time travel

[Guest]

Assumed constants:

1. time travel is possible

2. anyone can time travel

3. you can not travle forward in time (non-established timeline)

Eventually there will come a moment in time, that is so traveled to, that there will not be room enough to move. The longer time elapses, and the more people that travel to that specific moment in time, will cause you to eventually run into another person during time travel. What would happen then? Eventually, all space in that specific moment in time will be filled with matter i.e. people. disscuss?

secondly... if we (people) are energy, and we time travel, back in time (time being relative from present point) would then being back in time really be intoducing new energy into the time line? And would we then effectivly be creating energy? Knowing that you can neither create or destroy energy, would that then preclude us from time travel?

[Guest]

The energy's not really being created or destroyed though... I think.

Isn't it just being moved, into a whole new time zone.

But eventually, the energy balances itself out.

If I go back in time, say, 10 minutes

then there will be more energy in the world

but then, in 10 minutes, when the other me goes back in time, then the energy on earth will go back to normal...

I dunno, just a thought.

welcome to the boards, by the way.

hope you have fun

and get used to my low self-esteem and the other members picking at every detail until all that's left is a cold, hard, solid lump of truth...

[Guest]

This presupposes that time is a constant timeline with a beginning point, rather than continuum - I am not sure that is true.

Assuming the "beginning" as true, people are not energy, but I get what you are saying. The conservation of mass and energy might bear on the discussion. I think you have a problem in your thinking though. As I understand it, the conservation of mass and energy just means that you cannot create one without the other. It doesn't mean that you must have a constant "amount" in the universe. Since you are already created, I don't see a problem in context of time travel. If you assume time as a 4th "dimension" of sort, then it would be the same as if you walk across a room into another room. You have introduced new mass into that room, but so what? You see my point?

So if we assume TT is possible, not precluded by the Laws of Thermodynamics, and that space time does indeed have a beginning terminal, the introduction of YOU into new space/time does nothing except crowd the particular space/time you are in. If somebody else tries to enter that space/time, you'll bump into each other and chances are good you both will move to a slightly different space-time. (Imagine moving me slightly so you can fit into a very crowded elevator.) I am not sure you'd ever fill an infinite universe.

But, if we assume that somehow the TT allows people to occupy the exact same space/time - wow.

First, YUK. You'd have a huge mass of people parts all stuck together.

Second, you create a paradox if you assume the "beginning terminal" to our space/time. You can never travel to a space/time already occupied by you (because you are already there). So if you assume this as true, then everyone who ever existed already was at the big SMUSH at the beginning terminal (having traveled there and gotten "SMUSHED" and therefore cannot travel there again - but if they can't travel there, then how did they get there? Paradox.

Third, if you ignore the paradox and assume that

all space in that specific moment in time will be filled with matter i.e. people

, I don't think it matters (no pun intended). You'd still just end up with all these people parts in a big jumble, unless you reached some kind of critical mass and started a new sun. That would be kinda cool I guess.

Fourth, I see a problem to the whole idea when you consider parallel timelines. Say, for example we are on Timeline A. IF I move backward in time to a period where I didn't exist before, then we now have to consider this Timeline B, as it differs from Timeline A. Therefore with every backward jump, you create a new reality - none of which affect Timeline A. So the sum effect on Timeline A is zero. None of it matters.

[Guest]

I like writersblock's theory because.. cuz it makes sense.

But I just wanna adress something

people are not energy,

aren't we?

I mean, if someone were to kill us, and eat our bodies, they would take in our chemical energy

thus, they could convert it to mechanical energy

so they got energy from us, so we must contain energy?

So the energy does change

[unreality]

Time travel induces millions; no billions; of paradoxes- not just the "oh f*ck I went back in time and shot me when I was a baby" thing... anything to prevent you from going back in time, etc. It's not just that.

Paradoxes just like that one (go back and kill your parents, etc) happen an uncountable billion of times at an atomic level. By moving you and your atoms and related bacteria and cells and living matter (probably not any nonliving things connected to you like clothes, tattoos, piercings, etc, that would be my guess) and all that back in time there would be millions, billions, trillions, maybe infinite, I have no idea, of paradoxes happening.

And because of the butterfly effect and random things that happen at atomic levels and such- all of this assuming randomness in natures and thoughts, and free will, you going back will change the world a LOT. Voila, major paradox.

However, there is one possible way that time travel can exist.

1) going forward in time creates no paradoxes and is very simple

2) going backward in time is also possible, but different. When you go back in time, you would create a new universe sprouting from the point in time that you went back to..

In this new universe, which has the same history as the mother universe up the point of the split, is now on a different path. You could kill yourself as a baby, your parents, your grandfathers, the person that invents the time travel system and 5 million other people, take over Canada and blow up Antartica and it wouldn't affect the universe that it split off from- in THAT universe, you would still go back in time to make this one.

There is NO way to get back to the universe you originally came from. The only way to get into a new universe is to go back in time and create a new one.

Thus at the beginning of time, there would be one (or possibly more) "strands" of universes and then it start to become a big tree, more and more universes as people go back in time.

Clarification edit: the universe is created at the point that you go back to. For example, it's 2007 (soon to be 08 woot!) and I go back to year 500, the universe I am on right now splits off at year 500. The histories up to that point are equal, then they start becoming different as my time travel and random events and free will and such changes the universe- over 1500 years the year 2007 in this universe would be waay different than our current 2007.

But if you went back 5 minutes, there wouldn't much time for your change to make much of a difference in the new universe you created, it would probably be mostly the same 5 minutes later.

No paradoxes- assuming the time travel is actually possible.

[unreality]

Also, if you went back in time 1000 years and then quickly went forward to 2000, the change would be minimal- or more, depending on how much YOU change it compared to how many random stuff and free will and the complexity of brains and behavior and atomic-level stuff like weather is. It would probably still be some pretty big change, even if you were there for just a moment

[roolstar]

Think about this:

If both the past and future exist, how can we define the present? Where is it exactly?

1) going forward in time creates no paradoxes and is very simple

Pretty bold statement!!

In fact going into the future holds even more paradoxes than going into the past!

Consider this: I go 3 hours into the future and see myself having a car accident. So I come back and stay at home for the next 3 hours. I successfully avoided the car accident. But how can I remember it if it didn’t happen? And if I don’t remember it, why did I stay at home then?

So 3 possibilities:

1-I go into the future and when I come back to the present, I lose my memory (future memory). Stupid theory.

2-The future can be simply travelled to by way of simulation based on probabilities. And the bigger the number of parameters entered, the more precise it is. Much like the weather forecast. More plausible.

3-The present is the last moment of the past nothing more! And the future does not exist (yet)! We simply create presents to build the best possible future for us!

Either way, traveling into the future cannot take place at a faster speed than the speed we are already going at: We are all traveling into the future at the same speed! Very hard to determine that speed though, believe me I tried!

Traveling in the past however is a different situation depending on these 2 possibilities:

1-The past still exists much like a trail in the water we leave behind. I don’t agree!

2-The past is just what we remember of it. No physical presence. The only way to “See” the past is by going faster than light emitted by the universe and turning back to watch it go past us again. It will be just like watching a video. No way to change any of the events, and certainly no way to create a new universe as easy at it sounds!

[unreality]

Think about this:

If both the past and future exist, how can we define the present? Where is it exactly?

1) going forward in time creates no paradoxes and is very simple

Pretty bold statement!!

In fact going into the future holds even more paradoxes than going into the past!

Consider this: I go 3 hours into the future and see myself having a car accident. So I come back and stay at home for the next 3 hours. I successfully avoided the car accident. But how can I remember it if it didn’t happen? And if I don’t remember it, why did I stay at home then?

Obviously you don't understand what going into the future entails. I am right when I say there are no paradoxes because:

there are not TWO of you when you go into the future.

Trust me, I have given all of this much thought.

Let's say you go three hours in the future. You disappear and reappear 3 hours later- for you it seemed like the blink of an eye, but for everyone else, 3 hours passed without you present. THERE ARE NOT TWO OF YOU WHEN YOU GO INTO THE FUTURE.

Let's say you are ten years old and you go fifty years into the future- you are seeing a future that had no contribution from you, since you have not aged past 10. You disappeared 50 years ago, and you reappear now, as a 10-year old, the only 'you' in the world.

But if you go back and read my post on how travelling back in time can work, you will see how the present-past-future issue isn't relevant. This works even with free will, with a future that isn't defined yet. The present is where you are currently, and there is no future. Even when you go back in time, in my theory you create a new universe, and that's as far as the universe has gotten to, there is an uncertain future ahead of you in this new universe. Free will can exist.

Of course I am an atheist and I believe in free will, but if you believe that everything is set until the end of time (a boring and confusing way to live, IMO) then it's all been figured out by god or buddha or whatever, and everything has already been planned out, so no paradoxes

[Guest]

jeez I never thought of that.

When you go into the future, there's not really an alternate you that didn't go to the future, and stayed in the ever moving present.

Man...

Back to the Future II lied to me.

Marty Sr. would never be walkin around in his house when what's-her-face is in the closet.

Cuz there would be 30 years where Marty kinda... disappeares.

WHOAH

[Guest]

1) going forward in time creates no paradoxes and is very simple

Pretty bold statement!!

In fact going into the future holds even more paradoxes than going into the past!

Consider this: I go 3 hours into the future and see myself having a car accident. So I come back and stay at home for the next 3 hours. I successfully avoided the car accident. But how can I remember it if it didn’t happen? And if I don’t remember it, why did I stay at home then?

The paradox in your example is created by the time travel going backwards. There was no paradox simply from travelling into the future. You saw the accident, it freaked you out - but no paradox yet. It wasn't till you travelled back from the future that you initiated the paradox.

All this talk of time travel reminds me of a dream I once had... I dreamt that I had come back from the future and Future Me showed Current Me how to timetravel. Unfortunatley when Current Me woke up, I forgot how it was done so now I can't go back and show myself how to time travel.

[Guest]

I think you all miss the concept of space/time. As I understand it, time is merely a function of "place." Therefore you could, in theory, jump from one "place" to another.

Also, it seems that everyone sort of assumes a "beginning" of time and a linear path along which we all travel. What if it's not?

Consider this: what if we all are beings that exist in every dimension? What if what we experience here is merely a portion of our true "selves?" Imagine that we all exist in every point in time and outside of time simultaneously, and that the reality of "now" is merely a reflection of self. The TRUE self can see every point in time and is the true being of what we are. Imagine this present reality as a sort of "unconscious" of the true being that is "self." Therefore if you could travel from point A to point B in the time continuum, you would meet a version of yourself. It might not be any different than suddenly realizing in this reality a subconscious motivation for your actions. It wouldn't cause any sort of paradox at all, it would just enlighten you as to who you "really" are.

Anyone follow what I'm getting at?

[Guest]

As a follow up, think of "time" as an endless book. Think of yourself both as the person reading the book, and also having a "reflection" of yourself in the book as a character. Now, the person "reading" can flip from one page to the other at will to see what happens. The "character" cannot. The "character" is stuck in time and can only remember the past, consider the present, and dream the future. The "reader" can not only see any page of the book and what happens, but can also put down the book and pick up another story.

[Guest]

I agree with you. "Time" is merely a construct of our minds. It is something we use to define the world we live in. "Time" does not move or change it is constant. It is past, present, and future. We perceive time moving because of our own limited consciousness and understanding. I also believe that we inhabit a multiverse that is infinite in all ways and that there is a unvierse for every possibility. So if TT was possible it would not actually be moving through time or stepping outside time but merely moving from one universe to another. The trick would not be moving from universe to universe but doing so with a control and direction so that you could choose the universe with the point of "TIME" that you desired to be at. By travelling this way you would not be creating universes but joining ones that already exist. And I really wish that everyone one on this forum would quit using the word "PARADOX" like its some type of stupidity band aid. There is no such thing as a PARADOX. That is the answer of someone who is unable to find the solution to a problem and whos ego will not admit that they are in some way lacking. Simple logic says that if the universe we inhabit is infinite and every conceivable and unconceivable scenario has,is,will happen then a paradox would have already occurred thus destroy the universe in which we inhabit but since we are here discussing these theories then it would be safe to say that said paradox is an impossibility. I find your views very refreshing Writersblock. I have only joined recently but I have yet to read any truly original thinking besides yours.

[roolstar]

Well let me put it this way then:

If I could, I would gladly go back in time and never write any posts on this subject...

I am just afraid to go into an infinite multi-universe full of possibilities in multi-dimension states of being where the absence of my conscious can only be reflected by the presence of my subconscious throughout a past-present-future state of ever existing being that will eventually define my true self...

You know what? I find my ego more protected behind these very long, very badly defined words, you're right Nexus thanks...

No more posts on this subject for me...

[Guest]

Well I have comletely enjoyed all the theory's, thoughts, ideas and conjecturs through the last few days. Allow me to offer this, I do contest without wanting to get into a philisophical debate, that TT into the future is not possible. In like manner stated before that when you TT forward in time (understood time is relative) say 50 years you would have disapeared for the then past 50 years the rest of the world's people would not have jumped time that fast as well because your body is still on the "you" present time line and therefore you would be all alone. Do not forget that all matter i.e. trees, animals ....ect. are beholden to that same timeline as well and therefore you would then be in a void of nothing. And time itself is beholden to that same law of physics and therefore, even time would not exist so now you would not exist and cant TT back in time to the relative present and you would have disapeared al together into nothing. (TT forward cant work). Hope that was followable Secondly I would like to offer that after the first few post no one addressed the issue of re-intoduction of energy in the form of matter through TT backwards..... it would negate the ability of TT. It would not simply be a ballance level as stated by a privious text in that "if you TT back say 3 hours when you returned the ballance would equal out" (paraphrazed)... because lets say you traveled back 100 years and never re-entered nrmal time (as we know it) you would have then re-introduced a level of energy that had never preiously existed before on that Time line and therefore would upset the ballance. After much ocncideration I DO NOT BELIVE TT IS POSSIBLE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM OR EVER WILL BE. Nothing more than a sci-fi fiction fun theme for movis and books and somthing for little boys (and bored adults it seems) to think about. Thak you for all who have replyied to my post, look for more for there will be more to look for.

- Just a thought

[Guest]

Secondly I would like to offer that after the first few post no one addressed the issue of re-intoduction of energy in the form of matter

You are wrong. I did address it. I think you are misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics. The re-introduction of mass (energy) into the universe doesn't affect these laws. The law only says that you cannot create nor destroy one without the other. (i.e. you destroy mass and get energy, you create energy from mass and vice versa). The total universal amount does not have to be on some cosmic "balance." Therefore you aren't implicating the conservation of mass and energy by introducing "new" energy unless that energy is coming from "nothing."

Again, think of walking into a room. All you are doing is rearranging the configuration of mass and energy in the universe. String theory pretty much bears up that matter exists across dimensions (as I understand it) - so would energy. TT would merely be a reconfiguration, exactly like walking into a room.

your body is still on the "you" present time line

Again, you are stuck on the notion that time is a linear "thing" and that you are stuck on a "two dimensional" configuration of time. Read up on space/time and you'll get a better picture. As I said before, time is a function of space. Imagine you are in park. You want to go from point A to the swings. You can go straight to them, in a linear manner, or you can meander and go elsewhere. You could hit the slide first, you could get a drink first, you could even return to point A and go further away from the swings if you wanted. In fact, you could run in a circle staying exactly the same distance from the swings, returning to point A after a bit. Time should be similar. We just lack the capacity to "move" in that dimension. Just because our conciousness is locked into a linear definition of time doesn't mean our thinking need be.

[Guest]

where again did you get your physics degree cus mine is from MIT phd in physics and thermodynamics class of 92. your wrong. not being rude or wanting to get you in a fluffle and hate to burst yourbubble but you should do some teroretical HW

[unreality]

I agree with you. "Time" is merely a construct of our minds. It is something we use to define the world we live in. "Time" does not move or change it is constant. It is past, present, and future. We perceive time moving because of our own limited consciousness and understanding. I also believe that we inhabit a multiverse that is infinite in all ways and that there is a unvierse for every possibility. So if TT was possible it would not actually be moving through time or stepping outside time but merely moving from one universe to another. The trick would not be moving from universe to universe but doing so with a control and direction so that you could choose the universe with the point of "TIME" that you desired to be at. By travelling this way you would not be creating universes but joining ones that already exist. And I really wish that everyone one on this forum would quit using the word "PARADOX" like its some type of stupidity band aid. There is no such thing as a PARADOX. That is the answer of someone who is unable to find the solution to a problem and whos ego will not admit that they are in some way lacking. Simple logic says that if the universe we inhabit is infinite and every conceivable and unconceivable scenario has,is,will happen then a paradox would have already occurred thus destroy the universe in which we inhabit but since we are here discussing these theories then it would be safe to say that said paradox is an impossibility.

I'm sorry to say you are wrong. Your impression of infinity is wrong. Yes, our universe MAY be infinite. It probably is. I'm saying "may" cuz I have no idea- nobody has any idea. But if it is, you are still wrong.

Imagine this:

...000000000...

An infinite number of zeroes. But there are no ones present. All zeroes.

...0202020202...

Still infinite, with some more variety... still no ones.

...abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz023456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz023456789...

Imagine that's the universe, lots of variety and whatnot. But no ones.

Just because something is infinite it doesn't mean everything exists.

***

writersblock: you are right about the conservation of mass and energy (which are the same thing, right?... well actually that's not relevant). You take both mass and energy from one time and move it to another. It still exists in the universe. No problems there

***

writersblock again: I like your thinking about time as another dimension, just like space. But you're forgetting something.

0 dimensions- a single point

1 dimension (1d)- a line

2d- a circle/square/etc

3d- a sphere/cube/prism/etc

4d- time, thus both the 3 dimensions of space, AND time

Assuming that this is what you're getting at, and I think it is, about Space and Time- you are thinking that Space and Time are equal in number of dimensions, and that Time is also 3 dimensions that we move around in, and that time isnt linear.

Going back to your logic (assuming 4d is space and time) this isnt true- time IS linear. It's just one dimension added on. 1d is a line. Time would be linear. Go back to my post and read about the parallel universes... this works for linear time, though it could also be applied to 5d or 6d time, like you are suggesting (6d could be 3 dimensions of time, 3 dimensions of space- though there is hyperspace and superspace and what not for complex geometry, so there might even be more dimensions of space, and more of time as well, who knows), then my theory of parallel universes would still work regardless of how many dimensions in each universe. So, writersblock, I think our theories kind of work together.

[unreality]

jeez I never thought of that.

When you go into the future, there's not really an alternate you that didn't go to the future, and stayed in the ever moving present.

Man...

Back to the Future II lied to me.

yep. THough they did it right in the first movie and the third movie, so I dont know what's up with that. Maybe they went forward then went back and lived their lives to be that old. This is paradox-wrought, though, of course.

Though with my parallel universe theory, you would go forward, there would be no you, you would go back (creating a new parallel universe from the universe you just came from, so they have the same history up the point you traveled back to and split off a new universe). So now there are 2 of you in this universe, 0 in the one you came from. NOW you can go forward and see yourself aged.

I've thought and thought and thought and with my theory there are NO paradoxes...

[Guest]

your wrong.

wow, the simple "you're wrong"

that's something I haven't seen on these boards for a while

[unreality]

Yeah especially with something as hypothetical as we're talking about.