|
The physics Titor tries to describe is gobbledygook. Most of the terms he uses do exist, but they make no sense when put together that way.
The other physics comments in this thread need correcting though. There has never been a (repeatable) experiment which has contradicted relativity's prediction that nothing moves faster than light. There are various effects which get headlines because they seem to do this, but this is really just because journalists don't understand physics very well (they are fun experiments though).
To clarify a little, relativity does not really say that things go back in time if you move faster than light. It says that any two events which could not be connected by any beam of light will occur in a different order for different observers. Person A will see one event happen before the other, and person B will see the opposite. This is considered ridiculous, so the conclusion is that those two events are not causally connected. In other words, it is information that does not travel faster than light. If it did, you'd have causality problems. There is a lot of fine print to add to this when you include the general theory of relativity, which requires that all of the words I've been using be given much more precise definitions.
Also, quantum mechanics can be made fully consistent with special relativity. This is quantum field theory. Its predictions are very well established, and it required no fundamental modification of either relativity or quantum mechanics. Entaglement etc. is consistent with what I said above. It is only general relativity which brings up problems with quantum mechanics. These are actually quite serious, and their resolution will certainly change physics in a very fundamental way.
I don't know if (backwards) time travel is possible. Special relativity does not allow it. It follows that quantum field theory also does not allow it. General relativity has some solutions involving the ability to travel through time, but they require lots of exotic of matter (might as well call it "negative mass") and don't look anything like the universe that we actually observe. It is possible that people simply haven't been creative enough yet with known physics, but I think this is unlikely. Any description of time travel with our current worldview would be quite hard to mesh with reality.
That said, I think it is likely that physics might discover something allowing some sense of time travel in the future. Although I'm being really speculative right now, I wouldn't be surprised if a quantum theory of gravity would allow this sort of thing at least on a very restricted microscopic scale. That might not mean much though. As physics progresses, the concept of time becomes further and further removed from the everyday meaning. "Time travel" in whichever sense it is eventually understood will probably be very different from the version we've learned about from science fiction.
|