4 ms·

> Nikk Effingham’s book is an exploration of all things time travel (where time travel is to be read as backwards time travel, that is, travel to an earlier tim

> Nikk Effingham’s book is an exploration of all things time travel (where time travel is to be read as backwards time travel, that is, travel to an earlier time). I'd be interested to know if forward time travel is easier than backwards time travel. Seems to avoid a lot of paradoxes.

nikhilgk 5y ago
That's "relatively" easy to do. Get in a space ship that could quickly get to a fraction of c, travel for a short amount of time and then return back to the starting point. You would have traveled to the future from the point of view of some one at the starting point.
- godelski 5y ago
  This is actually harder to do in practice and is a common misunderstanding of the twin paradox, which is resolved by incorporating acceleration into the model. You'll have better luck with gravity wells.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    It’s not only not a misunderstanding of the twin paradox, but is correct and verified by experiment.
modzu 5y ago
forward time travel is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and in fact we've done it experimentally. backwards is only possible observationally (ex. building a big telescope we can look at the past) but we cannot effect it
- de6u99er 5y ago
  That'd correct. Not only, that we can not influence it, we also know that it has already happened.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Not so fast. (Or slow.) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
Octplane 5y ago
It happens to me every night. Gets old pretty fast though…
spaetzleesser 5y ago
Forward travel is easy. Go really fast or just hibernate. The physics is easy. It’s just an engineering problem.
JackFr 5y ago
That was a favorite joke of my kids: I’ve invented time travel, but I can only go in one direction at regular speed.
- Beldin 5y ago
  Just go into the mountains to speed up a bit. Where "a bit" is measured in nanoseconds per day; nevertheless... it does work.

nikhilgk 5y ago

That's "relatively" easy to do. Get in a space ship that could quickly get to a fraction of c, travel for a short amount of time and then return back to the starting point. You would have traveled to the future from the point of view of some one at the starting point.

godelski 5y ago
This is actually harder to do in practice and is a common misunderstanding of the twin paradox, which is resolved by incorporating acceleration into the model. You'll have better luck with gravity wells.
- leephillips 5y ago
  It’s not only not a misunderstanding of the twin paradox, but is correct and verified by experiment.

modzu 5y ago

forward time travel is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics and in fact we've done it experimentally. backwards is only possible observationally (ex. building a big telescope we can look at the past) but we cannot effect it

de6u99er 5y ago
That'd correct. Not only, that we can not influence it, we also know that it has already happened.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Not so fast. (Or slow.) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/

Octplane 5y ago

It happens to me every night. Gets old pretty fast though…

spaetzleesser 5y ago

Forward travel is easy. Go really fast or just hibernate. The physics is easy. It’s just an engineering problem.

JackFr 5y ago

That was a favorite joke of my kids: I’ve invented time travel, but I can only go in one direction at regular speed.

Beldin 5y ago
Just go into the mountains to speed up a bit. Where "a bit" is measured in nanoseconds per day; nevertheless... it does work.