Time travel paradoxes
- Thread starter spankingtexan
- Start date
First off what are your thoughts about time travel?
The parodox...
You travel back in time before you were born and meet your mother, you then kill her,
What happens next? Do you cease to exist at the very moment you kill your mother? and if so then wouldn't your mother be unable to give birth to you in the first place making it impossible for you to travel back in time to kill her?
Of course travelling into the future is possible if we could reach speeds near to the speed of light or faster. What are your thoughts on ecxeeding the speed of light or even bending space (worm hole) for instantaneous travel?
And no I aint mad...YET.
You would create a parallel universe in which you exist but your mother does not (once you killed her).
If you want to know if you ever invent timetravel, write down on a piece of paper the date & time and place you will be in 5 minutes and keep hold of it. When you invent timetravel you then have the piece of paper etc to reference to and can travel back.
So if you appear in 5 minutes time you will find out in you ever invented it.
Or maybe I should just get banned again by a don?
this
If time travel was possible, someone would have travelled back and told us by now
Not true, maybe it has not been invented yet in the future/other time line.
I think some people are confusing what time travel is.
By definition, time travel is travel through time itself. Not travel through space at speed causing the effects of time to be lessened. Or time to be 'slowed'. That is still travel through space.
Whether or not time travel is possible is an interesting topic of course...
edit: @ above. If time travel truly were possible, to say it hasn't been invented yet in the future makes no sense. As there would be an infinite number of points in time where the future is. Everything that will happen for our entire future, will have already happened in some point in the future. Therefore a time machine would 'already' in the future have been invented if it were possible.
Whether or not they'd come and tell us. Whether we'd know about it if they came here. Whether or not they'd bother coming here at all... those are different questions.
By definition, time travel is travel through time itself. Not travel through space at speed causing the effects of time to be lessened. Or time to be 'slowed'. That is still travel through space.
Whether or not time travel is possible is an interesting topic of course...
edit: @ above. If time travel truly were possible, to say it hasn't been invented yet in the future makes no sense. As there would be an infinite number of points in time where the future is. Everything that will happen for our entire future, will have already happened in some point in the future. Therefore a time machine would 'already' in the future have been invented if it were possible.
Whether or not they'd come and tell us. Whether we'd know about it if they came here. Whether or not they'd bother coming here at all... those are different questions.
Last edited:
If travel back in time is possible, it implies that Everett's "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum mechanics is correct (as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation). Killing your mother would not cause you to cease to exist - you would carry on existing in the parallel Universe where you killed your Mother.
Not necessarily
Most time-travel hypotheses predict that time travel would only be possible back until the "time machine" used for travel was first activated (watch Primer, for example). So, because we have not yet built a working time-machine, we cannot expect to meet time travelers. Once we build the first time-machine, all bets are off
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
If you have something travelling at the speed of light, and you have something with in that object move forwards. Then that would essentially be travelling faster than light.
Saw it on a TV program about Stephen hawking theories
Not necessarily
Most time-travel hypotheses predict that time travel would only be possible back until the "time machine" used for travel was first activated (watch Primer, for example). So, because we have not yet built a working time-machine, we cannot expect to meet time travelers. Once we build the first time-machine, all bets are off
I won't claim to be an expert in the field, I know sod all in it. What is the basis for not being able to travel back in time to before the invention of the machine? Would you need a 'portal' to exit and said portal would be another time machine, and therefore you cannot travel to before the time machines invention as no such 'exit portal' exists in that time?
That's the only way (from what I know, and logically) that that belief seems possible.
Pretty much, yes
Most current theories relating to travelling through time or travelling through different dimensions rely on having large concentrations of "exotic matter", which can punch-through the 3+1 dimensional space-time we experience - creating a "worm-hole" of sorts. To do this you require an "in" end and an "out" end, joined by the wormhole. Ergo, you need some kind of device at both ends.
Of course it's still mostly just speculation and psudo-science, since we don't yet have a complete enough description of the physics involved to form a definitive model of time travel. Who knows - maybe you can "dial" a wormhole back to a specific point in space and time by adjusting the mix of exotic matter? Anything is potentially possible really, but having a device of some kind at both ends seems to be the commonly accepted scenario for man-made time travel.
See, logic is awesome
That does make sense so I can understand that being a leading theory. I suppose it depends on how you view time travel then. As a static time machine which you enter in one time and exit in another that theory holds very strong. If anything like a Tardis were to be invented however, which can travel through time in its own right, then my previous questions stand strong.
If Tardis-like time travel were possible, and someone visited our time, why would they not tell us of the invention? That is an interesting question indeed
That does make sense so I can understand that being a leading theory. I suppose it depends on how you view time travel then. As a static time machine which you enter in one time and exit in another that theory holds very strong. If anything like a Tardis were to be invented however, which can travel through time in its own right, then my previous questions stand strong.
If Tardis-like time travel were possible, and someone visited our time, why would they not tell us of the invention? That is an interesting question indeed
What you lot are stumbling towards are the details on how time travel may take place...
So you've got your early days "time machine", you sit on it, it's got cogs, all very steam punk. Importantly, the machine goes with you, so you need to have built it to get there and back.
Then you've got your new age "time machine", so very DeLorean. Many argue that this wasn't better than the original machine mainly due to the rarity of flux capacitors, but white haired gull wing door fans are adamant this is the best method.
Then you've got your "space-time tear gun". Warping the fabric of space allows you to effectively jump into a different time. Although you do run the risk of jumping into and/or creating a different space tangent, effectively isolating any causality issues for your original space-time continuum, making this the preferred method for the causality conscious of modern day time tourists.
So you've got your early days "time machine", you sit on it, it's got cogs, all very steam punk. Importantly, the machine goes with you, so you need to have built it to get there and back.
Then you've got your new age "time machine", so very DeLorean. Many argue that this wasn't better than the original machine mainly due to the rarity of flux capacitors, but white haired gull wing door fans are adamant this is the best method.
Then you've got your "space-time tear gun". Warping the fabric of space allows you to effectively jump into a different time. Although you do run the risk of jumping into and/or creating a different space tangent, effectively isolating any causality issues for your original space-time continuum, making this the preferred method for the causality conscious of modern day time tourists.
If you have something travelling at the speed of light, and you have something with in that object move forwards. Then that would essentially be travelling faster than light.
Saw it on a TV program about Stephen hawking theories
Very true,i shall have to see that again,on the virtual train thing.
Sure when they done the model though it wasn't possible.