Duke Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I was reading this article about traveling back in time and some complications that may occur and there was this part about 'the bucket effect'. This basicaly means that when you travel back in time, you will bring matter with you. Just bits and pieces like Oxygen atoms, fluff ect. This is all very vague but the fact is you will be introducing more material in that place in time than what previously existed. Noone knows what would happen. Anything you send back in time would actually allready exist there in some form. If we said for arguments sake that when you send stuff back in time, it remains stable and exists as normal. This means that if it gets 'left behind' you will experience a sort of feedback that instantly occurs. Because in a 4th dimensional view; the time travel will occur not only once, but an infinite amount of times. (This is if the future takes the same path each time) Still with me? So if you accidently deposit a small piece of matter when you travel back in time. It will be duplicated an infinite amount of time and the universe would probably colapse due to the emense amount of gravity caused by your infinitly big ball of pocket fluff. This is a theory called the bucket effect. So dont travel back in time ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 But does matter from different times affect the universe as a whole? I do not completely understand what the bucket effect is, so any simpler explanation would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Duke: The problem I see with that is that the matter isn't being duplicated back in time, its simply being moved. If the atoms are actually moved then there won't be a feedback effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 So matter is conserved not only at a single space-time system, but also at all space-time systems add together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Originally posted by Snorlax So matter is conserved not only at a single space-time system, but also at all space-time systems add together? Well, I'm just saying that travelling back in time isn't duplicating the matter, just moving it about in space-time. The matter is still conserved, its just at another point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 How can one travel back time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 First, you'll have to get hold of a Klingon Bird of Prey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 What's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Originally posted by Snorlax What's that? lol, ignore the star trek fanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMI Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 It's all moot! Time is not something that can be travelled to or from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 But if we do find a way, like using 1 thousand million GeV of energy at a certain point in space-time, wouldn't it be able to bend space-time so much that time begin to reverse or forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted August 16, 2003 Author Share Posted August 16, 2003 If you move atoms to a previous point in time; they would exist twice at that point (because all atoms have been around since the big bang) so whatever you send back, will be able to visit itself. If this atom is then allowed to 'stay' at this point in time, that is the bucket effect because it will happen over and over again. You have a bucket of water. the bucket is the univers and the water is all the atoms within. The universe can only hold so many atoms before it overflows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted August 16, 2003 Author Share Posted August 16, 2003 Besides this is all theoretical. I dont care if it is possible to travel back in time. and blike, you can only 'move' matter foward in time. As it only exists once in the universe. Its similar to a microphone feeding back. If you put a microphone upto its speaker; it will record whats coming out of the speaker, ampify it slightly and send it through the speaker. If you get a slight noise it will quickly feed back and you end up with a very loud signal. Same pricapal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 1. All matter has not existed since the beginning of time, matter and energy are interchangeable. 2. If you are capable of moving through time, then time gives the bucket an extra dimension therefore the position of an atom in time has no net effect on the capacity of the bucket. Summary: If your description of the bucket theory is accurate, I would say it's not that likely to be 'true'. Is that what you were after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted August 16, 2003 Author Share Posted August 16, 2003 im being very vague when i describe a lot of this. I into the idea that the universe only exists as matter. I didn't really start the thread to discuss whether it was possible to travel back in time because i personally dont believe it is possible. There are a lot of ideas and theories about all this that could or could not be true but the bucket effect is purely theoretical. Maybe i didn't explain it well or something but its not my theory. Its definatly true that the bucket only happens if you 'leave something behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Originally posted by Duke Besides this is all theoretical. I dont care if it is possible to travel back in time. and blike, you can only 'move' matter foward in time. As it only exists once in the universe. Its similar to a microphone feeding back. If you put a microphone upto its speaker; it will record whats coming out of the speaker, ampify it slightly and send it through the speaker. If you get a slight noise it will quickly feed back and you end up with a very loud signal. Same pricapal ahh yes, you are correct. I didn't realize that till just now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 I think it would be beneficial to specify exactly what he is correct about, and why... Otherwise this will turn into a flaming great rage thread as all time travel threads seem to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 If you move matter back in time, it winds up in a totally different space since the universe is moving according to our measurements so far. To move back in time to a particular point in space-time the "bucket effect" would overflow, but just to move back in time would cause a stream of duplicate matter flowing into space behind our Earths trajectory through the universe. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 It won't keep on adding up. Say I moved a brick back in time to 3 minutes ago. For 3 minutes, there would be two bricks, but then one would vanish and you'd just have the one brick again, except 3 years older. ps. The net difference between what you eat and what you excrete will be removed from your body when you leave the planet. pps. Hold on, that's the Guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 I think you would have to travel (without the bricks) pretty close to c to make them 3 years older in 3 minutes OK, there is a typo there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 but the 1`st time round in your time machine you wouldn`t be there, and that loop would just continue, each time you got into your machine and arrived in the past it would be the same as the very 1`st time you did it,,, because it IS the 1`st time you did it (does that make any sense to anyone other than me?, I can picture it perfectly, not sure if i can word it though ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 I haven't really thought about it but I think the words '1`st time' can be quite confusing when you talk about time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Ok... I`ll try again. lets use variables since I can`t draw. lets use Yt and Yv (You Time traveler) and (You Virgin) Yt gets into the time machine and goes back and meets Yv (there`s 2 ov you now) you then both move forwards in time until the date you stepped into the time machine. Yt, will continue past this date having memories of it all but CANNOT get into the original time machine, his time line carries on as normal. Yv on the other hand HAS TO get into the time machine and become Yt(new) that will occur forever sure but they will ALWAYS be seperated by the time the trip back took. there could be an infinate number of Yt(x) out there, but seperated like cars on a road all the exact same distance appart, except the distance would be time and not yards they could ONLY "fill the bucket" if time itself stopped allowing them all to catch up. a bit like the lead car crashing and the remaining cars all pilling up. Time can`t stop though, so the bucket will never get full *Phew* that`s how I see it anyway. (Im` gunna get some aspirin now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Once again, you'll only get infinite mass IF AND ONLY IF THE MACHINE GOES BACK IN TIME AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES. Which it doesn't. It goes back once, and there happens to be two when there was one, temporarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Great it was worth the headache afterall then. I wasn`t sure wether I`de; A) solved it. B) restated the same problem more clearly. c) just made matters worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now