Crystal Ball of Time

[DeletedUser]

In the many discussions I had with the physics professor in my family, one particular discussion came to mind after reading some of the thoughts posed in the human evolution thread (HERE).

Traveling forward in time may be possible, per the theory of relativity, given velocity or gravity-based time dilation but, based on our present understanding on the laws of physics, traveling back in time is not feasible. However, being able to see back in time is, theoretically, possible.

Assuming Einstein's special theory of relativity is correct, we will be able to utilize future technology that would allow us to travel or communicate faster than light (FTL). How this relates to seeing the future is simple really, but would require FTL that is, at a minimum, more than two times the speed of light (interestingly, at present we are able to hear events twice or more, by traveling beyond the speed of sound).

When we view the stars, or other distant objects, we are not viewing them as they are today, but as they were tens, hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years ago. That is because light is not instantaneous and has a rate of speed (300,000 kms per second, minus drag). Basically, light traveling from those distant objects takes time to reach us.

Now, a light year (LY) is a measurement of distance, and relates to how far light can travel in a year, which happens to be about 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers. If we can travel faster than light at two times the speed of light, to a distance of 100 light years, then take a sort of screenshot of earth, and travel back with that information, in one hundred years we'll be able to see what happened 50 years ago.

Running with the assumptions on FTL technology, I think it would be reasonable to also assume simultaneous extensive developments in telescope and light/radar technology. With both of these technologies combined, we can develop an FTL sensor-loaded rocket. And we jump to the year 2060:

​

In 2060 an FTL rocket (let's call it the “USS Camera”) is launched. It travels two times the speed of light, a distance of 100 light years in only 50 years. Equipped with a variety of sensors, “USS Camera” takes pictures of Earth as it looked 50 years prior to the initial launching and then travels back to Earth (another 50 years), landing in 2160, with photos as Earth looked in the year 2010.
​

Obviously, the problem here is getting that information in a reasonable amount of time. Given this, in order for this sort of Crystal Ball scheme to work, we would need to either shorten the distance traveled, or increase the velocity of the FTL rocket (3x, 4x, or more, faster than the speed of light).

Now here's some interesting uses:

1. We would be able to review criminal cases and determine guilt or innocence based on irrefutable "eyewitness" testimony, even going so far as to read heat signatures (heart-rate and/or brain activity), etc.
2. We could review debated points of the past, even going so far as to determine if various religious events actually took place.

So, any other thoughts, either about FTL, sensor technology, their uses, or even about what may speculatively occur if particular historical information were to revealed as valid/invalid?

 

[DeletedUser]

Say I wanted to see Moses "part" the Red Sea. I still do not understand the concept of seeing the past. Can you re-explain that my good friend?

 

[DeletedUser]

Sure James. Let's run with the North Star, Polaris:

We can see this beauty with our naked eye, but we're not looking at Polaris as it is today. That's because this star is at a distance of about 430 light-years from Earth. What that means is, it takes light 430 years to get from Polaris to us. So, when we look up in the night sky, gazing at Polaris, we're seeing Polaris as it was 430 years ago, not Polaris today.

Now, light has a rate of speed (as I mentioned in the earlier post). So, if we can travel faster than light, we can get ahead of light emissions, just as jets can can surpass the speed of sound and get ahead of sound waves that they create.

Okay, now let's swap positions. We're now on some rocket orbiting Polaris. If we were to look at Earth from Polaris, from our rocket ship, we would not be seeing Earth as it is today, but Earth as it was 430 years ago. In fact, if we had an extremely powerful telescope, we could watch William Shakespeare marrying Anne Hathaway.

That's the idea behind seeing into the past. Get ahead of the light.

 

[DeletedUser5046]

well there's been a lot of movie about it. my doubts arent as big as my belief of travelling time being able to happen. But if we will try to communicate with people in te past. It will be a big risk though.

its true tat we are seeing te stars (not only te polaris) not by what they are now ..but what they are before.... even te sun... and some supernova .... its like when you wave at someone saying happy 12th birthday at a friend but then he/she recieved it 3 years after....so te reciever is already 15 by te time he/she is greeted.

 

[DeletedUser]

well there's been a lot of movie about it. my doubts arent as big as my belief of travelling time being able to happen. But if we will try to communicate with people in te past. It will be a big risk though.

Faster than light communication does not provide the ability to talk to someone in the past, it is merely a means to transfer information at a rate faster than light.

its true tat we are seeing te stars (not only te polaris) not by what they are now ..but what they are before.... even te sun... and some supernova .... its like when you wave at someone saying happy 12th birthday at a friend but then he/she recieved it 3 years after....so te reciever is already 15 by te time he/she is greeted.

Yes, correct. If they were three light years apart, the birthday boy would see the wave three years after it was committed. Light is very very fast, but it still takes time to travel from point A to point B.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmmmm interesting concept. How do you propose to get this powerful "crystal ball" to the stars? It would take a long time to get there, and also a long time to come back to send us the information, unless using a communication form of system. Like say, sending the information from the "crystal ball" back to a computer where the point of origin was.

 

[DeletedUser]

But while we're in Polaris watching the marring of Shakespare and Anne, the marring ins't happening, we're just viewing it, because what's happening right now on Earth, is still happening, but the spectator from Polaris sees the light emissions of 430 years ago.

That mean if we get faster than the light we can see the late light coming and view the past, but we can't get back to it, because we're only watching. So that'd be a way to watch the past.

Let's say the speed of light is 1.

Technically, If we travel to Polaris at speed 1, when we get there, we'll see 430 years ago, right? so if we travel at 2x speed of light (2), we gonna see 860 years ago.

Let's say that rock age was 20,000 years ago. So if we travel at speed 46.51 (13,943,835,255 meters per second) to Polaris, we'd see 20,000 years ago. Am I correct?

 

[DeletedUser]

I see what your saying, if we travel faster than the speed of light we can see what earth was like in the past. Never thought about it, but it makes sense.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let's say the speed of light is 1.

Technically, If we travel to Polaris at speed 1, when we get there, we'll see 430 years ago, right? so if we travel at 2x speed of light (2), we gonna see 860 years ago.

Not quite fentom. If you travel at the speed of light, then you'll arrive there at the same time as light, and thus not see into the past. You must, as scurge deduced, travel faster than the speed of light, or at least utilize some mechanism that allows us to get to a particular location well ahead of the light.

Now, one of the biggest hardships to this is that to view far into the past, you basically have to travel further away, to a point before light from that time reached said point. I.e., if you want to see 1000 years into the past, you basically have to travel 1000 light years distant, plus however many years it will take you to reach that distance (1000 ly + travel time). The problem with this is, the further away you travel, the more wave distortion and particle loss results. The means to view the information would, eventually, reach a stage where the obtainable light would be insufficient for any degree of detailed viewing.

Do note, when you look at something, it is not you chasing the light, it is your pointing your receptors, your eyes, at an angle that would allow you to "receive" the light particle-waves. Light is, after all, emitted. Therefore, the technology necessary to examine the receiving light would need to merely capture light being emitted from a particular and distinct region or point on Earth. A very precise array, that would be able to analyze each respective light particle, etc, would probably be the route to go in order to cover the "camera" end of this endeavor.

Additional topics to research:
Tachyons
Quantum field theory
Alcubierre drive theory
String field theory
Traversable wormholes

 

[DeletedUser]

Not quite fentom. If you travel at the speed of light, then you'll arrive there at the same time as light, and thus not see into the past.

If you travel there at the speed of light, you will arrive there just in time to see yourself launch.

The theory sounds fine, and the answer to my question would most likely have to come from someone with first hand knowledge.
How would the dissipation of light over distance influence the view you would be able to get from earth? If you travel at twice the speed of light for 50 years (placing you 9,500,000,000,000 x 100 km away from earth) would you still be able to get a clear picture from the light reflected from earth? How clear? Able to see the state of the rain forests? Watch the Titanic sink? Watch accused X stab their victim? Verify the eye colour of Da Vinci?

If this ever goes into a real plan, I hope the guy doing the calculations remembers to carry the 2. It would suck for them to pay a lot of money and go to a lot of trouble to send the USS Camera 100 light years away only to find that the event they want to view occurs on the "dark side" of earth.

 

[DeletedUser5046]

i think it will be a big help to travel back in time when you are a detective or something.... you will eventually be able to see how te crime happen and who are te suspects...but ofcourse bc youare just watching it..you wont be able to change anything... but i was wondering if there is also a possibility tat what we are doing, e.g. typing a post, is just one of te many possible acts we are doing,....and tat we are still capable of doing some other things wit in te same period of time...

 

[DeletedUser]

The theory sounds fine, and the answer to my question would most likely have to come from someone with first hand knowledge.
How would the dissipation of light over distance influence the view you would be able to get from earth? If you travel at twice the speed of light for 50 years (placing you 9,500,000,000,000 x 100 km away from earth) would you still be able to get a clear picture from the light reflected from earth? How clear? Able to see the state of the rain forests? Watch the Titanic sink? Watch accused X stab their victim? Verify the eye colour of Da Vinci?

We already have firsthand knowledge.

When we look at various constellations, various objects in distant space, we can already determine just how much light wave distortion / particle loss occurs based on the information obtainable from those various locales, and our ability to gauge this accurately can be enhanced as our technology advances. With this knowledge, we can choose the best path, the best location, to send out the camera rocket, based on the least loss. Also, the light reception and analysis, we would be able to develop these technologies and test them here, by viewing details on celestial objects that are various distances from Earth.

 

[DeletedUser5046]

btw... if we are faster than light..then it is possible for us to age faster too ...but maybe only time tells age..but not really physical aspects .... and if we are able to see into te past..there is also a possible way of goin into te future

 

[DeletedUser]

We already have firsthand knowledge.

Yes, the human race has first hand knowledge. But neither me nor you are one of those humans with the first hand knowledge of that. "The physics professor in my [your] family" would most likely be the guy with the first hand knowledge. The rest of us just passes on what we heard about it, i.e. not first hand knowledge.

I was more looking for (interested in) a more technical* answer with some distances and numbers. I like numbers.

*Well simple technical so we can all understand. Things like at what distance from earth do we lose the detail to see eye colour, and at what distance does human features becomes too blurred to accurately identify. This will then lead to exactly how far back we can see specific events.
Example: Maybe the light from World War 1 has traveled too far and dissipated too much for us to travel ahead (even at any speed) and intercept it and still get clear images.
Or: Will we (or someone on a distant planet) still be able to intercept the images of dinosaurs, or has those images dissipated too much?

These are the (speculated) specifics that will interest me more about this.


The theories on telescope technology to view all of this would also make for an interesting topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, well like I mentioned earlier, or at least I thought I did, it's not as much telescope technology, as it would be light/radiation receptors. Think of a sticky, flat surface (fly paper). Throw a tiny rock at it. That surface will catch the rock (light/radiation particle), and you have a screen shot, per se, of that particular particle (tiny rock), which you can then examine along with all other particles. To increase the accuracy of light analysis, you would need much smaller receptors, able to catch each particular particle separately, and able to measure the impacting waves.

Anyway, about the other part, about light/radiation dissipation. I did address that. Light does not slow down (speed of light is a constant), it does not breakdown on it's own. Waves can be distorted by impacting particulates in space, light particles can be blocked by collision with other particles (there are gases and other particles floating happily in the vacuum of space). So the means to get the cleanest signal is to choose the cleanest path. A linear path with the least likelihood of particle interference.

The constellations we can see give us an idea of what paths are cleanest, but extensive research would need to be made in order to determine exactly what path(s) would be best, to avoid light/radiation colliding with gas clouds and other particulates. This would require reviewing all moving particulates in space, etc and so on.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anyway, about the other part, about light/radiation dissipation. I did address that.

Like I said, someone with first hand knowledge on the subject would be nice, and able to answer the more specific points of interest I raised.

9,500,000,000,000 x 100 km (100 years into the past) gives you a lot of particles to aid in the dissipation of light.

And even with your explanations I am no closer to having the answers I was looking for.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, you didn't raise any specific points, but whatever, click here.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, you didn't raise any specific points

Oh this is getting flipping ridiculous. Is it intentional or do you just naturally fail at the basics of comprehension? Seriously, why do you post things like what I quoted above?

[1]Things like at what distance from earth do we lose the detail to see eye colour, [2]and at what distance does human features becomes too blurred to accurately identify. [3]This will then lead to exactly how far back we can see specific events.
Example: [4]Maybe the light from World War 1 has traveled too far and dissipated too much for us to travel ahead (even at any speed) and intercept it and still get clear images.
Or: [5]Will we (or someone on a distant planet) still be able to intercept the images of dinosaurs, or has those images dissipated too much?

These are the (speculated) specifics that will interest me more about this.

How would the dissipation of light over distance influence the view you would be able to get from earth? If you travel at twice the speed of light for 50 years (placing you 9,500,000,000,000 x 100 km away from earth) would you still be able to get a clear picture from the light reflected from earth? How clear? [6]Able to see the state of the rain forests? [7]Watch the Titanic sink? [8]Watch accused X stab their victim? [9]Verify the eye colour of Da Vinci?

How much more specific do you want the points I raised?

If you cannot answer them then just do not hit the reply button. I try to build on the thread and all you try to do is shoot down whatever I post.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you cannot answer them then just do not hit the reply button. I try to build on the thread and all you try to do is shoot down whatever I post.

Your ignorance is not my ignorance, and your calling for "first hand knowledge" was posed as a derogatory, not as a request for expert insight.

Regardless, I already answered your questions, you just didn't comprehend the answers, so let's try again:

[1]Things like at what distance from earth do we lose the detail to see eye colour.
​

Light does not lose detail. As I indicated earlier, light does not deteriorate. Based on the degree of particles between point A and point B, light waves can be distorted, light particles can be blocked. This varies by the path chosen, which relates back to what I also said earlier, which is that extensive tests would need to be made to determine at what point in space, what linear path, would provide the least particulate obstacles. So, to be sure you understand, details regarding eye color would be dependent upon light particles blocked and light waves distorted, which is not readily determined at this time, for any particular path, because we simply do not have the technology available yet to gain said detail. It's not an issue of first hand knowledge, it's an issue of future knowledge.

[2]and at what distance does human features becomes too blurred to accurately identify.
​

As above, but to be clear you understand, blurring is due to distortion, which is not dependent upon distances, but on particles encountered between points, with greater distances having a larger likelihood of particles, but that otherwise varies depending on locale. Again, this is not an issue of first hand knowledge, but of future knowledge. However, understanding how this works is therein presented.

[3]This will then lead to exactly how far back we can see specific events.
​

This is an oversimplification, and incorrect, as indicated above. Technological limitations on how we can process recorded data is a factor not yet available to anyone, simply because we have not obtained the technology yet to achieve these things, so yet again --- first hand knowledge not available and what you're asking for is future knowledge.

[4]Maybe the light from World War 1 has traveled too far and dissipated too much for us to travel ahead (even at any speed) and intercept it and still get clear images.
​

And again, this is covered in previous posts. Light does not dissipate, the distance it travels is irrelevant. Particles encountered in the vacuum of space are the factors that influence signal quality. A path with the least particulate distortions will need to be determined through exhaustive efforts, more then likely through the use of complex future computer programs and their accompanying hardware.

[5]Will we (or someone on a distant planet) still be able to intercept the images of dinosaurs, or has those images dissipated too much?
​

And, once again, as I indicated in previous posts, the greater the distance needed to travel, in order to get ahead of the light, the greater possibility of particle interference, but that the path with the least particles can be determined through future technologies. There is also the issue of dispersion, which is a spreading of the particles over a larger field, and therein requiring a larger fly paper, a more precise receiver, or both.

 

[DeletedUser13020]

Originally Posted by Hellstromm
And, once again, as I indicated in previous posts, the greater the distance needed to travel, in order to get ahead of the light, the greater possibility of particle interference

vs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellstromm
As above, but to be clear you understand, blurring is due to distortion, which is not dependent upon distances



So which is it then?

The way I understand it is that distance alone wont distort light. Its just that the greater the distance that light travels through outer space the higher chance it has of being interfered/distorted/blocked (whatever you want to call it) by something like a star or nebula or sucked in by a black hole. Thats just how I interpret those two sentences.

This whole concept is interesting. I mean after you have been able to break a law of physics a few times fold, the rest would seem elementary. Man I find this kind of stuff very interesting to me. Though I do wish I knew more about these things to discuss this along with you two.