Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:Time travel

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I went back in time and killed Mal Stacey as a child. As everybody knows, Mal Stacey is the guy who flew the Enola Gay and dropped the "Little Boy" nuke on to Tokyo, causing Japan's immediate surrender in World War II. Thus, my actions saved the lives of everyone in Tokyo. What I didn't forsee, however, is that by removing Mal Stacey from the timeline, it would lead to the events of BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki being bombed instead. Oops! Daecon 13:24, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Nice :) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:08, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Science-fiction show...[edit]

Liveblog episodes on your blog. TheoryOfPractice 21:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Bullshit[edit]

Why is this in the category of bullshit? Time travel is at allowed under the laws of physics. The faster an object moves the further forward in time it moves (time dilation) should a open wormhole (please stay with me, i am talking purley hypothetical grounds here) be connected to two points then one end be accelerated the wormhole would create a tunnel backwards in time. Similarly, if a object is moving faster than the speed of light (again, impossible in current quantum mechanics but this is all hypothetical) then it will move backwards in time--BenB (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a) conflating special relativity with quantum physics, b) assuming that "theoretically possible" means "plausible with current technology" and c) torturing the English language. Stupid bastard Phantom Hoover! 13:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It is possible, I've seen someone using a time machine! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Feynman postulated that positrons are just electrons travelling backwards in time, something perfectly consistent in quantum electrodynamics. Not that any information could be transmitted backwards in time, so it doesn't violate relativity. Bondurant (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, positrons are positivley charged electrons, or anti-matter, and are some what common in the universe (they happen in starts) you may be thinking of tacheons which are theoretical particles that travel faster than the speed of light and thus, according to relativity, backwards in time.

and forgive me for confusing special relativity with quantum mechanics. I did not however, claim that "hypothetically possibe" meant that it was plausible with current technology. however, that does not mean thought experiments can be done. and yeah, i know my spelling sucks, i am bad at typing, get over it--BenB (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It is certainly a big, BIG, danger to conflate "it doesn't violate the laws of physics" with "it's possible". Indeed, that should really be "it doesn't violate the laws of physics as we currently understand them". The wormhole thing is indeed a viable mechanism, but the crux of it being possible as a "time machine" relies entirely on wormholes A) even existing and B) being open and stable C) allowing information to pass through them (there are interesting experiments in wave harmonics that allow things to break the speed of light, but not transfer information faster than light, and it's this information that is the crux of everything here). Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not confusing positrons with tachyons. See here. If you reverse time in the Dirac equation then an electron becomes a positron and vice-versa. Bondurant (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected--BenB (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

precisely one second per second[edit]

What about time dilation? -- Nx / talk 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still going at 1 locally. Stupid bastard Phantom Hoover! 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
But it says relative to objects at rest. If you move fast you would travel forwards in time faster relative to the local clock of objects at rest, no? -- Nx / talk 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anything is at rest in relativity. It's all relative. Stupid bastard Phantom Hoover! 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you like Brian Cox's interpretation, you're travelling down the time dimension at the speed of light. But time dilation doesn't matter, that's only relative, anything locally, that is, just itself, is experiencing a constant rate of time passing. If you could observe time dilation happening, say, on a person standing next to you, it'd always look as if the other person was the one either moving faster or slower. You don't think, "hey, they're going at normal speed, I must be going slower" (I think it's the "Stasis Leak" episode of Red Dwarf that shows this really well). Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't travelling at the "speed of light" through time ridiculous? Speed is defined as ds/dt, so your "speed" through time could only really be dt/dt, which doesn't really make sense. Stupid bastard Phantom Hoover! 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I know, but it's the relative to objects at rest thing that confuses me. i.e.: you have an object at rest on Earth (though since the Earth is moving, is that object really at rest?), you take off in your rocket, fly around at 0.9999c for 2 hours, then come back. On your rocket 2 hour have passed. Back on Earth, 20 (completely made up number) hours have passed. So from the perspective of the object at rest, you've traveled at 20h/2h. -- Nx / talk 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Relativity means that there is no absolute rest. There's nothing for them to be at rest with. This is the part that goes back to Gallileo. Hang on, I've pulled it from the article. It's just wrong. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsure about giant new addition[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Time_travel&curid=68453&diff=677062&oldid=668523&rcid=720717

Not sure this heads in the right direction, would we add "examples" to alien abduction, say? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we should hive it off into a separate article and set about debunking it.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. That last section, about the guy who claimed to be one, could be titled with his name, and see alsod. What about the other bit, which struck me as even more dubious? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. I acknowledge your concerns' validity; I considered making John Titor its own article, but actually thought that might be overkill, so I just added it here. As to the first paragraph, I added it for a couple of reasons:
  • It's really more a lead-in to the John Titor part than anything else, with the picture and movie mere throwaway mentions comparatively. I felt that while, to use your example, Human, alien abduction has a very well-known set of tropes it employs, time travel far less frequently appears in our modern mythology (as opposed to our fiction) and so I thought a few brief examples were in order. Lol, perhaps not. However,
  • Some people actually take these time traveler pictures seriously, and especially in the case of the silent movie, debunking is a simple matter. The bridge photo would merely require a little research into '40s-era sunglasses/protective goggles/whatever, and models of handheld cameras. Granted I have not done that research :D - and so I admit that one's a mite tenuous. I mentioned it mostly for completeness' sake, and thought about a mention of the wp:Andrew Carlssin hoax as well, another one people still manage to believe.

That said, I'm not married to it or nothin'; if changing it makes the article better, so be it. :) Respectfully, Ghost ornamental (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in, Ghostie, we all respect that, I think. Why not go ahead and cut the stuff about Titor into an article, it looks like you've got some pretty good stuff there. And rework the intro before him however you think it works. Ideally, here, there will just be an interesting "see also" or sentence with a link to it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: that guy on the bridge: Forgetomori researched that.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Time Travel Fund[edit]

Could be mentioned here: an amusing spoof ($1 invested, $1 for administration charges, $8 dollars for the certificate). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Plastic terminators?[edit]

The first two Terminator films are listed under the plastic heading.

I could be missing something relevant because I haven't seen either of them for a while, but are we all sure they're plastic time travel plots? The characters either assume they're in that type of story or at least act like it just in case they are, but is it ever revealed that they really are?

I also think it's a little odd, if listing examples of characters travelling back in time but only as ghostly observers, to include Superman but not Scrooge. I don't just want to jump in and add examples to a list because if we all do that it will turn into a TV Tropes page. Ugh. 94.1.166.231 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've travelled back from the future...[edit]

to inform you that time travel is impossible. Scherben (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"Conscious time"[edit]

There's another version of plastic history which I think has become more common, especially since the 2005 Doctor Who reboot: history can naturally be changed pretty easily, but there's some conscious entity that repairs or prevents changes (or, worst-case, just nukes the affected region to quarantine a paradox). Sometimes it's literally an anthropomorphic "Time Herself", but it could also be a Time Control Bureau from the 29th century or super aliens who set up a Web to preserve (their chosen) history or even ravenous time-eating monsters.

This is different from "resistance in direct relationship to the importance of the event" because the resistance comes from an entity or group that's far from omniscient or impartial (what counts as "important" to the Time Control Bureau is dependent on how it affects 29th century Earth) and also not omnipotent (so really big changes may actually be easier—if you vaporize Earth in 2018, or just wreck the entire spacetime continuum, the Bureau won't exist tomorrow to undo it).

Variations on this idea are what Doctor Who comes back to the most. When the Doctor can't just change things on a whim, it's usually not a law of physics, but the Time Lords and their Web of Time, or Time Herself repairing things, or the Reapers showing up to eat the paradoxical region of the universe, etc. Even when it does seem more like physics (fixed points in time, the Blinovitch Limitation Effect, etc.), that usually doesn't mean changing time would be impossible, or even hard, so much as that it would be dangerously stupid. Meanwhile, e.g., the Arrowverse follows rules more like Doctor Who than like the DC comics their shows are based on.

Of course Doctor Who is ridiculously inconsistent (intentionally so, at least for some writers), so nowhere near all stories fall into this pattern ("Aztecs", "Myth Makers", "Space Museum", "Time Meddler", and "Inferno", for example, explore all the other options), but I don't think that's relevant to this article; I think it's the "intentional resistance to change" idea that's spread from Doctor Who to other mass-market time-travel fiction.

Anyway, this seems by far the least plausible if time travel works in reality. So, a it becomes more popular, does that mean we should see fewer people taking those stories as "how time travel works in the real world"? No, of course not; it means we see people saying "You couldn't do that with a time machine; history would fix itself" with a straight face, never even thinking about how "history" could even understand what needs to be fixed. --157.131.152.164 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Another claimant[edit]

Can be found here/your inventive news-site of choice.

Sounds 'cooked up' to me. Anna Livia (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)