would use a ring of lasers to mimic the spacetime-distorting effects of a black hole.
Good for you commenting on the title alone! If you looked at the actual article you would know that one of the limitations is, that the furthest point you can reach going back in time is when the “time machine” was first activated.
@inkican Going back in time would require more energy than is available in the universe, for going faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. That's the basis in the theory (should be called 'law' by now) of relativity.
Backwards time travel would obviously interfere with causality in creating an alternative past, which would lead to a different present. So it's a good thing that it's physically impossible, despite what a desperate astrophysicist believes.
The idea is that you can go backwards in time by going faster than light. The speed of light is actually the speed of information itself - so if you could go faster than that, you’d be going backwards in time.
However, Einstein showed that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light. You’d need infinite energy to actually reach the speed of light, and infinite energy is assumed to not be possible.
I wonder if there is a meaningful difference between your example, and the technology with which the JWST uses to view light in the past. Rather, if the later is something we can use for time travel ;)
Man, lots of people in this thread seem happy to accept any wild, physics-breaking idea rather than accept that there’s just a bunch of matter we can’t see.
I think it goes beyond not being able to “see” it and goes to we can’t detect it at all. Doesn’t dark matter just fill in the mathemagical holes with some numbers to make it all work?
We can detect its gravitational influence, as it interacts via gravity. The issue being that gravity is a weak force, and so there’s a lot of room for speculation.
But there is a lot of evidence backing up dark matter existing. But it’s not definitive yet.
I get that but it still sounds woo-woo since we can’t directly detect it. I’m not naysaying since I realize it’s the best we have and I’m not smart enough to come up with anything better.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by “directly detect”. We measure neutrinos by having photoreceptors in huge tanks of very pure water deep under old salt mines… which hardly seems more direct than looking at where galaxies and stars are moving and calculating the gravitational pull and noticing that something is missing…
Dark matter is matter that we infir to exist only on its gravitational effects. We’ve observed its existence by the fact that it seems to clump up in the middle of two massive super-solar structures following a collision.
We can indirectly detect dark matter thru gravitational lensing. That is how NASA created this map showing the actual locations of dark matter in tinted blue.
earth.com
Gorące