A new theroy on why time travel may be impossible

[alan2here]

This is my theroy (sorry if it's not a new idea) on why time travel may be theroreticly imposible:

 

1. It's the year 2006

2. I move myself 20 years into the past (to 1986).

3. I stand in the feild that was here before my lab was built and look around for a moment.

4. I go back to 2006.

 

Even the verry small amount of change I made in 1986 (apearing in the feild, looking around, disapering) is still change and will slightly alter the circemstances in which I built my time machine and went back into the past in step 2.

 

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a ...

 

ect...

 

The only possible resolution will be if the time jump in step 2 never hapened. Which as the changes got more and more would make this the enevatable outcome.

 

maybe?

[insane_alien]

false dilemma. what if you appearing in the field CAUSED the lab to be built, you to build a time machine and travel back in time to the field, look about for a bit and then go back to the 'present'?

 

confusing and mind numbing, isn't it?

[CanadaAotS]

I like the way they did time travel in back to the future...

 

There wasn't any paradoxes (or less of them lol) because when they went back in time they created a parallel timeline to their own... so by changing things in this new timeline it doesnt effect the fact that they traveled back in time from their own unaffected timeline.

 

Confusing... the crazy scientist guy made a good diagram of it in the movie lol

 

Back To The Future rocked though

[alan2here]

I like your idea insane_alien

 

It allows anyone to go back to the past, change anything, and nothing makes any difference because it is all predetermined anyway, including the time travel part. You always where going to go back to the past and change whatever you change so it was changed before you went you just probably hadn't noticed.

 

I think your probably right

[bascule]

My favorite time travel idea so far is one where you have a wormhole and cause relativistic dilation effects on one mouth but not the other. This way, you can travel back to the time one wormhole mouth is in, and in effect get back to the past.

[Anjruu]

I like the idea presented in a couple of sci-fi books, such as Pastwatch, by Orson Scott Card. It says that each moment is distinct, separate and largely unrelated. So if you go back in time and killed your grandfather, you have changed the past. True, you will not exist in the future, and you will not have any way that you existed, but that doesn't matter, because there is no connection anyway. It basically says that cause and effect are an illusion. Probably wrong, but simpler. Barring that, the predestination works well. Both are depressing, but at least you avoid paradoxes.

 

EDIT:

Man that was explained badly. Oh well, did you all get the general idea?

[Dr. Dalek]

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a ...

In order for that to work it would have to mean that time is two dimensional and subject to change, even natural change resulting from free will (if it exists) without time travil.

[Neil9327]

How about the following scenario:

 

Two people John and Mark are in a room with a piece of paper.

Mark writes a letter A on the paper, and John witnesses what is written.

The following day Mark goes into a time machine to take him back to the previous day. He remembers that he wrote a letter A and instead writes a letter B, again with John witnessing.

Two days later someone else asks John what he saw being written. Did he see an A or B?

[insane_alien]

he would not be able to as his 'past self' would be there and since he doesn't remember swapping places with his 'future self' when he wrote on the paper means that it never happened and john would have seen an A.

[Sayonara]

The title of this thread most positively promises a "new theory".

 

Where is it?

 

he would not be able to as his 'past self' would be there and since he doesn't remember swapping places with his 'future self' when he wrote on the paper means that it never happened and john would have seen an A.

Except you don't know that that's how it works.

[Neil9327]

he would not be able to as his 'past self' would be there and since he doesn't remember swapping places with his 'future self' when he wrote on the paper means that it never happened and john would have seen an A.

 

I suppose that's the point about time travel: It is possible, but those travelling cannot take with them the information they learned in the "future".

So causality is preserved.

So the film "Back to the future" was incorrect because the guy who went into the past could not have known that the couple courting were his parents, so would not have got into a panic about it.

[Sayonara]

That makes no sense.

 

Information or no information, he could still mess up their lives, and therefore his own.

[Dr. Dalek]

How about the following scenario:

 

Two people John and Mark are in a room with a piece of paper.

Mark writes a letter A on the paper' date=' and John witnesses what is written.

The following day Mark goes into a time machine to take him back to the previous day. He remembers that he wrote a letter A and instead writes a letter B, again with John witnessing.

Two days later someone else asks John what he saw being written. Did he see an A or B?[/quote']

That would create a time loop.

[Stumblebum]

Let's say TM's are available to everyone. At Easter many people want to visit the crucifixion, lets say 50 million. It would be very crowded on Calvary, there is no record of such a crowd being present, so it never happened in our time line. I don't think it is possible to go back in time without creating another timeline. Either that or its possible to change or start a new timeline at any point off the present timeline but it does not affect the leading forward points of the timeline as it advances into the future. Too many timeline references I know but this ain't easy.

 

If someone on the other side of the universe went back in time and changed something would it affect us?

[Sayonara]

That would create a time loop.

We don't know that that is how it works. We can't apply causal logic to a problem where causality can be bypassed.

 

Same to Stumblebum.

[rajama]

This is my theroy (sorry if it's not a new idea) on why time travel may be theroreticly imposible:

 

1. It's the year 2006

2. I move myself 20 years into the past (to 1986).

3. I stand in the feild that was here before my lab was built and look around for a moment.

4. I go back to 2006.

 

Even the verry small amount of change I made in 1986 (apearing in the feild' date=' looking around, disapering) is still change and will slightly alter the circemstances in which I built my time machine and went back into the past in step 2.

 

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a slightly difrent way and so alter the way step 3 and 4 happen

Therefore step 2 will happen in a ...

 

ect...

 

The only possible resolution will be if the time jump in step 2 never hapened. Which as the changes got more and more would make this the enevatable outcome.

 

maybe?

 

 

Where are you standing?

 

I mean, where can you observe this process from?

 

That's the common element in most of these discussions - the problem is described as if you're watching time 'stabilize' from outside time, but time is also passing for you...

 

Fun, isn't it?

[CPL.Luke]

Let's say TM's are available to everyone. At Easter many people want to visit the crucifixion, lets say 50 million. It would be very crowded on Calvary, there is no record of such a crowd being present, so it never happened in our time line

 

 

thats assuming that 100000 years or so in the future when time travel is commonplace christianity still exists. or maybe half the people in jerusalem were time travellers and couldn't find out where or exactly when the crucifiction took place.

 

or maybe Jesus wasn't a real person and instead was maid up by 1st century schollars as a way of teaching moral lessons that they thought were lacking in society.

[Stumblebum]

thats assuming that 100000 years or so in the future when time travel is commonplace christianity still exists. or maybe half the people in jerusalem were time travellers and couldn't find out where or exactly when the crucifiction took place.

 

or maybe Jesus wasn't a real person and instead was maid up by 1st century schollars as a way of teaching moral lessons that they thought were lacking in society.

 

It doesn't have to be the crucifixion. It could be something that happened an hour ago. If 50 million people decide to go then what?

[Sayonara]

Then they will just have to stand.

[CPL.Luke]

one of my other points is that we don't know whether or not everyone who was watching JFK get shot was from the future and were just there to watch.

[Sayonara]

I don't see that it makes any difference.

 

If one was the shooter, that might be a different story.

[Stumblebum]

Ah! The Langoliers will make sure we don't go back.

 

Every second of every day we witness the past, who's to say that we might someday be able to see all segments of it rather than go to it.

[Rocket Man]

This is my theroy (sorry if it's not a new idea) on why time travel may be theroreticly imposible:

 

1. It's the year 2006

2. I move myself 20 years into the past (to 1986).

3. I stand in the feild that was here before my lab was built and look around for a moment.

4. I go back to 2006.

 

Even the verry small amount of change I made in 1986 (apearing in the feild' date=' looking around, disapering) is still change and will slightly alter the circemstances in which I built my time machine and went back into the past in step 2.

 

[/quote']

 

 

i think that the main problem here is how you're thinking about it.

theres a number of solutions but this is my favourite.

 

if you edit the past, the future must contain the cause of the edit, if it doesnt, the edit wont occur for lack of a reason in the future. so i wouldnt be surprised if you couldnt edit anything at all. your actions in the past may well cause the circumstances in the future that you go back to change.

[JohnB]

The message.

 

Who says you can't affect history?

[Jon_Lyle]

YOU-present travel to a future (in this future, no one knows that you have left, and the majority of people who know you still remember you - no one notices that you left - small jump) YOU-present still exist.

 

YOU-present travel to a future (in this future, the majority of people who know you know that you were not around during "present" to "future" times - or no one who knows you are still alive) YOU-present do not exist. Possibly a new being will come into existance at arrival time, but will not be "you" - will have a new identity/soul assigned to it. Possibly, no being will ever exit at arrival date.

 

YOU-present travel to a past (in this past, you existed already) YOU-present do not exist. Possible consciousness/memory of YOU-present merges/is imprinted on YOU-past and YOU-past is aware of YOU-present's experiences. Possible consciousness/memory of YOU-present merges/is imprinted on YOU-past and YOU-past experiences a few isolated cases of deja vu. Possible YOU-present no longer exists.

 

YOU-present travel to past (in this past, you have never existed)YOU-present do not exist. Possibly a new being will come into existance at arrival time, but will not be "you" - will have a new identity/soul assigned to it. Possibly, no being will ever exit at arrival date.