Faster Than Light-Based Time Travel

My apologies for the long absence. Work, school, holidays, and PROCRASTINATION have kept me busy doing everything but working on this website, and when I finally got around to writing a post, it turned out to be a much hairier topic than I expected, and I took almost two months to write it. But it is finally here! Enjoy!

One thing that has bugged me a lot about science fiction is what seems to be the prevailing theory on the faster than light (FTL) method of time travel. The common concept is that, because time slows down for an object approaching the speed of light, then if that object could somehow surpass the speed of light, then it would start traveling backwards in time. In more technical terms, what this is saying is that spatial acceleration in the direction of spatial motion is either the same as, or inherently tied to, temporal acceleration in the opposite direction of temporal motion.

But what this appears to neglect is the very relativity it is based on. From the perspective of the traveler, as the ship speeds up, time for the contents of the ship proceeds as normal, while time for the outside world speeds up. However, from the perspective of a stationary observer, time for the observer will remain stationary, while time for the ship slows down. As the traveler approaches the speed of light, time for the outside world will approach an infinite speed as time proceeds normally for him, whereas from the perspective of the stationary observer, the ship will stop experiencing time altogether, though it will continue moving in space.

Wow, does my brain hurt just getting this far.

This brings up the problem of traveling at the speed of light. Depending on the perspective we look at this scenario from, we get contradictory results: from the observer’s perspective, time for the traveler stops, but from the traveler’s perspective, it does not. In mathematical terms, time becomes undefined, because we are dealing with numbers that just don’t work with our math (try calculating ∞-(∞-1), and play around with the order of operations, given that ∞-∞=0, and ∞-1=∞, and you’ll see what I mean–math just doesn’t work here)

So traveling at the speed of light appears to be a mathematical impossibility, but we can conjecture what it would look like, as long as we limit our perspective. With that foundational understanding, let’s move on to speeds greater than that of light.

The easiest way to think about FTL speeds is from the perspective of an outside observer, so that is where I will start. An observer will perceive the traveler as experiencing time more and more slowly as he approaches the speed of light, ultimately ceasing to experience time altogether at the speed of light. Thus, it is only logical that, once the speed of light is exceeded, time for the traveler will reverse, and he will travel back in time. This is the standard view of what would happen if someone exceeded the speed of light.

But this is where things really start to get interesting: from the perspective of the traveler, time for the outside world is accelerating until, when he reaches the speed of light, time for the outside world is traveling at an infinite speed, so when he accelerates past the speed of light, why would time for the outside world suddenly reverse speed? There is absolutely no reason to expect this. In fact, our entire concept of time, even altered by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, simply breaks down.

This concept contains two instances of paradox. The first is that relativity begins to affect time in completely different ways, depending on the perspective you choose. The second is the fact that travel at speeds greater than that of light cannot follow the same rules of relativity as speed up to that point.

I  hypothesize two possible explanations for this: the first possibility is that light speed is actually is an absolute barrier, and for more reasons than we realize. I still have no idea why the universe would behave this way, or if the scientific community has any theories. It seems completely arbitrary, but if I have learned one thing, it is that God does not do arbitrary, so there must be a reason. The second possibility, both less likely and cooler to think about, is that once the speed of light is exceeded, you begin interacting with the fifth dimension. I might be able to cook up some ideas on how that would work, but right now I think this post is long enough, and has been long enough in coming, plus it’s getting pretty late, and my this topic hurts my brain at my best.

What do you guys think?

Advertisements

Logical Proof of God’s Existence

I will start with the assumption that logic itself is valid, because as a human being I cannot do otherwise. There is technically no reason whatsoever to make this assumption, because if logic is invalid, then logic could be both valid and invalid with no contradiction whatsoever, because any contradiction would be solely a logical contradiction, and logic is invalid. To argue that logic “makes sense,” or that we see it happening all around us, and that it agrees with the outside world are all simply begging the question. These arguments use logic to prove that logic is valid, but if logic itself is on trial, logic cannot be entered into evidence. However, if logic is invalid, both sides of this argument fall apart, and I have no clue whatsoever of how to proceed with an argument if logic is invalid, so it must be assumed, if for no other purpose than for the sanity of the human race.

Thus, starting from logic alone, we know that either the universe exists or it does not. There is no third alternative. We perceive that the universe exists. If the universe exists, then either it has always existed or it has not. If the universe has always existed, either nothing has ever happened or every conceivable possible occurrence has already occurred an infinite number of times, and the mere thought of a “present” is mere nonsense, because there is no way to point to a specific point along an infinite line as viewed, theoretically, in its entirety. Infinity is infinity, and any finitude associated with it is simply nonsense. An infinite yet changeable being is thus a nonsensical construction (sorry Hindus). Thus, the universe must have had a beginning.

Now, so far, I have only proven that which is already commonly accepted, or at least given lip service to. However, the evolutionary hypothesis is that a tiny speck (presumably a singularity) once contained all mass in the universe, and it exploded into the universe. This returns us to the argument of finitude or infinity: either this singularity has existed for eternity or it has not. If it has, then the Big Bang has happened an infinite number of times (we can say for certain that it didn’t not happen, because the world exists), and the thought of “this particular occurrence,” and thus a “present,” and therefore time in general, is completely meaningless. If it hasn’t, then the logical law of causality states that something else must have caused it. If this singularity represents the entirety of the universe at this point (which it both does by hypothesis and must, due to the previous argument of finitude and infinitude, which I will not repeat yet again), then this cause must be outside of the universe. In this case, there is really no point in developing the idea of the Big Bang, because there must still be a “super-natural” cause of the universe.

So the universe is finite, with a beginning and end, and as such requires that something have created it. Now, I could stop there, and just leave it as yet another modified version of the law of causality, but all this has actually just been setup for the “real” thing I have been trying to get to: this whole argument applies to any object to which time can be applied. If a thing is temporal, it is either eternal and unchangeable (in which case it also could not affect anything outside of itself, because that would require it change–it would have to be a completely passive object, completely disconnected from the outside world, and it is strongly questionable that such a concept even makes sense to coexist with any other entity, unless every other entity with which it coexists is precisely such as it), or it is finite, in which case it had a cause. Thus, the fact that the universe exists today means that it had a first cause, and that first cause must, by necessity, be outside of time, or it itself would need a cause. Thus, the mere existence of the universe, or even my own existence as a being (apart from any sensory data, just the raw fact that cogito ergo sum) requires the existence of a being that exists outside of time, that created this universe. And any being that creates a self-contained universe will, automatically, have complete and total control and knowledge of everything that occurs within that universe (think of an author writing a book: nothing happens in a book without the author’s knowledge, consent, and active causing, and if the author stops writing the book, the universe in the books simply ceases to exist at the point at which the author stopped writing).

Conclusion: the universe is finite, God exists and created the universe, He is outside of time and the universe, and He is omnipotent and omniscient with regard to the universe.

I could go on to derive other characteristics of God, but I will stop there, because that is all that comes to me spontaneously, without me specifically trying to intuit other characteristics of the Author Being.