Stephen Hawking on Time and Time travel

Former Forcepit Member :(
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
1,717
Best answers
0
Location
korriban
i can see it now Steven hawkings and his TARDIS
 
Last edited:
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
4,765
Best answers
0
Location
The Netherlands
I DON'T KNOW!!!!! It said Stephen Hawking, and it was an interesting read. I don't even know what the Daily Mail is.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
From what I understand, in the UK the Daily Mail and The Sun are both on par with the Enquirer of the USA.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
4,765
Best answers
0
Location
The Netherlands
Still doesn't change the fact that it was written by Stephen Hawking. And that alone should be reason enough to know it's a good read, regardless of where the article was posted.
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
Also true. You catch what he said about how maybe man shouldn't be so excited to try and contact alien life?
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
3,877
Best answers
0
He has been watching too many movies I think.

Though if we live here then why can't other beings live on other planets?
 
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,852
Best answers
0
He has been watching too many movies I think.

Though if we live here then why can't other beings live on other planets?
I can't remember exactly what it's called, but there's this thought that while the universe may as well be infinitely huge with infinite possibilities we would be so far removed from eachother that it may as well be a moot point.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
This is just a plug for Hawking's TV show. No physicist would deny the possibility of "travelling into the future", and he's making it seem like other physicists would call him mad for suggesting it. It's an extremely basic part of relativity, and we rely on "timetravel" when we use GPS satellites, as they are affected by both general and special relativity, and quite a bit of time alteration.

Edit:

Oh, and @Deathshot:

First of all consider the lifespan of advanced human civilization. There is no way to know whether a civilization like ours is maintainable for more than a few millenniums. Then take a look at how vast the universe is, and how rare planets that could support life are. Time is almost sure to wipe most civilizations off the map, and even if there were aliens "similar to us" in that they have developed technology (why would they? ants are perfectly adapted without using any kind of advanced technology), why would we encounter them? The universe is a big place.

And like Deman said, if we did encounter another sentient race, we would probably enslave them or destroy them, like we have enslaved or destroyed everyone else in western society's way.
 
Last edited:
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
I don't think you can really travel through time since time isn't a tangible force, just a measurement we invented to measure movement.
But it's a null point since you could count making movement happen slower or faster as time travel, if it were possible.

The only way to do this is probably light speed, but that's impossible because any ship moving that fast will be ripped apart by space dust.
I'll give you an example from my physics' textbook.

Imagine you're on a space ship that is going to the star Vega. It's approximately 25 light years away (25 years travelling at the speed of light). Your ship accelerates at 10 m/s^2 for half of the way, before it decelerates at the same velocity for the rest of it. Within a year, you reach 78% of light speed, and you've barely left the solar system. After a bit over five years, your ship's computer tells you that you will arrive at Vega in 15 months. When you get there, you turn around, and go back with the same specifications. When you arrive at Earth, 54 years will have passed for anyone on the planet, whereas for you, only roughly 13 years have passed.

It sounds a bit bizarre but this is how relativity works, and this is what Hawking was talking about, only he probably meant moving closer to 90% of C, or even faster.

Your ship breaking while you travel at light speed would be a risk, but considering the leaps we're likely to make in nanomaterials and electromagnetic shields (they're working on this to create fusion plants), this will not be our biggest concern.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
22
Best answers
0
First off, we're slowly realizing Earth-like planets aren't nearly as rare as previously thought. Granted, we haven't found a place that harbors life as we know it, but we know the conditions exist somewhere "out there". In our solar system alone, we have both Titan and Mars, where the former might harbor life and the latter was probably Earth-like at some point in its past. Hell, even the Moon has frozen water. Then, we have all of those "Earth 2/3/4/5/6" we read about every so often in far off solar systems.

While various human civilizations have risen and fallen, the human race continues to thrive and become more technologically advanced, not as a matter of survival but because we choose to. Why would another species evolve in such a way that tools become necessary, possibly causing them to become more technologically advanced and intelligent as time goes by? The same reason we did, I guess. Or the same reason we're finding different species of primate using tools. It may just be a matter of course. Are we destined to destroy ourselves? While we tend to engage in self-destructive behavior, there's one thing we do better than any other species on this planet, and that's survive. If we have to live in a house made of ****, we'll do it. We don't know why, but that's not going to stop us from doing it.

Would our alien equivalent be as aggressive and violent as we are, or is that type of behavior specific to our stage of development or perhaps to our species, in general? Would a species similar to an insect hive destroy itself or work in unison towards a singular goal, thus increasing their efficiency as a civilization and species?

Should a space faring race exist, how difficult would it be to detect another race of beings that is purposely sending directed signals into various parts of space in an attempt to make first contact? Would such a race have the motivations as we do? Would it be easier to travel to the backwoods of the Milky Way to obtain various resources or mine the materials from asteroids and the like?

We should focus less on the answers and attempt to ask more questions. It's silly to attribute our characteristics to a species that in all probability evolved on a planet dissimilar to ours. Are they all peaceful and loving? Dunno, but would you really want to take the risk before we have the capability to defend ourselves from them should they turn out to be hostile? This is the kind of situation where it pays to be pessimistic.

On a side note, I don't see the point in pursuing ftl vessels when it'd be more efficient to fold space. Light speed really isn't all that fast when traveling in the vastness of space.
 
Last edited:
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
First off, we're slowly realizing Earth-like planets aren't nearly as rare as previously thought. Granted, we haven't found a place that harbors life as we know it, but we know the conditions exist somewhere "out there". In our solar system alone, we have both Titan and Mars, where the former might harbor life and the latter was probably Earth-like at some point in its past. Hell, even the Moon has frozen water. Then, we have all of those "Earth 2/3/4/5/6" we read about every so often in far off solar systems.
There is nowhere that we are aware of that could support life right now, except Earth. This is because life requires a great deal of liquid water, a source of heat/energy, and the right composition of elements to allow the creation of aminoacids. Though there might be a lot of "potential" places for these things, the combination required is likely to be extremely rare. Water does not imply life - by that definition, the entire Universe would be a very hospitable place (ice is a very common chemical). There is still the matter of whether "sentient life" will exist in our race's lifespan.


While various human civilizations have risen and fallen, the human race continues to thrive and become more technologically advanced, not as a matter of survival but because we choose to. Why would another species evolve in such a way that tools become necessary, possibly causing them to become more technologically advanced and intelligent as time goes by? The same reason we did, I guess. Or the same reason we're finding different species of primate using tools. It may just be a matter of course. Are we destined to destroy ourselves? While we tend to engage in self-destructive behavior, there's one thing we do better than any other species on this planet, and that's survive. If we have to live in a house made of ****, we'll do it. We don't know why, but that's not going to stop us from doing it.
We're alive right now, yes, this much is true - but we have only been the dominant species for what, a few thousand years. It seems remarkably arrogant to presume that we will continue this trend for millions of years to come (a lot of species have already survived this long). Sentient life brings with it the problem that it can destroy itself. If viruses and bacteria progress as they have, it's not a stretch to assume a great deal of our population will be eradicated within the next few hundred years due to population density. There is no way to genetically engineer away viruses or bacteria in a way that will have no serious side-effects, either.

Would our alien equivalent be as aggressive and violent as we are, or is that type of behavior specific to our stage of development or perhaps to our species, in general? Would a species similar to an insect hive destroy itself or work in unison towards a singular goal, thus increasing their efficiency as a civilization and species?
Evolution dictates that an aggressive tactic is frequently very successful. Take ants, for instance, which have a highly aggressive attitude towards basically everything. There's also the question of whether you could actually have a civilization at all with an insect hive, as there would be no reason to improve it. Intelligence does not pay off for drones (which is what, 99% of the hive).

We should focus less on the answers and attempt to ask more questions. It's silly to attribute our characteristics to a species that in all probability evolved on a planet dissimilar to ours. Are they all peaceful and loving? Dunno, but would you really want to take the risk before we have the capability to defend ourselves from them should they turn out to be hostile? This is the kind of situation where it pays to be pessimistic.
There is no reason to assume that alien species would evolve on a planet dissimilar to ours. In fact, that is counter-intuitive. Until we actually discover some form of alien life, there is no way to substantiate your claim - whereas the claim that it would be similar is supported by our own existence, and the existence of all the other life on our planet.

I've got to agree with your aggressive stance towards potential aliens, however. We can barely get along with our own kind; how will we deal with baby-eating tentacle crabs?

On a side note, I don't see the point in pursuing ftl vessels when it'd be more efficient to fold space. Light speed really isn't all that fast when traveling in the vastness of space.
I don't think faster than light vessels are even an option that is being considered. To this day there is no way we know that would allow us to "move faster than light". Light is the speed limit. Creating short-cuts like you suggest is a more likely (but less advanced, if there is such a thing as ftl) course of action.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
That's basically altering space instead of altering the velocity, in a sense like what Zeo was talking about - though Zeo was likely referring to what Hawking was referring to, as in wormholes. The alcubierre drive certainly is an interesting prospect if we could pull it off, but it's still not actually faster than light. By that definition, entangled particles are also faster than light.
 
ANBU
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,192
Best answers
0
Location
Bucharest
Just read the article. Very interesting i might say.
I wonder if something monumental like this will be achieved in my lifetime. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom